tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79547823742123319062024-02-20T09:49:57.670-05:00Babu G. Ranganathan's Articles on Religion and ScienceBabu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-34083154798502749612010-04-03T16:30:00.026-04:002023-12-09T12:11:58.414-05:00Traditional Doctrine of Hell Evolved from Greek Roots<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <i><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">by Babu G. Ranganathan</span></i><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />The Bible does teach eternal punishment, but that eternal punishment ultimately is not eternal suffering.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />Although the wicked in hell, <i>for a period</i>, will suffer consciously for their individual sins (some will suffer less and some will suffer more for their individual sins), the ultimate penalty for <b>sin</b> itself will be the eternal 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."</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />If pain is necessary for punishment then why do some societies have the death penalty? When a murderer is put to death he does not feel 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 pain from society. Does that then mean that society did not punish him?</span><br />
<br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">The fact that pain or loss has been inflicted on a moral being or agent is sufficient to constitute punishment, regardless of whether or not that moral being or agent continues to experience that pain or loss. That is why the eternal loss to life and immortality for the wicked can constitute as eternal punishment.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />God's righteous wrath is not an end in itself but a <i>means</i> to an end - that end being the eternal and literal destruction or death of the wicked (Romans 9:22). God will not allow sin to exist for eternity by keeping sinners alive for eternity in hell. Eternal torment is not necessary for God to satisfy His eternal justice.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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 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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />Few in society realize just how much ancient Greek philosophy influenced early Christian thought on hell.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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 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. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">Many Christians</span> are confusing result of sin for penalty of sin. Sin does
result in spiritual separation from God, but separation from God is not
the penalty for sin. The penalty for sin is death, literal death of soul
and body. That is what Scripture teaches. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />There are good Scriptural reasons to believe that the soul also is physical and part of the body but is <i>distinct</i> from the visible 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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />The penalty for sin, then, is the death of both soul and body so that man will not live eternally 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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />What about "eternal fire", "unquenchable fire", "weeping and gnashing of teeth forever", 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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif" style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;"><br /></span>
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif" style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">The Old
Testament says, in Jeremiah 17:27, that when God comes in judgment upon Israel
the gates and palaces of Jerusalem will burn and the fire will “not be
quenched.” Ezekiel 20:47 says every green tree and dry tree will burn and the
fire will “not be quenched.” Are any of these things still burning? Of course
not! Then, why does God say that the fire will “not be quenched?”</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif" style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;"><br /></span>
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif" style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: -0.05pt;">When Scripture talks about unquenchable fire, what it
means is that the process of destruction is unstoppable. The Bible records judgments
of God where 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.
God in His wrath sent a plague to kill the rebellious Israelites. Moses came
between the dead and the living (Numbers 16:48). When Moses did this, God
quenched His wrath. “Unquenchable fire,” then, simply means that God won’t stop
(or quench) His wrath until it’s finished its job of total destruction.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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!</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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!</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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" or "everlasting" must mean eternity. But, if that something is mortal or temporary in nature then, obviously, the word "forever" or "everlasting" cannot mean eternity. The Bible teaches that only the righteous in Christ will inherit immortality. Those in hell won’t be immortal so their suffering cannot be eternal.</span><br />
<br />The example, however, that indisputably settles the issue is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude 7 says that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah "are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." The word "example" in the verse comes from the original Greek New Testament word "deigma," and wherever any form of this Greek word is used in the New Testament it means an example that is visible to the eye. Now in what way were Sodom and Gomorrah an example of destruction by eternal fire? They were an example in the fact that these cities suffered total destruction (annihilation) and they also suffered irrevocable destruction. The destruction of these cities is eternal because they will never exist as cities again. That is why the fire that destroyed them is called "eternal fire."</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />One may attempt to argue that the souls of Sodom and Gomorrah are burning forever in hell now, but if that were the case then Scripture cannot use the destruction of these cities as a visible example of judgment by eternal fire, since that is not something that one can observe. When one gives an example of something to another it must be by its very nature visible or observable. After all, the purpose of the example was for living humanity on earth to see what judgment by eternal fire means. Besides, the belief that the souls of the wicked will burn eternally in hell is based on the unbiblical assumption that their souls are immortal or indestructible.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />What about where the Bible says in Revelation 20:10 that the devil (or Satan) will be tormented forever and ever? Before answering this question, I wish to point out that Bible definitely teaches the devil will be consumed and destroyed.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">We read a description of Satan's ultimate and eternal destruction in Ezekiel 28:14-19. Although this passage is immediately addressed to the ancient King of Tyre (verse 11), it is clear from the context of the passage that God is speaking to Satan (the evil spirit behind the King of Tyre) because the descriptions given cannot fit that of any human being or human king. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">We read in verses 14 and 15: “<span class="textezek-28-140">Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.</span><span class="textezek-28-150"> Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.” This passage is referring to the devil when he was Lucifer (a good angel or cherub) before he sinned against God.</span></span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><span class="textezek-28-150">And, then we read in verses 18 and 19 what God says to the devil: “… </span><span class="textezek-28-180">therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.</span> <span class="textezek-28-190">All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.” </span></span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span class="textezek-28-190" face=""verdana" , sans-serif">Another good Bible translation (the <i>NIV</i>) puts verses 18 and 19 this way: " ... So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. All the nations that knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more." </span><br />
<span class="textezek-28-190" face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span class="textezek-28-190" face=""verdana" , sans-serif">A similar and parallel passage is found in the Old Testament book of Isaiah 14:3-20. God is speaking to the King of Babylon, but it is clear from the context of the passage that he is talking to Satan (the evil spirit behind the King of Babylon) because, again, the descriptions given cannot fit that of any human being. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span class="textezek-28-190" face=""verdana" , sans-serif">If Ezekiel 28 teaches that the Devil will be destroyed (consumed) and be no more, how, then, do we explain Revelation 20:10 which says that the devil will be tormented forever and ever?</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">The first point to realize is that Revelation is a book filled with symbolic language, and, therefore, the book is 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:<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">1, <i>KJV</i></span>). The word "signified" in the passage comes from a Greek word meaning "signs" or "symbols." </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">Bible scholar, theologian, and an attorney-at-law, Edward Fudge makes these comments: </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">“In these closing chapters of Revelation, even the word torment itself is sometimes a symbol for total destruction and death. The wicked city Babylon is pictured as a woman whose judgment in chapter 18 is “</span><u style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">torment</u><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"> and grief,” which turns out to be “death, mourning, and famine,” and she is “consumed by fire.” It is not unthinkable, therefore, to understand torment of the devil, beast, and false prophet as death and consumption by fire which are never reversed” (“No Need to Waver” by Edward Fudge quoted from the Internet site Rethinking Hell http://www.rethinkinghell.com/).</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />What about Revelation 14:9-11 where it says: "the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever; and they have no rest day nor night"? Doesn't this passage in Scripture prove eternal torment? No. We also read in Isaiah 34:10 that while Edom was burning day and night the smoke of the city would ascend up forever and ever. Does that mean that Edom would never stop burning? Of course, not! The language simply signifies that the burning of Edom will ultimately end in permanent (or irrevocable and eternal) destruction. We know that Edom doesn't exist anymore. Similarly, we are to understand the same from the passage in Revelation 14:9-11. The smoke of their torment arising "forever and ever" in the passage does not mean that the torment of the wicked will never end. The language simply signifies that the torment of the wicked will lead to their permanent (or irrevocable and eternal) destruction. During the process of their destruction the wicked will be tormented but that process will ultimately end in their eternal annihilation, which is what is signified by the use of the figure of smoke arising "forever and ever". This is the only interpretation of Revelation 14:9-11 that would be consistent with how the rest of Scripture uses such language and with what the rest of the Scriptures teach concerning the final and ultimate end of the wicked.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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".</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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).</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">That the Lake of Fire (in the Book of Revelation) stands for annihilation is indisputable because Revelation 20:14 states that the Lake of Fire is the <i>second</i> death. What is the second death? Well, it is certainly not spiritual death or spiritual separation from God because those cast into the Lake of Fire (i.e. the wicked on judgment day) were already spiritually dead and spiritually separated from God. The difference between the first death and the second death is that the first death is temporary since everyone, the righteous and the wicked, will be resurrected in the Last Day to face final judgment. The book of Daniel tells us that the righteous and the wicked will all be resurrected on the same day. The second death, on the other hand, is eternal (or permanent) with no resurrection to follow. Only the wicked will experience the second death. It is not the punishing that is eternal but rather the punishment (the cessation of being) that is eternal and permanent. The wicked will experience the second death (permanent cessation of being) only after they suffer consciously for their individual guilt and sins.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In Ephesians 2:4–6 the Apostle Paul says that
believers were once dead in trespasses and sins but were made (or raised) alive
WITH Christ and raised to sit together in heavenly places. What Paul is saying
is that believers were once under the sentence of death because of their sins
but because of Christ’s resurrection they too, with Christ, are now alive and
are seated in heavenly places. Paul is talking about physical death and life.
Paul is saying believers were raised from the dead WITH Christ. How was Christ
raised? Physically. The believers he was writing to hadn’t physically died yet
nor were they physically resurrected from the dead yet, but Paul puts it all in
the past tense (even being seated with Christ in heavenly places). That hasn’t
happened yet either. They were still here on earth, but, again, Paul puts it
all in the past tense to show how certain it all is.</span></span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif" style="color: black;">What about Daniel 12:2 where we read that the wicked will awaken to shame and everlasting contempt? The word “contempt” here is translated in other parts of Scripture as “disgust” or “abhorrence.” GJ Griz pointed out that in Isaiah 66:24 “the word is used in the context of disgust expressed by onlookers as they view the dead bodies or corpses of those slain in battle.” On Judgement Day when the wicked are destroyed, their destruction will evoke everlasting contempt in the minds and memories of the righteous.</span> </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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). </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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! </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">Many Christians find it difficult to believe that the soul as well as the body can die. The soul, they say, can live on and be conscious even after the body decays into the dust. Christians generally believe that Jesus confirmed the existence of consciousness in hades because of what He said to the repentant thief who also was dying on a cross beside Him. But it must be kept in mind that in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament there were no punctuation marks such as commas. The punctuation marks found in our English Bibles, for example, were provided by the translators. So depending upon where the comma actually is in a sentence can change the entire meaning of the sentence. The passage in Luke 23:43 of the English Bible is translated with the comma before the word "today" so that Jesus is saying to the repentant thief, "Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with Me in paradise." It gives the meaning that the thief would join Jesus in paradise on that very day. But what if the comma in the sentence is placed after the word "today." Then the sentence that Jesus said would read, "Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with Me in paradise." It changes the entire meaning of the sentence. Then Jesus is not necessarily saying that the repentant thief would join Him in paradise on that very day. The Bible repeatedly refers to Christians who had died as being "asleep" indicating that their death is only temporary since they will one day be resurrected to immortality and eternal life. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">But if there is no consciousness for the dead until Resurrection Day why did the Apostle Paul say that he desires "to depart, and to be present with Christ" (Philippians 1:23). In 2 Corinthians 5:1-8 Paul defines that to be absent from the body and be present with the Lord means to be clothed in our new bodies. Paul didn't mind death because he knew that the very next conscious thing he would experience after death would be joyful and perfect eternal fellowship with Christ in his new body. This is why the early Christians thought so much about the resurrection, because they knew that is when they'll see the Lord again and have eternal fellowship with Him. </span><span face="verdana, sans-serif">Why is the resurrection so important if the person (the soul) doesn't actually die with the body? Why is the resurrection so important if the souls of Christians will already be with Christ and enjoying fellowship with Him even after death of the body. Why are most Christians so big on Christ rising from the dead on Easter Day if He really didn't die at all but only His body?</span><br />
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span></div>
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">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.<br />
<br />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 Internet article: Christ Was Begotten - Not Created. <br />
<br />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. <br />
<br />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. <br />
<br />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!<br />
<br />I encourage all to read my larger article "The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell" at my website <i><a href="http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-vs-traditional-view-of-hell.html">http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-vs-traditional-view-of-hell.html</a></i> 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.</span><span style="font-family: "times"; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-53426896445017398872010-04-03T16:20:00.053-04:002024-01-13T09:58:52.277-05:00Second Coming of Christ and Rapture Misunderstood (7th edition)<p><i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i> <br />
<br />
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 bringing an end to the Jewish Age and the establishment of Christ's Kingdom (the Christian Era). <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. (seven years) when the Roman army surrounded, besieged, and destroyed Jerusalem. 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 John the Baptist said the "axe is laid at the root" (Luke 3:9) meaning the destruction of the nation was near. <br />
<br />
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. (seven years) when the Roman army surrounded, besieged, and destroyed Jerusalem. Jesus said that the Gospel will be preached to every nation before He comes.<br />
<br />
Context is important. In the Old Testament God refers to Israel various times as “earth.” When Scripture says that the tribes of the earth would mourn upon seeing Christ coming in the clouds what it means is that the tribes of Israel would mourn when they realize that judgment was coming upon them for what they did to Christ. The tribes of the earth (that is the tribes of Israel did mourn when God came in judgment upon Israel in 70 A.D.) Jesus Himself said judgment against the nation would come because of the nation’s rejection of Him as Messiah. John the Baptist said the destruction of the nation was near (the axe is laid at the root, Matthew 3:10).<br />
<br />
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?"<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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). </p><p></p><p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">There is no Jewish race. Being a Jew has to do
with religion, not race. Yes, God began the Jewish nation with a biological
family (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), but God did not limit being a Jew to that
biological family. In the Old Testament gentiles could become Jews and become
part of the nation of Israel with all the privileges through conversion. Rahab
and Ruth of the Old Testament were gentiles who became Jews and the New
Testament records them as being in the human ancestral line of Christ.</span><br />
<br />
The Apostle Paul says, “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God (Romans 2:28-29, NIV).”
</span><br />
<br />
In Old Testament times those who were truly Jews spiritually were part of political or national Israel. God is now done with national or political Israel and those who are now spiritually Jews are part of the Christian church (this includes both physical descendants of Abraham and gentiles who have trusted in Christ). That is why the Apostle Paul referred to the Christian church as the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16.</span><br />
<br />
The New Testament (New Covenant) permanently replaces the Old Testament (Old Covenant). Jesus Himself established the new covenant between Him and His people.</span><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />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. <br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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).“And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29).<br />
<br />
The New Testament refers to the Christian church as the
"Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16). The New Testament teaches that all
believers in Christ, Jew and Gentile, are the spiritual children of
Abraham. God's eternal and unconditional covenant with Abraham of
blessing all nations through him will be fulfilled through Abraham's
spiritual seed, Jew and Gentile. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Evangelist John L. Bray made this interesting point in one of his newsletters: <br />
<br />
"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 gentiles 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). <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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". <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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?" <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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). </p><div><br /></div><div>The Book of Daniel in chapter 12 and verse 4 predicts that the prophecy of the "last days" would be fulfilled when there would be speedy travel and great increase in knowledge. This was fulfilled in the time of the Roman Empire with its great and enduring roads and highways which were a marvel of the ancient world. The "last days" or "end times" is in reference to the end of the Jewish age. The last "week" (seven years) of the seventy "weeks" prophesied for Israel would be fulfilled during this time, as we shall see below.<br />
<br />
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. This is what Jesus meant by saying in Matthew 24:41 that two women would be grinding with a hand mill and one would be taken and the other left, because the one who will be taken will be a believing Jew in Christ who will escape the horrific judgment that would fall on Jerusalem. This escape (and salvation) of Christian Jews is the fulfillment of of Daniel 12:1 and other similar passages found in the Book of Daniel.<br />
<br />
It's in this context we must understand 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count
slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance.<span class="p">" Notice the passage says that God is long-suffering "to us-ward." The "us-ward" refers to God's elect that He has in Jerusalem that are yet to be saved before judgment on the city.</span> <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
In the Book of Hebrews 12:28 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 0%;">What do we do with the passage in 1 Thessalonians
4:13-18 that Christians commonly refer to as the passage about the Rapture? <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 0%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 0%;">The Apostle Paul says in in 2 Corinthians 5:1
that when our earthy tabernacle (tent or body) is destroyed we Christians have (present tense) an eternal building<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">, or body,</span> (not a temporal body, but an eternal body)
reserved for us in heaven (obviously the eternal heavenly body <span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">is</span> being kept for the
time when the souls of the saints would be resurrected and united with their heavenly and eternal bodies). A careful study of Scripture will show
that the soul also is physical (even part of the body but distinct from the visible body). Genesis teaches that after Adam was created or formed he became a living soul after God breathed into him the breath of life. The same Hebrew word for soul used for man is also used in Genesis to describe animals, although animal souls are not as advanced as human souls which are created in the image of God. Within a certain context the soul also can be called a body, just as the heart or brain, or stomach have their own individual body.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 0%;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 0%;">Many Christians think that 2 Corinthians 5:1 is teaching that when we
die our souls will be clothed with a temporary body in heaven until our
earthly bodies are resurrected. But, 2 Corinthians 5:1 says that the
body we have reserved for us in heaven is eternal, not temporal. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 0%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 0%;">Before 70A.D. believers who died remained in a temporary state of death (called "sleep"). A<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">t</span> 70 A.D. (when Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jewish Age came to an end) all believers who had died
(over the centuries) had their souls resurrected and united with their new and
eternal bodies in heaven. 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, 1 Corinthians 15:52) 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. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 0%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 0%;">Now when a believer dies his soul will become in a "<span style="font-family: inherit;">twinkling</span> of an eye"
instantly immortal (not remain asleep or in a temporary state of death) and be united with his new and eternal
body that was prepared for him or her in heaven and they will meet the Lord in
the air.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 0%;">When the Bible talks about <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">believers'</span> lowly bod<span style="font-family: inherit;">ies</span> being <span style="font-family: inherit;">transformed or resurrected</span> it must be referring the soul, which <span style="font-family: inherit;">also is<span style="font-family: inherit;"> physical and part of the body, but is distinct from the visible body.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 0%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Our invisible body (the soul) will be resurrected just as was Christ's human soul was resurrected, but unlike in the case of Christ Whose visible body in which He died was resurrected our visible bodies after death will not be resurrected because 2 Corinthians 5:1 teaches we will be joined to our eternal and heavenly body<span style="font-family: inherit;"> which already now is </span>reserved for <span style="font-family: inherit;">us</span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">in heaven.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span> <br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<br />
The Millennium (thousand year period) is symbolic and stands for Christ's spiritual Kingdom. 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. This same Millennium is alternatively called "new heaven and new earth" in Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21. What the Apostle John sees in Revelation 21 is actually a more detailed version of the Millennium period mentioned in Revelation 20. We see this pattern elsewhere in Scripture. Genesis 2 gives a more detailed account of creation which was already mentioned in Genesis 1. Most Christians believe that that Revelation chapter 21 is describing eternity because the Apostle John finished describing the final judgment in chapter 20, but what John sees and describes in chapter 21 is actually a detailed flashback of the Millennium that was briefly mentioned in chapter 20. <br />
<br />
Isaiah 65 teaches that in the new heavens and new earth people will have children, will live
hundreds of years and that there will be peace in all the earth among the nations.
Although we are now living in the time of the new heavens and new earth (i.e. the New Covenant or New Testament), much of Isaiah 65
has not yet been fulfilled, but it will be. Not everything happens
suddenly or at once in the Millennium, which is part of the new heavens and new earth. <br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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. Satan will be loosed one day so that he can tempt the whole world against God's people (the Christian church). God will put down the rebellion after which will then be the great White Throne judgment.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Almost all evangelical Christians today have absolutely no deep understanding of Christian doctrine, theology, Scripture, including prophecy! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
The Old Jerusalem (the old heavens and old earth) of Judaism came to an end in 70 A.D.and the New Jerusalem (the new heavens and new earth, the New Covenant, the New Testament of 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
The true temple of God now is the body of believers in Jesus Christ, as Scripture says in various New Testament passages. <br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
"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.) <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
What about Zechariah 14 where we read that Christ would split the Mount of Olives 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.<br />
<br />
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) <br />
<br />
Since Christ Himself says in Revelation 1:1 to interpret Revelation symbolically then that's how we must interpret the Zechariah passage also. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 (the old heavens and old earth) that was still recognized by God because Jews who became Christian (before 70 A.D.) were still obligated to the ceremonial laws even though Gentiles who became Christian were free from those ceremonial laws. After 70 A.D. and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army, Jews who had become Christian also became free from the ceremonial laws.<br />
<br />
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 <br />
<br />
The problem today is that too many evangelical Christians are neglecting people in the world and what's happening in the world because they believe the Rapture is around the corner. Many evangelical Christians just don't care, whether it's the environment or social ills. Hey, they think, the world's going to go up in smoke. When's the Rapture?<br />
<br />
Also, 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. <br />
<br />
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.</div>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-72683478635753110502010-04-03T16:16:00.015-04:002021-08-18T09:44:38.461-04:00Christ Was Begotten - Not Created!<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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 </span><i style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">composite</i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">The Trinity is three divine Persons united with
one nature and purpose. When the Bible talks about one God, the
"one" does not mean one person. It's not a singular oneness. It is a
composite oneness. The Bible says that God is love. Love cannot be alone. Love
must have an object to love. That is why God (Who is love) cannot be just one
Person. The three Persons of the Trinity are united in Their divine essence and
purpose (not divided and competing against one another) like the gods of
polytheism.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"><xml><span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">But was not Christ begotten of the Father? Yes, but this does not mean He was created or made <span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;">from</span> nothing. 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, and our very souls, 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 </span>Christ<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> it is completely logical to say that He existed from all eternity in some form </span>in<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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 </span>from<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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" (i.e. generate electricity) means to "bring forth"<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif;"> </span>from pre-existing substance, whereas "to create", properly, means to "bring forth" from 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!! and Amen!! </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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 </span>man<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">. 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 </span>anymore<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> than it would make sense to say that a human father is continually generating (or begetting) the same </span>son<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> over and over again. Christ is eternal, but His generation from the Father is not eternal. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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). </span>Thus<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> it is none other than Jehovah (or God) Who is saying that He died. We know from the context of the first chapter </span>in<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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 </span>man<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">, 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. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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 </span>worshipped<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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 </span>Scripture<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> teaches on any given issue or subject of doctrine. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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 </span>Man<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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! </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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, </span>similarly<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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 </span>man<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> (a human being) and as Son of </span>God<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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". </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">A question often raised is how could God Who is infinite become incarnated as </span>finite<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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 </span>one gallon<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> tank can't hold ten gallons but, yet, a </span>ten gallon<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">It is </span>precisely<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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 </span>only begotten<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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 </span>Father.<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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 </span>to<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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 </span>divinity<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> Christ was equally God with the Father. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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 </span>copy cat<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">. 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. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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 </span>Testament<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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 </span>position<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">. 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 </span>Christ<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> the title "firstborn" is used simply to describe His position in relation to creation - that He is Supreme over all creation. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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 "</span>arche<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">" 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! </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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). </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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". </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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 </span>ways<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;"> 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. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">The word "God" is a name. That name belongs to the Father, Son, and Spirit. When the name "God" is mentioned in Scripture without specifying the Son or the Spirit it is usually understood as referring to the Father.</span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">In John 1:1 shouldn't Christ be referred to as "a" God because there is no Greek article? No. The absence of the Greek article does not necessarily mean that the letter "</span>a<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">" 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).</span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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. </span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">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.</span><br />
<br style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;" />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px;">Trinitarians have no problem with the name “Jehovah.” They believe that is God’s name (as He revealed Himself in the Old Testament), but that doesn’t mean that they have say that name all the time in reference to God. In the Old Testament when God says He is to be known by that name, what God means is that we are to understand His essential nature through that name, that He is the Self-Existent One, the great I AM. If we have to use the name “Jehovah” all the time then the Greek New Testament manuscripts would have that name everywhere, but the Greek New Testament manuscripts don’t use that name. The writers of New Testament Scriptures didn’t use that name. The Watchtower Society says that early Trinitarians removed that name from the Greek New Testament manuscripts. Why would they do that? Trinitarians believe God’s name is Jehovah. Trinitarians have no problem accepting that God’s name as being Jehovah.
<b><i><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.youravon.com/jerb" style="color: blue;"></a> </span></i></b></xml></span></div>
Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-25974103680308097942010-04-03T16:14:00.001-04:002015-02-20T08:53:53.403-05:00Is Avatar Scientific?<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
If there weren't any already existing DNA and protein molecules, poor "Mother Nature" would be helpless to make any DNA and proteins. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 more than just useful; they are vital in regulating
gene expression (i.e. how, when, and where) genes are expressed.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; font-size: 12pt;">Recent research also
shows that repetitive structures in DNA are vital in forming the chromosome </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">matrix, which<span style="background: white;">, in turn,
enables chromosomes to be functional and </span>operative.</span></div>
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by
chance, so it is far more logical to believe that the DNA and biological
similarities between species are due to a common Designer rather than common
ancestry through evolution by way of random mutations. The Creator simply
designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of
life.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">DNA similarities within a true species can be used to
establish relationship because within a true species the various individuals
can interbreed, but this not the case across true species. Therefore,
similarities across true species cannot be used for establishing biological
relationships. </span><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Just because the right conditions exist to sustain life doesn't mean that those conditions can bring life into being by chance. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
What we believe about our origins will influence our philosophy and value of life. This is no small matter! <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.youravon.com/jerb" style="color: blue;"></a> </span></i></b>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-3922368612245613652010-04-03T16:13:00.003-04:002012-06-12T13:27:11.140-04:00UFOs, Aliens, and Christianity<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i> <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 Internet articles, "Natural Limits of Evolution" and "How Forensic Science Refutes Atheism." Mathematical probability alone has shown that it is not rational, logical, nor scientific to believe that life originated by chance. <br />
<br />
Alien beings cannot wait millions of years to evolve complex and necessary organs for survival anymore than species on earth. Imagine species waiting millions of years for the biochemistry, tissues, organs, biological structures and systems necessary for <i>survival</i> to evolve. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
The uniqueness of the Christian Gospel shows that it could not have originated from fallen man or aliens. To Christ be all the victory! <br />
<br />
"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). <br />
<br />
"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). <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.youravon.com/jerb" style="color: blue;"></a> </span></i></b>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-44057829003526294252010-04-03T16:11:00.010-04:002013-11-09T11:58:33.825-05:00What About Monkeys That Look Caucasian?<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 more than just useful; they are vital in regulating
gene expression (i.e. how, when, and where) genes are expressed.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.youravon.com/jerb" style="color: blue;"></a> </span></i></b>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-31235466992471179012010-04-03T16:10:00.007-04:002023-12-09T08:12:18.989-05:00Unquenchable Fire Won't Burn Eternally!<p><i><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">by Babu G. Ranganathan</span></i><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">The Bible teaches that "unquenchable fire" has an end.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />For example, in the Old Testament Book of Jeremiah 17:27 we read that when God comes in judgment upon Israel for its sins 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"?</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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 is not an end in itself but a means to an end, that end being the eternal and literal destruction of the wicked </span><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">(Romans 9:22)</span><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">.</span></p><p><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">Although the wicked in hell, <i>for a period</i>,
will suffer consciously for their individual sins (some will suffer
less and some will suffer more for their individual sins), the ultimate
penalty for <b>sin</b> itself will be the eternal 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."</span> </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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!</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />The example, however, that indisputably settles the issue is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude 7 says that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah "are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." The word "example" in the verse comes from the original Greek New Testament word "deigma," and wherever any form of this Greek word is used in the New Testament it means an example that is visible to the eye. Now in what way were Sodom and Gomorrah an example of destruction by eternal fire? They were an example in the fact that these cities suffered total destruction (annihilation) and they also suffered irrevocable destruction because they would never exist as cities again.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />One may attempt to argue that the souls of Sodom and Gomorrah are burning forever in hell now, but if that were the case then Scripture cannot use the destruction of these cities as a visible example of judgment by eternal fire, since that is not something that one can observe. When one gives an example of something to another it must be by its very nature visible or observable. After all, the purpose of the example was for living humanity on earth to see what judgment by eternal fire means. Besides, the belief that the souls of the wicked will burn eternally in hell is based on the unbiblical assumption that their souls are immortal or indestructible.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />"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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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!</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />What about "weeping and gnashing of teeth forever", 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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"> </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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" or "everlasting" must mean eternity. But, if that something is mortal or temporary in nature then, obviously, the word "forever" or "everlasting" cannot mean eternity. </span><br />
<br />The example, however, that indisputably settles the issue is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude 7 says that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah "are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." The word "example" in the verse comes from the original Greek New Testament word "deigma," and wherever any form of this Greek word is used in the New Testament it means an example that is visible to the eye. Now in what way were Sodom and Gomorrah an example of destruction by eternal fire? They were an example in the fact that these cities suffered total destruction (annihilation) and they also suffered irrevocable destruction because they would never exist as cities again.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />One may attempt to argue that the souls of Sodom and Gomorrah are burning forever in hell now, but if that were the case then Scripture cannot use the destruction of these cities as a visible example of judgment by eternal fire, since that is not something that one can observe. When one gives an example of something to another it must be by its very nature visible or observable. After all, the purpose of the example was for living humanity on earth to see what judgment by eternal fire means. Besides, the belief that the souls of the wicked will burn eternally in hell is based on the unbiblical assumption that their souls are immortal or indestructible.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">What about where the Bible says in Revelation 20:10 that the devil (or Satan) will be tormented forever and ever? Before answering this question, I wish to point out that Bible definitely teaches the devil will be consumed and destroyed.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">We read a description of Satan's ultimate and eternal destruction in Ezekiel 28:14-19. Although this passage is immediately addressed to the ancient King of Tyre (verse 11), it is clear from the context of the passage that God is speaking to Satan (the evil spirit behind the King of Tyre) because the descriptions given cannot fit that of any human being or human king. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">We read in verses 14 and 15: “<span class="textezek-28-140">Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.</span><span class="textezek-28-150"> Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.” This passage is referring to the devil when he was Lucifer (a good angel or cherub) before he sinned against God.</span></span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><span class="textezek-28-150">And, then we read in verses 18 and 19 what God says to the devil: “… </span><span class="textezek-28-180">therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.</span> <span class="textezek-28-190">All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.” </span></span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span class="textezek-28-190" face=""verdana" , sans-serif">Another good Bible translation (the <i>NIV</i>) puts verses 18 and 19 this way: " ... So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. All the nations that knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more." </span><br />
<span class="textezek-28-190" face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span class="textezek-28-190" face=""verdana" , sans-serif">A similar and parallel passage is found in the Old Testament book of Isaiah 14:3-20. God is speaking to the King of Babylon, but it is clear from the context of the passage that he is talking to Satan (the evil spirit behind the King of Babylon) because, again, the descriptions given cannot fit that of any human being. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span class="textezek-28-190" face=""verdana" , sans-serif">If Ezekiel 28 teaches that the Devil will be destroyed (consumed) and be no more, how, then, do we explain Revelation 20:10 which says that the devil will be tormented forever and ever?</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">The first point to realize is that Revelation is a book filled with symbolic language, and, therefore, the book is 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<i>, KJ<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">V</span></i>). The word "signified" in the passage comes from a Greek word meaning "signs" or "symbols."</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">Bible scholar, theologian, and an attorney-at-law, Edward Fudge makes these comments:</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<br />
</p><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">“In these closing chapters of Revelation, even the word torment itself is sometimes a symbol for total destruction and death. The wicked city Babylon is pictured as a woman whose judgment in chapter 18 is “<u>torment</u> and grief,” which turns out to be “death, mourning, and famine,” and she is “consumed by fire.” It is not unthinkable, therefore, to understand torment of the devil, beast, and false prophet as death and consumption by fire which are never reversed” (“No Need to Waver” by Edward Fudge quoted from the Internet site Rethinking Hell http://www.rethinkinghell.com/).</span></div>
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />What about Revelation 14:9-11 where it says: "the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever; and they have no rest day nor night"? Doesn't this passage in Scripture prove eternal torment? No. We also read in Isaiah 34:10 that while Edom was burning day and night the smoke of the city would ascend up forever and ever. Does that mean that Edom would never stop burning? Of course, not! The language simply signifies that the burning of Edom will ultimately end in permanent (or irrevocable and eternal) destruction. We know that Edom doesn't exist anymore. Similarly, we are to understand the same from the passage in Revelation 14:9-11. The smoke of their torment arising "forever and ever" in the passage does not mean that the torment of the wicked will never end. The language simply signifies that the torment of the wicked will lead to their permanent (or irrevocable and eternal) destruction. During the process of their destruction the wicked will be tormented but that process will ultimately end in their eternal annihilation, which is what is signified by the use of the figure of smoke arising "forever and ever". This is the only interpretation of Revelation 14:9-11 that would be consistent with how the rest of Scripture uses such language and with what the rest of the Scriptures teach concerning the final and ultimate end of the wicked.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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".</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">If pain is necessary for punishment then why do some societies have the death penalty? When a murderer is put to death he does not feel 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 pain from society. Does that then mean that society did not punish him?</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">The fact that pain or loss has been inflicted on a moral being or agent is sufficient to constitute punishment, regardless of whether or not that moral being or agent continues to experience that pain or loss. That is why the eternal loss to life and immortality for the wicked can constitute as eternal punishment.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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).</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">That the Lake of Fire (in the Book of Revelation) stands for annihilation is indisputable because Revelation 20:14 states that the Lake of Fire is the <i>second</i> death. What is the second death? </span><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">Well,
it is certainly not spiritual death or spiritual separation from God
because those cast into the Lake of Fire (i.e. the wicked on judgment
day) were already spiritually dead and spiritually separated from God.</span> The difference between the first death and the second death is that the first death is temporary since everyone, the righteous and the wicked, will be resurrected in the Last Day to face final judgment. The book of Daniel tells us that the righteous and the wicked will all be resurrected on the same day. The second death, on the other hand, is eternal (or permanent) with no resurrection to follow. Only the wicked will experience the second death. It is not the punishing that is eternal but rather the punishment (the cessation of being) that is eternal and permanent. The wicked will experience the second death (permanent cessation of being) only after they suffer consciously for their individual guilt and sins.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In Ephesians 2:4–6 the Apostle Paul says that
believers were once dead in trespasses and sins but were made (or raised) alive
WITH Christ and raised to sit together in heavenly places. What Paul is saying
is that believers were once under the sentence of death because of their sins
but because of Christ’s resurrection they too, with Christ, are now alive and
are seated in heavenly places. Paul is talking about physical death and life.
Paul is saying believers were raised from the dead WITH Christ. How was Christ
raised? Physically. The believers he was writing to hadn’t physically died yet
nor were they physically resurrected from the dead yet, but Paul puts it all in
the past tense (even being seated with Christ in heavenly places). That hasn’t
happened yet either. They were still here on earth, but, again, Paul puts it
all in the past tense to show how certain it all is.</span></span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt;">What about Daniel 12:2 where we read that the wicked will awaken to shame and everlasting contempt? The word “contempt” here is translated in other parts of Scripture as “disgust” or “abhorrence.” GJ Griz pointed out that in Isaiah 66:24 “the word is used in the context of disgust expressed by onlookers as they view the dead bodies or corpses of those slain in battle.” On Judgement Day when the wicked are destroyed, their destruction will evoke everlasting contempt in the minds and memories of the righteous.</span> </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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). </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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! </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">Many Christians find it difficult to believe that the soul as well as the body can die. The soul, they say, can live on and be conscious even after the body decays into the dust. Christians generally believe that Jesus confirmed the existence of consciousness in hades because of what He said to the repentant thief who also was dying on a cross beside Him. But it must be kept in mind that in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament there were no punctuation marks such as commas. The punctuation marks found in our English Bibles, for example, were provided by the translators. So depending upon where the comma actually is in a sentence can change the entire meaning of the sentence. The passage in Luke 23:43 of the English Bible is translated with the comma before the word "today" so that Jesus is saying to the repentant thief, "Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with Me in paradise." It gives the meaning that the thief would join Jesus in paradise on that very day. But what if the comma in the sentence is placed after the word "today." Then the sentence that Jesus said would read, "Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with Me in paradise." It changes the entire meaning of the sentence. Then Jesus is not necessarily saying that the repentant thief would join Him in paradise on that very day. The Bible repeatedly refers to Christians who had died as being "asleep" indicating that their death is only temporary since they will one day be resurrected to immortality and eternal life. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">But if there is no consciousness for the dead until Resurrection Day why did the Apostle Paul say that he desires "to depart, and to be present with Christ" (Philippians 1:23). In 2 Corinthians 5:1-8 Paul defines that to be absent from the body and be present with the Lord means to be clothed in our new bodies. Paul didn't mind death because he knew that the very next conscious thing he would experience after death would be joyful and perfect eternal fellowship with Christ in his new body. This is why the early Christians thought so much about the resurrection, because they knew that is when they'll see the Lord again and have eternal fellowship with Him. </span><span face="verdana, sans-serif">Why is the resurrection so important if the person (the soul) doesn't actually die with the body? Why is the resurrection so important if the souls of Christians will already be with Christ and enjoying fellowship with Him even after death of the body. Why are most Christians so big on Christ rising from the dead on Easter Day if He really didn't die at all but only His body?</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">Why is the resurrection so important if the person (the soul) doesn't actually die with the body? Why is the resurrection so important if the souls of Christians will already be with Christ and enjoying fellowship with Him even after death of the body. Why are most Christians so big on Christ rising from the dead on Easter Day if He really didn't die at all but only His body?</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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.</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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 Internet article: Christ Was Begotten - Not Created. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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". </span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">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!</span><br />
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">I encourage all to read my larger article "The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell" at my website <i><a href="http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-vs-traditional-view-of-hell.html">http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-vs-traditional-view-of-hell.html</a></i> 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.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span></div>
<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span> <span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-4779026443136505602010-04-03T16:08:00.012-04:002017-12-01T09:22:36.376-05:00The Argument Islam Cannot Answer<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 21px;">Muslims believe that God (Allah) originally gave His revelation (the Scriptures) to Jews and Christians, but Muslims claim that those Scriptures which God originally gave to Jews and Christians became corrupted and changed and that is why Muslims believe God called Mohammed and gave him new revelation, but all the evidence from hundreds of ancient manuscripts show that the message of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures has not been changed but, instead, remarkably and substantively preserved through centuries. For example, the present Christian New Testament revelation of Jesus Christ is completely trustworthy. Muslims believe that the original revelation God gave to to Jews and Christians became perverted, corrupted, and changed. What Muslims are saying is that God (Allah) was not capable or willing to preserve His original revelation to Jews and Christians.</span></span><br />
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
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 in spite of imperfect humanity and the vast span of time.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Any so-called "mistakes" in the ancient manuscripts are not substantive and do not affect any doctrine. There are human mistakes, but they are minor (i.e. spelling, etc.). We have hundreds of ancient manuscripts to compare and corroborate. All this just goes to show that in spite of man's fallibility, God preserved His Word.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The KJV Bible translation is is based on the least reliable manuscripts, but the KJV is still accurate, just not as accurate as other translations based on older manuscripts. There are no contradictions between the older and younger manuscripts. The difference is in greater accuracy, not contradictions.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
We have copies of enough ancient manuscripts and the corroboration with other historical documents to know that Christians, indeed, have the Word of God.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
God preserved His Word to the Jews and Christians with more than enough substantive accuracy in spite of human fallibility and frailty in the copying process.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
We can tell where the insignificant errors are precisely because we have enough older and accurate copies.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The Muslims don't have one ancient biblical manuscript to support what the Koran teaches about Jesus, not one! The Muslims claim God's Word has been corrupted. Where's the evidence for the corruption? To say that God's Word had become corrupted is Muslim fantasy and an insult to God. We have hundreds of ancient manuscripts testifying to the truth that Jesus Christ, indeed, is the divine Son of God.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
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!</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span class=" UFICommentActorAndBody"><span><span><span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody"><span>THE
TRINITY: Three divine Persons united with a single (one) eternal divine
nature and purpose. Just as Adam and Eve were two persons but one
flesh, so the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons but one
God. </span><br /><br /><span>The Bible says that God is love. Love cannot
be alone. Love must have an object to love. That is why God (Who is
love) cannot be just one Person. The three Persons of the Trinity are
united in Their divine essence and purpose (not divided and competing
against one another like the gods of polytheism).</span><br /><br /><span>The
word “God” is a name. That name belongs to the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. When the Bible talks about one God, the "one" does not mean one
person. It's not a singular oneness. It is a composite oneness. The
three Persons of the Trinity work together as one (not divided and
competing with each another like the gods of polytheism).</span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Our sins are so great that it required God Himself to come and pay for them with His Own blood. The unconditional love of God expressed in giving us sinners His eternal and only begotten Son to pay for our sins is a love you will never find in the Koran.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The animals sacrifices for sin in the Old Testament were a picture of Christ's future sacrifice for sin. Those animal sacrifices also had to be repeated to show they are not sufficient to settle once and for all the sin issue before God. No animal can take the place of man.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
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.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
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 the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ can a person be freely forgiven by God of all his 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.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
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!</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
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.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
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.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
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).</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
I encourage all Muslims, and everyone, to read the Gospel of John in the New Testament.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background: 0px 0px; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 700; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Question:</span></div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
If God sacrificed Jesus for our sins, then whom was He sacrificing Jesus to?</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background: 0px 0px; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 700; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> Answer:</span></div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The word “God” is a name. That name belongs to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then how can They be one God? When the Bible talks about one God it’s not a singular oneness but a composite oneness. For example, Adam and Eve were two persons but one flesh.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The reason why the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God is because They share one eternal and divine nature and They work together for the same purpose. There’s no conflict or division among Them. They are one in nature and purpose. They are one God.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background: 0px 0px; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 700; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> Question:</span></div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
If Jesus is God why did Jesus pray to God?</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background: 0px 0px; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 700; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> Answer:</span></div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The Bible teaches that although Jesus is God, He gave up His rights as God and took upon Himself human nature and subjected Himself to God the Father. Because He emptied Himself of His rights and became Man, Jesus was fully dependent upon the Father for everything.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background: 0px 0px; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 700; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> Question:</span></div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Why did God not spare Jesus from the Cross? If God is all powerful why can’t God just forgive us our sins without the Cross?</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="background: 0px 0px; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 700; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Answer:</span></div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
God is holy and just. It would violate His nature to forgive sin without the penalty being paid. How come Muslims sacrifice animals for their sins. Why doesn’t Allah just forgive you Muslims of all your sins without animal sacrifices? If Allah is all powerful why the need for animal sacrifices?</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The animal sacrifices for sin in the Old Testament were a picture of Christ's future sacrifice for sin. Those animal sacrifices also had to be repeated to show they are not sufficient to settle once and for all the sin issue before God. No animal can take the place of man.</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Because Christ was God His life had infinite value to pay for our sins. For an infinitely holy God any sin, no matter or how small or big, is an infinite offense. Christ’s shed blood and death was able to satisfy God the Father’s infinite justice. And the bodily resurrection of Christ from the grave is proof that God the Father’s justice against us for our sins was fully satisfied.</div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: rgba(0 , 0 , 0 , 0.701960784313725); font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 21px;"><span style="color: rgba(0 , 0 , 0 , 0.7);"><i>Christian scholar Dr. James White, of Alpha and Omega Ministries, answers many questions and arguments Muslims have about the reliability of the Christian Scriptures. Dr. White is an expert on Islam and the Koran and you can view his debates with Muslim scholars on the Internet at Youtube.com .</i></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Readers are encouraged to read the author's Internet articles:</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
CHRIST WAS BEGOTTEN, NOT CREATED</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
MODERN ISRAEL NOT A FULFILLMENT OF BIBLE PROPHECY</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
SECOND COMING OF CHRIST MISUNDERSTOOD</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Visit my Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION</div>
<div style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7); font-family: "Source Serif Pro", serif; font-size: 21px; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 3.2rem; margin-top: 3.2rem; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Read the author's popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS</div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span> </span></i></b></span></span>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-85030357550158842432010-04-03T16:08:00.011-04:002015-10-16T16:47:16.831-04:00How Do Egg Yolks Become Chickens?<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i><br />
<i></i><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
When you divide a
cake, the cake never
gets bigger. However, when we were just a single cell and that cell kept diving we got bigger. New
material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food.
The sequence of molecules in our DNA directed the molecules from our mother's food, we received in the
womb, to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our
body. When you understand how your DNA works, you'll also understand how
egg yolks can become chickens. <br />
<br />
This article will give you a good understanding of how DNA works, as well as cloning and genetic engineering.<br />
<br />
So, 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? </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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! </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. <br />
<br />
When you divide a cake, the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a single cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food.<br />
<br />
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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! </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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").</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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." </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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! </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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! There is no evidence that random or chance mutations in the genetic code will produce more complex genes leading to more complex biological traits. Most biological variations are the result of new combinations of already existing genes and not mutations. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 13.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">What about Darwin's teaching about natural selection? Natural selection doesn't produce anything. It can only "select" from what is produced. Natural selection can only "select" from variations that are genetically possible and which have survival value. If a biological variation occurs that helps a species survive (i.e. change in skin color, etc.), that survival is called being "selected." That's all that natural selection is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Since natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible, the real issue is what biological variations are possible in nature, not natural selection.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana;">Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural
selection only operates once there is life and reproduction and not before (After
all, something has to be alive</span> <i><span style="background: white; font-family: Verdana;">first</span></i><span style="background: white; font-family: Verdana;"> before
a change can have survival value). A non-living, partially-evolved
cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive")
millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living!
Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM</span><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: Verdana;">.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br />
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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 so-called "non-coding" segments of DNA are more than just useful. They are essential in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed).<br />
<br />
Since these segments of DNA are not junk, Nature has no opportunity to
"experiment" safely because any random changes in these areas of DNA will be
detrimental to the species. And even if Nature could, theoretically,
experiment, random changes will never generate new genetic information.
That's blind faith, not science. Nature is not a genetic engineer!<br />
<br />
As for repetitive structures in DNA, they're not junk either. They may have a “back-up” purpose, like a
spare tire in car, which the organism can utilize should it lose genetic
material due to damage from random mutations caused by environmental
forces.<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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!<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<br />
Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by
chance, so it is far more logical to believe that the DNA and biological
similarities between species are due to a common Designer rather than common
ancestry through evolution by way of random mutations. The Creator simply
designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of
life.</div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">DNA similarities within a true species can be used to
establish relationship because within a true species the various individuals
can interbreed, but this not the case across true species. Therefore,
similarities across true species cannot be used for establishing biological
relationships. </span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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! </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
"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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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 for evolutionists is how could the cell have originated naturally when no directing code and energy-converting mechanisms existed 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/). </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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! </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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! </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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? </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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! </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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. </div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
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.</div>
Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-47214503215832471822010-04-03T16:07:00.001-04:002013-09-09T23:54:31.988-04:00Protect Your Body With Colloidal Silver!<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i> <br />
<br />
The best defense against any disease caused by viruses or malignant bacteria 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
Economics is the reason why many natural remedies are not known and used by the medical profession. Over the decades, scientists in public universities have discovered and tested the effectiveness of various natural properties in preventing and treating disease, but because they are natural they cannot be patented and if they cannot be patented not much money can be made. That is the major reason for why these scientific discoveries are not taught to students in medical schools and why medical doctors are ignorant of them and easily dismiss them. Not every natural claim is successful or effective, but quite a few are which have been scientifically tested and proved.<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that some hospitals today use colloidal silver to disinfect medical equipment, but the colloidal silver is not being given to patients. <br />
<br />
When very ill at one time with the flu and constant and continual cough, I took eight or more ounces of colloidal silver at one time with great results! You won't get blue skin pigmentation if you take properly prepared colloidal silver that have super small suspended silver particles. Those who make their own colloidal silver have experienced the blue skin problem. The blue skin coloration, however, does not harm the body but it is permanent once you get it. Make sure to get professionally prepared colloidal silver.<br />
<br />
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. You will find much more helpful and in-depth information at this site where my wife and I have been buying our colloidal silver: <span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.utopiasilver.com/affiliates/jrox.php?id=487" target="_blank">http://www.utopiasilver.com/<wbr></wbr>affiliates/jrox.php?id=487.</a></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.youravon.com/jerb" style="color: blue;"></a> </span></i></b>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-44339949648647674112010-04-03T16:05:00.002-04:002018-01-23T11:05:39.245-05:00Indian Christians Desperately Need Your Help!<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i><br />
<br />
I was born into a middle 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. <br />
<br />
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 probably about three hundred million people (the size of the entire United States). 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 is now under the control of Hindu fundamentalists. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
Please contact GFA now at: http://www.gfa.org/.<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.youravon.com/jerb" style="color: blue;"></a> </span></i></b>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-14244838505051232832010-04-03T16:04:00.005-04:002012-06-12T13:28:31.417-04:00Black Race NOT Related To Apes!<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.youravon.com/jerb" style="color: blue;"></a> </span></i></b>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-22821462575173485182010-04-03T16:02:00.004-04:002013-05-13T11:33:51.897-04:00What's Scientific About Intelligent Design?<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 more than just useful; they are vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. how, when, and where) genes are expressed.<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
As for repetitive structures in DNA, they're not junk
either. They may have a “back-up” purpose, like a spare tire in car, which the
organism can utilize should it lose genetic material due to damage from random
mutations caused by environmental forces.<br />
<br />
Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by
chance, so it is far more logical to believe that the DNA and biological
similarities
between species are due to a common Designer rather than common ancestry
through evolution by way of random mutations. The Creator simply
designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms
of life.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">DNA similarities within a true species can be
used to establish relationship because within a true species the various
individuals can interbreed, but this not the case across true species.
Therefore, similarities across true species cannot be used for establishing
biological relationships.</span> </div>
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
But, when all the evidence is presented it should show beyond all reasonable doubt that life didn't originate by chance but by design. <br />
<br />
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.Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-10165338229414382372010-04-03T16:01:00.009-04:002012-06-12T13:28:43.838-04:00Treasure of Good Health At Walmart<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i> <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.youravon.com/jerb" style="color: blue;"></a> </span></i></b>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-90126366103017925272010-04-03T16:01:00.008-04:002013-09-10T00:01:05.324-04:00Science and The Origin of LifeThe 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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 more than just useful; they are vital in regulating
gene expression (i.e. how, when, and where) genes are expressed.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
As for repetitive structures in DNA, they're not junk
either. They may have a “back-up” purpose, like a spare tire in car, which the
organism can utilize should it lose genetic material due to damage from random
mutations caused by environmental forces.</div>
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<br />
Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by
chance, so it is far more logical to believe that the DNA and biological
similarities
between species are due to a common Designer rather than common ancestry
through evolution by way of random mutations. The Creator simply
designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms
of life.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">DNA similarities within a true species can be
used to establish relationship because within a true species the various
individuals can interbreed, but this not the case across true species.
Therefore, similarities across true species cannot be used for establishing
biological relationships.</span> <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
But, when all the evidence is presented it should show beyond all reasonable doubt that life didn't originate by chance but by design. <br />
<br />
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.Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-3519916623884662132010-04-03T16:00:00.009-04:002021-08-09T11:00:15.454-04:00Conservative Theologian No Longer Believes Eternal Torment<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<br />
<i><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">by Babu G. Ranganathan</span></i><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />The Bible does teach eternal punishment, but that eternal punishment ultimately is not eternal suffering.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">Although the wicked in hell, <i>for a period</i>,
will suffer consciously for their individual sins (some will suffer
less and some will suffer more for their individual sins), the ultimate
penalty for <b>sin</b> itself will be the eternal 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."</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: "times";"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: "times";">If pain is necessary for punishment then why do some societies have the death penalty? When a murderer is put to death he does not feel 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 pain from society. Does that then mean that society did not punish him?</span></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: "times";"><br /></span></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: "times";"><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">The fact that pain or loss has been inflicted on a moral being or agent is sufficient to constitute punishment, regardless of whether or not that moral being or agent continues to experience that pain or loss. That is why the eternal loss to life and immortality for the wicked can constitute as eternal punishment.</span></span></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />God's righteous wrath is not an end in itself but a <i>means</i> to an end - that end being the eternal literal destruction of the wicked </span><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">(Romans 9:22)</span><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">. God will not allow sin to exist for eternity by keeping sinners alive for eternity in hell. Eternal torment is not necessary for God to satisfy His eternal justice.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />Few in society realize just how much ancient Greek philosophy influenced early Christian thought on hell.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: "times";"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times";">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. </span></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">Many Christians</span> are confusing result of sin for penalty of sin. Sin does
result in spiritual separation from God, but separation from God is not
the penalty for sin. The penalty for sin is death, literal death of soul
and body. That is what Scripture teaches.</span> </span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: "times";"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times";">The penalty for sin, then, is the death of both soul and body so that man will not live eternally 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.</span> </span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />What about "eternal fire", "unquenchable fire", "weeping and gnashing of teeth forever", 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.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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".</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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!</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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! </span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">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" or "everlasting" must mean eternity. But, if that something is mortal or temporary in nature then, obviously, the word "forever" or "everlasting" cannot mean eternity. </span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">What about where the Bible says in Revelation 20:10 that the devil (or Satan) will be tormented forever and ever? Before answering this question, I wish to point out that Bible definitely teaches the devil will be consumed and destroyed.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">We read a description of Satan's ultimate and eternal destruction in Ezekiel 28:14-19. Although this passage is immediately addressed to the ancient King of Tyre (verse 11), it is clear from the context of the passage that God is speaking to Satan (the evil spirit behind the King of Tyre) because the descriptions given cannot fit that of any human being or human king. </span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: "times";">We read in verses 14 and 15: “<span class="textezek-28-140">Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.</span></span><span class="textezek-28-150"><span style="font-family: "times";"> Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.” This passage is referring to the devil when he was Lucifer (a good angel or cherub) before he sinned against God.</span></span></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><span class="textezek-28-150"><span style="font-family: "times";">And, then we read in verses 18 and 19 what God says to the devil: “… </span></span><span class="textezek-28-180"><span style="font-family: "times";">therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.</span></span><span style="font-family: "times";"> <span class="textezek-28-190">All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.” </span></span></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times";"><span class="textezek-28-190" face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Another good Bible translation (the <i>NIV</i>) puts verses 18 and 19 this way: " ... So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. All the nations that knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more." </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times";"><span class="textezek-28-190" face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "times";"><span class="textezek-28-190" face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">A similar and parallel passage is found in the Old Testament book of Isaiah 14:3-20. God is speaking to the King of Babylon, but it is clear from the context of the passage that he is talking to Satan (the evil spirit behind the King of Babylon) because, again, the descriptions given cannot fit that of any human being. </span></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span class="textezek-28-190"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">If Ezekiel 28 teaches that the Devil will be destroyed (consumed) and be no more, how, then, do we explain Revelation 20:10 which says that the devil will be tormented forever and ever?</span></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">The first point to realize is that Revelation is a book filled with symbolic language, and, therefore, the book is 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</span><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif"><i>, KJ<span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">V</span></i></span>). The word "signified" in the passage comes from a Greek word meaning "signs" or "symbols."</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Bible scholar, theologian, and an attorney-at-law, Edward Fudge makes these comments:</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">“In these closing chapters of Revelation, even the word torment itself is sometimes a symbol for total destruction and death. The wicked city Babylon is pictured as a woman whose judgment in chapter 18 is “<u>torment</u> and grief,” which turns out to be “death, mourning, and famine,” and she is “consumed by fire.” It is not unthinkable, therefore, to understand torment of the devil, beast, and false prophet as death and consumption by fire which are never reversed” (“No Need to Waver” by Edward Fudge quoted from the Internet site Rethinking Hell http://www.rethinkinghell.com/).</span></div>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />The example, however, that indisputably settles the issue is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude 7 says that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah "are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." The word "example" in the verse comes from the original Greek New Testament word "deigma," and wherever any form of this Greek word is used in the New Testament it means an example that is visible to the eye. Now in what way were Sodom and Gomorrah an example of destruction by eternal fire? They were an example in the fact that these cities suffered total destruction (annihilation) and they also suffered irrevocable destruction because they would never exist as cities again.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />One may attempt to argue that the souls of Sodom and Gomorrah are burning forever in hell now, but if that were the case then Scripture cannot use the destruction of these cities as a visible example of judgment by eternal fire, since that is not something that one can observe. When one gives an example of something to another it must be by its very nature visible or observable. After all, the purpose of the example was for living humanity on earth to see what judgment by eternal fire means. Besides, the belief that the souls of the wicked will burn eternally in hell is based on the unbiblical assumption that their souls are immortal or indestructible.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />What about Revelation 14:9-11 where it says: "the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever; and they have no rest day nor night"? Doesn't this passage in Scripture prove eternal torment? No. We also read in Isaiah 34:10 that while Edom was burning day and night the smoke of the city would ascend up forever and ever. Does that mean that Edom would never stop burning? Of course, not! The language simply signifies that the burning of Edom will ultimately end in permanent (or irrevocable and eternal) destruction. We know that Edom doesn't exist anymore. Similarly, we are to understand the same from the passage in Revelation 14:9-11. The smoke of their torment arising "forever and ever" in the passage does not mean that the torment of the wicked will never end. The language simply signifies that the torment of the wicked will lead to their permanent (or irrevocable and eternal) destruction. During the process of their destruction the wicked will be tormented but that process will ultimately end in their eternal annihilation, which is what is signified by the use of the figure of smoke arising "forever and ever". This is the only interpretation of Revelation 14:9-11 that would be consistent with how the rest of Scripture uses such language and with what the rest of the Scriptures teach concerning the final and ultimate end of the wicked.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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".</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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).</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br />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.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">That the Lake of Fire (in the Book of Revelation) stands for annihilation is indisputable because Revelation 20:14 states that the Lake of Fire is the <i>second</i> death. What is the second death? </span><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">Well,
it is certainly not spiritual death or spiritual separation from God
because those cast into the Lake of Fire (i.e. the wicked on judgment
day) were already spiritually dead and spiritually separated from God.</span> </span>The difference between the first death and the second death is that the first death is temporary since everyone, the righteous and the wicked, will be resurrected in the Last Day to face final judgment. The book of Daniel tells us that the righteous and the wicked will all be resurrected on the same day. The second death, on the other hand, is eternal (or permanent) with no resurrection to follow. Only the wicked will experience the second death. It is not the punishing that is eternal but rather the punishment (the cessation of being) that is eternal and permanent. The wicked will experience the second death (permanent cessation of being) only after they suffer consciously for their individual guilt and sins.</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In Ephesians 2:4–6 the Apostle Paul says that
believers were once dead in trespasses and sins but were made (or raised) alive
WITH Christ and raised to sit together in heavenly places. What Paul is saying
is that believers were once under the sentence of death because of their sins
but because of Christ’s resurrection they too, with Christ, are now alive and
are seated in heavenly places. Paul is talking about physical death and life.
Paul is saying believers were raised from the dead WITH Christ. How was Christ
raised? Physically. The believers he was writing to hadn’t physically died yet
nor were they physically resurrected from the dead yet, but Paul puts it all in
the past tense (even being seated with Christ in heavenly places). That hasn’t
happened yet either. They were still here on earth, but, again, Paul puts it
all in the past tense to show how certain it all is.</span></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times";"><span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt;">What about Daniel 12:2 where we read that the wicked will awaken to shame and everlasting contempt? The word “contempt” here is translated in other parts of Scripture as “disgust” or “abhorrence.” GJ Griz pointed out that in Isaiah 66:24 “the word is used in the context of disgust expressed by onlookers as they view the dead bodies or corpses of those slain in battle.” On Judgement Day when the wicked are destroyed, their destruction will evoke everlasting contempt in the minds and memories of the righteous.</span> </span></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">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). </span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">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! </span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">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. </span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif">Many Christians find it difficult to believe that the soul as well as the body can die. The soul, they say, can live on and be conscious even after the body decays into the dust. Christians generally believe that Jesus confirmed the existence of consciousness in hades because of what He said to the repentant thief who also was dying on a cross beside Him. But it must be kept in mind that in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament there were no punctuation marks such as commas. The punctuation marks found in our English Bibles, for example, were provided by the translators. So depending upon where the comma actually is in a sentence can change the entire meaning of the sentence. The passage in Luke 23:43 of the English Bible is translated with the comma before the word "today" so that Jesus is saying to the repentant thief, "Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with Me in paradise." It gives the meaning that the thief would join Jesus in paradise on that very day. But what if the comma in the sentence is placed after the word "today." Then the sentence that Jesus said would read, "Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with Me in paradise." It changes the entire meaning of the sentence. Then Jesus is not necessarily saying that the repentant thief would join Him in paradise on that very day. The Bible repeatedly refers to Christians who had died as being "asleep" indicating that their death is only temporary since they will one day be resurrected to immortality and eternal life. </span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span><span face=""verdana" , sans-serif">But if there is no consciousness for the dead until Resurrection Day why did the Apostle Paul say that he desires "to depart, and to be present with Christ" (Philippians 1:23). In 2 Corinthians 5:1-8 Paul defines that to be absent from the body and be present with the Lord means to be clothed in our new bodies. Paul didn't mind death because he knew that the very next conscious thing he would experience after death would be joyful and perfect eternal fellowship with Christ in his new body. This is why the early Christians thought so much about the resurrection, because they knew that is when they'll see the Lord again and have eternal fellowship with Him. </span><span face="verdana, sans-serif">Why is the resurrection so important if the person (the soul) doesn't actually die with the body? Why is the resurrection so important if the souls of Christians will already be with Christ and enjoying fellowship with Him even after death of the body. Why are most Christians so big on Christ rising from the dead on Easter Day if He really didn't die at all but only His body?</span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Why is the resurrection so important if the person (the soul) doesn't actually die with the body? Why is the resurrection so important if the souls of Christians will already be with Christ and enjoying fellowship with Him even after death of the body. Why are most Christians so big on Christ rising from the dead on Easter Day if He really didn't die at all but only His body?</span></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">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.</span></span><br />
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt;"></span><br /></span>
<span face=""trebuchet ms" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">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 Internet article: Christ Was Begotten - Not Created. <br />
<br />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. <br />
<br />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". <br />
<br />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!<br />
<br />I encourage all to read my larger article "The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell" at my website <i><a href="http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-vs-traditional-view-of-hell.html">http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-vs-traditional-view-of-hell.html</a></i> 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.</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times"; font-size: 12pt;"></span>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-26653974825360098972010-04-03T15:59:00.006-04:002023-01-25T16:18:23.157-05:00Early Christianity Before The Papacy<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i><br />
<br />
To my fellow Christians who are Roman Catholic, please carefully read my entire article (below) before coming to judgment. <span data-offset-key="fps1j-0-0"><span data-text="true">What does the Bible mean by saying that all Christians belong to one Church and share one faith and one baptism? Doesn't logic require that all Christians must have one supreme earthly bishop (Pope) and infallible interpreter of Scripture? Doesn't the Bible and history show that the papacy existed from apostolic times? Didn't Christ say in Scripture that the Apostle Peter was the rock upon which He would build His Church? These and other questions are answered in this article.</span></span><br />
<br />
Recently, Pope Benedict 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
In the first few centuries after Christ there was no Roman Catholic Church and no papacy. 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. There was no pope ruling over the 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. All of the early Church councils including the Council of Nicaea) that
settled important matters of Christian doctrine occurred before there
was a Roman Catholic Church.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. In the early centuries the bishop of Rome didn't see himself as a Pope and, certainly, bishops of other churches never viewed the bishop of Rome as being a Pope.<br />
<br />
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 same unique sense that Christ Himself is the foundation of the Church. A careful reading of the New Testament shows that the Apostle Peter had no more authority than the other apostles. The authority to "bind" and "loose" which came with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven was given to all the apostles, not just to Peter. Peter was an example of the authority Christ gave to all the apostles. All of the original twelve apostles had equally the same spiritual authority. There were no successors to the apostles, including Peter! <br />
<br />
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 in His native language was translated into Greek by His disciples, so we must go to the Greek to get an understanding of what Christ really meant. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that in the communion of the bread and wine we are literally eating and drinking 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
This doesn't mean that a person has to be correct on all that the Bible teaches in order to be saved or go to heaven. Personal faith in Christ is all that is required for salvation. However, Christian and spiritual growth require that we aim to be correct in all that Scripture teaches, and this requires careful study of Scripture.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Scripture was written to be understood. Of course, the deep spiritual truths of Scripture can only be comprehended and understood through the Holy Spirit, but it is not a mystical understanding void of reason and logic. Scripture must be studied in its total context, and Scripture must be carefully compared with Scripture and the meaning of the words from the original languages of Scripture properly understood.This is why the Apostle Paul said to Timothy to rightly divide the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15). The Word of Truth, the Bible, can be divided (interpreted) wrongly or rightly. God will hold us responsible according to the light that we have.<br />
<br />
Even Roman Catholics have differences on various theological issues, and the Pope hasn't officially ruled on all these differences, so then how do Roman Catholics know who's correct. And, there have been contradictory pronouncements of popes in the past. Furthermore, the concept of papal infallibility, where the Pope is considered infallible when making pronouncements from the Chair, became a Roman Catholic doctrine only in the late nineteenth century (the late 1800's). <br />
<br />
What about the Jews? Who do Roman Catholics claim was the infallible spokesman for God during the Old Testament times? Were the religious leaders of Jesus' day God's infallible spokesmen? But, it was these very religious leaders that rejected Christ and delivered Him to death. So, obviously, they weren't infallible at all.<br />
<br />
The important point to keep in mind is that Holy Spirit works not as a machine but organically in and through the lives of true Christian believers.<br />
<br />
One sure thing to keep in mind 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. <br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.youravon.com/jerb" style="color: blue;"></a> </span></i></b>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-54579164845514825422010-04-03T15:58:00.005-04:002014-11-13T00:59:28.602-05:00Christ Fulfilled The Sabbath<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
And Hebrews 4:1-11 teaches that the Sabbath Day was actually a figure of spiritual rest in Christ. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
When Scripture is studied in the <i>context</i> of what all of Scripture teaches on the subject, and when Scripture is <i>compared</i> with Scripture, the logical and rational conclusion then is that all the Ten Commandments still apply for today <i>except</i> 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.<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.youravon.com/jerb" style="color: blue;"></a> </span></i></b>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-80129647456582389642010-04-03T15:58:00.004-04:002013-05-13T11:54:17.778-04:00Common Misconceptions About Evolution<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.) <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Apes, in fact, are quite comfortable in how they walk, just as humans are quite
comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a
muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would
not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans
evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that
apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. All the fossils
that have been used to support human evolution have been found to be
either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not non-human and human (i.e.
Neanderthal Man was discovered later to be fully human). Textbooks and
museums still continue to display examples and illustrations supporting
human evolution which most evolutionists have rejected and no longer
support. Many diagrams of ape-man creatures over the years were
reconstructed according to evolutionary interpretations from disputable
bones that have now been discredited but still being taught in school
textbooks. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Darwin was partially correct in showing that natural selection occurs in nature, but 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. <br />
<br />
The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature does not do any conscious or active selecting. What happens is, if a biological variation occurs which helps a species to survive in its environment then that survival is called being "selected." That's all that natural selection is.<br />
<br />
A major problem for evolutionists is how could a partially-evolved plant and animal species have survived over, millions of years while their organs and tissues, especially 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?<br />
<br />
Imagine an evolving fish having part fins and part feet, with the fins
evolving into feet. Where’s the survival advantage? It can’t use either
fins or feet efficiently. These fish exist only on automobile bumper
stickers!<br />
<br />
All species in the fossil record are found complete and fully-formed, which
is powerful evidence that they came into existence as complete and
fully-formed from the beginning. This is only possible by creation. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for limited evolution (or micro-evolution) which is variations within biological "kinds" such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., but not macro-evolution which is variations across biological "kinds", especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones (i.e. from sea sponge 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. <br />
<br />
The genetic ability for micro-evolution exists in nature but not the genetic ability for macro-evolution. Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes and not just to produce variations of already existing genes), macro-evolution 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the genetic code over time, caused by radiation from the environment, will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits which natural selection can use, resulting in entirely new species. It’s much like hoping that, if given enough time, randomly changing the
sequence of letters in a cook book will turn the book into a romance
novel, or a book on astronomy!
<br />
<br />
Mutations are accidental changes in the the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation. There's a good reason why we protect ourselves from radiation! Mutations, like earthquakes, are destructive, not constructive. A single mutation may not be destructive, but if enough mutations accumulate the species will be in danger of extinction, not progressive evolution. Even if a good mutation, or accident, 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, are the result of new combinations of already existing existing genes and not mutations. <br />
<br />
At best, mutations simply produce new variations 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 more than just useful; they are vital in regulating
gene expression (i.e. how, when, and where) genes are expressed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
As for repetitive structures in DNA, they're not junk
either. They may have a “back-up” purpose, like a spare tire in car, which the
organism can utilize should it lose genetic material due to damage from random
mutations caused by environmental forces.</div>
<br />
Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by
chance, so it is far more logical to believe that the DNA and biological similarities
between species are due to a common Designer rather than common ancestry through evolution by way of random mutations. The Creator simply designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life.<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">DNA similarities within a true species can be
used to establish relationship because within a true species the various
individuals can interbreed, but this not the case across true species.
Therefore, similarities across true species cannot be used for establishing
biological relationships.</span> <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
In reality there is only one race - the human race - within which exists myriad variations and permutations. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
An excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research <i>(<a href="http://www.icr.org/">www.icr.org</a>)</i> 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 <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/"><i>www.AnswersInGenesis.org</i></a> and <a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/"><i>www.ChristianAnswers.net</i></a>. <br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.religionscience.com/"><i>www.religionscience.com</i></a> for more in-depth study of the issue.<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.youravon.com/jerb" style="color: blue;"></a> </span></i></b>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-43866736603272307582010-04-03T15:56:00.010-04:002013-05-13T11:39:37.730-04:00In Nature But Not Invented By Nature<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i><br />
<br />
We hear it all the time. "Mother Nature" designed this or "Mother Nature" designed that. Wow! (A moment of silence, please...) <br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
If there wasn't any already existing DNA and protein molecules, poor "Mother Nature" would be helpless to make any DNA or proteins. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 more than just useful; they are vital in regulating
gene expression (i.e. how, when, and where) genes are expressed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
As for repetitive structures in DNA, they're not junk
either. They may have a “back-up” purpose, like a spare tire in car, which the
organism can utilize should it lose genetic material due to damage from random
mutations caused by environmental forces.</div>
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<br />
Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by
chance, so it is far more logical to believe that the DNA and biological
similarities between species are due to a common Designer rather than common
ancestry through evolution by way of random mutations. The Creator simply
designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of
life.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">DNA similarities within a true species can be used to
establish relationship because within a true species the various individuals
can interbreed, but this not the case across true species. Therefore,
similarities across true species cannot be used for establishing biological
relationships. </span><br />
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. <br />
<br />
Just because the right conditions exist to sustain life doesn't mean that those conditions can bring life into being by chance. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
What we believe about our origins will influence our philosophy and value of life. This is no small matter! <br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.youravon.com/jerb" style="color: blue;"></a> </span></i></b>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-59120710543389144592010-04-03T15:56:00.006-04:002013-05-13T11:41:43.190-04:00Darwin Only Had A Theology Degree!<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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". <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
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 more than just useful; they are vital in regulating
gene expression (i.e. how, when, and where) genes are expressed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
As for repetitive structures in DNA, they're not junk
either. They may have a “back-up” purpose, like a spare tire in car, which the
organism can utilize should it lose genetic material due to damage from random
mutations caused by environmental forces.</div>
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<br />
Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by
chance, so it is far more logical to believe that the DNA and biological
similarities between species are due to a common Designer rather than common
ancestry through evolution by way of random mutations. The Creator simply
designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of
life.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">DNA similarities within a true species can be used to
establish relationship because within a true species the various individuals
can interbreed, but this not the case across true species. Therefore,
similarities across true species cannot be used for establishing biological
relationships. </span><br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.youravon.com/jerb" style="color: blue;"></a> </span></i></b>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-10646752043174598932010-04-03T15:55:00.007-04:002012-06-12T13:29:41.412-04:00Israel and The Land (2nd Edition)<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i>
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
As an evangelical and conservative Christian, of Indian origin, I wish to set the biblical issue in proper perspective.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
From a purely biblical perspective Zionism has enormous problems.
<br />
<br />
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).
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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).
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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".
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
It is important, however, to have some basic background knowledge of how the modern state of Israel was founded.
<br />
<br />
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."
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
That is why it is very important to understand that there is no biblical basis for modern Zionism.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
Read the author's popular Internet article SECOND COMING OF CHRIST MISUNDERSTOOD.<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.youravon.com/jerb" style="color: blue;"></a> </span></i></b>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-56824757407310521642010-04-03T15:54:00.006-04:002015-12-20T13:13:41.080-05:00Chemotherapy Success With Aloe Vera!<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i><br />
<br />
Chemotherapy doesn't have to be a dreadful experience for cancer patients. Aloe vera juice, especially one that is of high quality, helps to strengthen the body's natural immune system to fight cancer cells while at the same time protecting the healthy cells from irreversible damage normally 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.<br />
<br />
I know of people with cancer who took my advice and came through chemotherapy successfully. One of them is a friend of mine who nearly lost half his weight during his one year of chemo treatments, but he took eight ounces of aloe vera daily. He never once suffered hair loss, vomiting, nausea or anything. He even continued to go to work. He showed some dark coloring under his fingernails from what the chemo had done, but he was okay. His immune system remained healthy and intact. He regained all his weight back.<br />
<br />
Another friend told me that his aunt, who was undergoing chemotherapy, took my advice about taking aloe vera juice daily, and he told me his aunt's hair started growing back and the medical doctors were in utter shock!<br />
<br />
This scientific article by Dr. Lawrence G. Plaskett: "Aloe and Cancer" <a href="http://www.cancer-coverup.com/fighters/aloe-cancer.htm"><i>www.cancer-coverup.com/fighters/aloe-cancer.htm</i></a> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Modern science shows that aloe vera, a desert plant, contains a wide spectrum of vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, and amino acids. Taking, at least, 8oz of aloe vera daily will provide comprehensive nutrition for your body and help prevent or heal serious disease. The proof is in the thousands of individuals who have experienced the benefits of aloe vera over the centuries.<br />
<br />
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 (i.e. cancer) consider taking, at least, 8-12 ounces of aloe vera juice a day. The taste isn't great, but just add more water to dilute it and it becomes very easy and comfortable to drink.<br />
<br />
I personally know of someone at work who had very high blood pressure. She took 12 ounces of aloe vera juice a day for one month and her blood pressure returned to nearly normal. She only needed to take a fraction of her prescription medication. Now that her blood pressure is back to normal, she is taking only one 4 ounces (two shot glasses) 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.<br />
<br />
Here is a link to a very interesting article, "The Aloe Vera Miracle" by Mike Adams: <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/021858.html"><i>http://www.naturalnews.com/021858.html</i></a>. For pennies a day you can be healthy or regain your health.*<br />
<br />
There is no big money to made by the medical profession or hospitals by giving patients aloe vera or any other natural remedy. Natural remedies cannot be patented. The drug companies hold medical doctors and hospitals in their hands, and drug companies pay doctors whenever doctors prescribe their drugs to patients. Prescription medication is a multi-billion dollar money-making machine for both the drug companies and the medical profession. Yes, some prescriptions are good. I am not saying all prescription medications are bad.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
God may very well have put within aloe vera everything the body needs for good health. All medicine is from chemicals, whether God-made in nature or man-made.<br />
<br />
Make sure to get a high quality aloe vera juice. Talk to a professional in your local health food store. A helpful site to consult is <a href="http://www.pharmaloe.com/"><i>www.pharmaloe.com</i></a>. Walmart stores carry a very high quality and inexpensive aloe vera juice (Fruit of The Earth) in their pharmacy section.<br />
<br />
* Contrary to what Mike Adams says, Nature did not create the Aloe vera plant. Aloe vera is found in nature and reproduces in nature but it was not invented or designed by mindless nature.<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><b><span style="color: #990000; font-size: large;">NOT INVENTED BY NATURE!</span><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;"> </span></b></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it was invented or made by Nature. If all the chemicals necessary to make a cell were left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would have no ability to organize them into a cell. It requires an already existing cell to bring about another cell. The cell exists and reproduces in nature but Nature didn't invent or design it! Nature didn't originate the cell or any form of life. An intelligent power outside of nature had to be responsible.</span><br />
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Stanley 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. </span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">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. A partially evolved cell would quickly disintegrate, not wait millions of years to become complete and living.</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Miller's experiment produced equally both left-handed and right-handed amino acids, but all living things strictly require only left-handed amino acids. If a right-handed amino acid gets into the chain the protein won't work.</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">The probability of just an average size protein molecule arising by chance is 10 to the 65th power. </span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Mathematicians have said any event in the universe with odds of 10 to 50th power or greater is impossible! Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein molecules. The late great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated that the the odds of the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power! How large is this? Consider that the total number of atoms in our universe is 10 to the 82 power.</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that mere undirected natural laws can bring about the origin of an airplane or a cell. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could the cell have originated naturally when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? All of the founders of modern science believed in God. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from sea sponge to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Survival of the fittest would actually have prevented evolution across kinds! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! (2nd Edition).</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Natural selection doesn't produce biological traits or variations. It can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations are possible, not natural selection. Only limited evolution, variations of already existing genes and traits are possible. Nature is mindless and has no ability to design and program entirely new genes for entirely new traits.</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Modern evolutionists believe and hope that over, supposedly, millions of years, random genetic mutations in the genes of reproductive cells caused by environmental radiation will generate entirely new genes. This is total blind and irrational faith on the part of evolutionists. It's much like believing that randomly changing the sequence of letters in a romance novel, over millions of years, will turn it into a book on astronomy! That's the kind of blind faith macro-evolutionists have.</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Mutations are accidents in the genetic, are mostly harmful, and have no capability of producing greater complexity in the code. Even if a good accident occurred, for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result, over time, being harmful, even lethal, to the species. At best, mutations only produce further variations within a natural species. Even so, mutations are not the best explanation for variations within a natural species.</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Since it isn't rational to believe that genetic information, like any other form of information, can arise by chance, then it is totally rational to believe that God (the Supreme Genetic Engineer), from the beginning, placed within all natural species the recessive and dominant genes to produce the varieties we find within natural species.</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">If life on earth had really existed for millions of years, all species would have become extinct by now due to the colossal number of accumulated mutations over time (please read the author’s popular Internet article, ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD?).</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: #222222;">All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are found complete, fully-formed, and fully functional. This is powerful evidence that species did not come into existence gradually by any macro-evolutionary process but, rather, came into existence as complete and ready-to-go from the very beginning, which is possible only by special creation. All species had to have come into existence as complete (with fully developed parts) and fully-functioning from the start or, otherwise, they couldn't survive. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; color: #222222; margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not non-human and human (i.e. Neanderthal Man was discovered later to be fully human). Textbooks and museums still continue to display examples and illustrations supporting human evolution which most evolutionists have rejected and no longer support. Many diagrams of ape-man creatures over the years were reconstructed according to evolutionary interpretations from disputable bones that have now been discredited even by many evolutionists but still being taught in school textbooks.</span></div>
</div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">What about genetic and biological similarities between species? Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Only genetic similarities within a natural species proves relationship because it's only within a natural species that members can interbreed and reproduce.</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">"JUNK" DNA ISN'T JUNK. It's we who were ignorant of its usefulness. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature and RNA has revealed that the “non-coding” segments of DNA are essential in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed, so they're not "junk").</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Even more recent scientific evidence shows that they do code for proteins, after all, and that we need to readjust our thinking of how the cell reads the genetic code (Read "Human Proteome More Complex Than Previously Thought," Internet article by Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins). Recent research also shows that repetitive (or so-called "useless") structures in DNA are vital in forming the chromosome matrix, which, in turn, enables chromosomes to be functional and operative.</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Read my popular Internet articles, HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME? and HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Sincerely,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Babu G. Ranganathan*</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">(B.A. theology/biology)</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS</span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">* I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East" for my writings on religion and science, and I have given successful lectures (with question and answer time afterwards) defending creation from science before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities.</span></div>
</div>
Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-2259620323635330152010-04-03T15:52:00.000-04:002013-05-13T11:45:18.410-04:00Ardi Not A Missing Link!<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i>
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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?"
<br />
<br />
"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."
<br />
<br />
"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:
<br />
<br />
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
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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
<br />
<br />
Please read his entire article at: http://www.icr.org/article/4975/.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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!
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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?
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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?
<br />
<br />
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).
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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!
<br />
<br />
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".<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by
chance, so it is far more logical to believe that the DNA and biological
similarities between species are due to a common Designer rather than common
ancestry through evolution by way of random mutations. The Creator simply
designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of
life.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">DNA similarities within a true species can be used to
establish relationship because within a true species the various individuals
can interbreed, but this not the case across true species. Therefore,
similarities across true species cannot be used for establishing biological
relationships. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"></span><br />
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 more than just useful; they are vital in regulating
gene expression (i.e. how, when, and where) genes are expressed.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
As for repetitive structures in DNA, they're not junk
either. They may have a “back-up” purpose, like a spare tire in car, which the
organism can utilize should it lose genetic material due to damage from random
mutations caused by environmental forces.</div>
<br />
<br />
Visit icr.org to read excellent articles by scientists who believe science supports faith in God.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
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.
<br />
<br />
MIT scientist and creationist Dr. Walt Brown has an excellent site at www.creationscience.com.<br />
<br />
<b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #660000;"> </span><a href="http://www.youravon.com/jerb" style="color: blue;"></a> </span></i></b>Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7954782374212331906.post-33546754205339079442010-04-03T15:51:00.003-04:002013-05-13T11:47:41.917-04:00Missing Links That Never Were<i>by Babu G. Ranganathan</i><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Some evolutionists use similarities of traits shared by various species as examples of a transitional ("missing") link. But, the problem for these 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! <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
An excellent book to read that presents a detailed and well-documented account of how the fossil record does <i>not</i> support Darwinian macro-evoltion is EVOLUTION: THE FOSSILS SAY NO! by scientist and creationist Dr. Duane T. Gish. The book is quite comprehensive and very well referenced: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-The-Challenge-Fossil-Record/dp/0890511128"><i>http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-The-Challenge-Fossil-Record/dp/0890511128</i></a><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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." <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by
chance, so it is far more logical to believe that the DNA and biological
similarities between species are due to a common Designer rather than common
ancestry through evolution by way of random mutations. The Creator simply
designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of
life.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">DNA similarities within a true species can be used to
establish relationship because within a true species the various individuals
can interbreed, but this not the case across true species. Therefore,
similarities across true species cannot be used for establishing biological
relationships. </span><br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes) then macro-evolution will never be possible. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Most biological variations occur because of new combinations of already existing genes - not because of mutations. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 more than just useful; they are vital in regulating
gene expression (i.e. how, when, and where) genes are expressed.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
As for repetitive structures in DNA, they're not junk
either. They may have a “back-up” purpose, like a spare tire in car, which the
organism can utilize should it lose genetic material due to damage from random
mutations caused by environmental forces.</div>
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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/). <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. These sites provide much documentation, references, and bibliographical sources.<br />
Babu G. Ranganathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13139959220803171498noreply@blogger.com