Click on any link to view:
SCIENCE - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)
How Did Life Begin? (Watchtower Online Library)
Is there scientific evidence that supports the Bible? (Search For Bible Truths)
Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account? (Search For Bible Truths)
Does the Bible indicate whether or not life exists beyond the earth? (Search For Bible Truths)
The "Impossible" Universe (Search For Bible Truths)
Could life have occurred spontaneously? ("Impossible" Creatures) (Search For Bible Truths)
Does the 'artificial life' breakthrough recently announced by scientists prove 'abiogenesis'? (Search For Bible Truths)
The "coincidences" of extra protons, and the very small mass difference between a neutron and proton, etc. (Search For Bible Truths)
The "Just Right" Status of the Gravitational Force (Search For Bible Truths)
Why Do Some Scientists Believe in God? (Search For Bible Truths)
What is the Big Bang Theory? (Search For Bible Truths)
How did Moses know that the universe had a beginning when Einstein did not? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)
Is the Earth really only 10,000 years old? (Search For Bible Truths)
Were the creative "days" in Genesis literal 24 hour periods? (Search For Bible Truths)
Did God Use Evolution to Create Life? (Search For Bible Truths)
From what source was the Flood of Noah’s day? (Search For Bible Truths)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Does the Bible indicate whether or not life exists beyond the earth?
The Bible is definite in showing that there are vast numbers of spirit creatures in existence. - Rev. 5:11; Matt. 26:53. But as for the possibility of other physical beings existing in our universe, the Bible simply does not outright say.
Even though we have not discovered life of any kind in our solar system or in the cosmos beyond, some may point to the broad variety of animals that have lived on Earth and after considering the sheer vastness of the universe, conclude that the odds are great that we are not alone (See video). However, if one truly considers the odds of life spontaneously arising, it may give one pause to this line of thinking.
But could God have created other physical life forms in the universe?
As to whether God created any non-intelligent extraterrestrial life - life that was not made in God's image - the Bible gives no indication one way or the other.
On the other hand, the Bible does give some indication as to whether other intelligent physical beings exist beyond the Earth.
Consider: If God did create such intelligent beings, he did so before he created Adam and Eve. Such beings either remained faithful to their Creator, or like Adam and Eve, they sinned and fell into imperfection.
But if they became imperfect, they needed a redeemer. As one essayist put it: “One has this dreadful thought that on Friday [the day Jesus Christ was executed], every Friday, somewhere in the universe Jesus is being hanged high for someone’s sins.” But that is not Scriptural. The Bible tells us that Jesus “died with reference to sin once for all time.” (Romans 6:10)
But what if these beings had remained perfect? Well, when Adam and Eve sinned, they were, in effect, questioning God’s right to rule over a world of intelligent physical beings. If another planet existed at that time, a world full of intelligent physical beings who were living harmoniously and loyally under God’s rule, would they not have been called in as witnesses to testify that God’s rule does indeed work? This conclusion seems inescapable, since he has already used even imperfect humans as witnesses in his behalf on that very issue. (Isaiah 43:10)
So in this context, it is interesting, considering the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that Earth is the only planet to which the Creator sent his only-begotten Son to become a man and die sacrificially to recover the planet’s inhabitants from sin and its penalty death. It is also interesting that Earth will be the only planet on which Jehovah, by means of his Son Jesus Christ, will have fought the ‘war of the great day of God the Almighty’ to show his power over all his enemies in heaven and on earth and to vindicate himself as the Universal Sovereign. - Jeremiah 50:25; Psalm 140:7; Acts 4:24
The point being emphasized is this: Never again will it be necessary for God’s Son to die sacrificially to recover living creatures from sin and death. Never again will it be necessary for Jehovah God to vindicate himself as Universal Sovereign. These things will have been accomplished once and for all time at the earth. Even if the Creator should at some future time populate other planets—which is something that we do not know—there still would be no need for repetition of Jesus’ sacrifice and the vindication of Jehovah’s sovereignty. The issues involved will already have been settled forever. - Heb. 9:28; 10:12.
For more, see:
Creation
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Even though we have not discovered life of any kind in our solar system or in the cosmos beyond, some may point to the broad variety of animals that have lived on Earth and after considering the sheer vastness of the universe, conclude that the odds are great that we are not alone (See video). However, if one truly considers the odds of life spontaneously arising, it may give one pause to this line of thinking.
But could God have created other physical life forms in the universe?
As to whether God created any non-intelligent extraterrestrial life - life that was not made in God's image - the Bible gives no indication one way or the other.
On the other hand, the Bible does give some indication as to whether other intelligent physical beings exist beyond the Earth.
Consider: If God did create such intelligent beings, he did so before he created Adam and Eve. Such beings either remained faithful to their Creator, or like Adam and Eve, they sinned and fell into imperfection.
But if they became imperfect, they needed a redeemer. As one essayist put it: “One has this dreadful thought that on Friday [the day Jesus Christ was executed], every Friday, somewhere in the universe Jesus is being hanged high for someone’s sins.” But that is not Scriptural. The Bible tells us that Jesus “died with reference to sin once for all time.” (Romans 6:10)
But what if these beings had remained perfect? Well, when Adam and Eve sinned, they were, in effect, questioning God’s right to rule over a world of intelligent physical beings. If another planet existed at that time, a world full of intelligent physical beings who were living harmoniously and loyally under God’s rule, would they not have been called in as witnesses to testify that God’s rule does indeed work? This conclusion seems inescapable, since he has already used even imperfect humans as witnesses in his behalf on that very issue. (Isaiah 43:10)
So in this context, it is interesting, considering the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that Earth is the only planet to which the Creator sent his only-begotten Son to become a man and die sacrificially to recover the planet’s inhabitants from sin and its penalty death. It is also interesting that Earth will be the only planet on which Jehovah, by means of his Son Jesus Christ, will have fought the ‘war of the great day of God the Almighty’ to show his power over all his enemies in heaven and on earth and to vindicate himself as the Universal Sovereign. - Jeremiah 50:25; Psalm 140:7; Acts 4:24
The point being emphasized is this: Never again will it be necessary for God’s Son to die sacrificially to recover living creatures from sin and death. Never again will it be necessary for Jehovah God to vindicate himself as Universal Sovereign. These things will have been accomplished once and for all time at the earth. Even if the Creator should at some future time populate other planets—which is something that we do not know—there still would be no need for repetition of Jesus’ sacrifice and the vindication of Jehovah’s sovereignty. The issues involved will already have been settled forever. - Heb. 9:28; 10:12.
For more, see:
Creation
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Could life have occurred spontaneously? ("Impossible" Creatures)
There are at least 5 pitfalls to the evolutionary theory for the beginning of life.
1. There is simply no real evidence to support the speculation that the earth's atmosphere once had the necessary gases in the right proportion to start the chain reactions that most evolutionists believe led to spontaneous life production.
2. If such an atmosphere did exist at one time, and if the proper amino acids were produced, they would have been destroyed by the same source of energy that split the methane and water vapor in the first place. Dr. D. E. Hull wrote in the May 28, 1960, scientific magazine Nature:
"The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them."
And John Horgan wrote in a 1991 Scientific American magazine:
"Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere ... suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere ..... Such an atmosphere [carbon and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life."
3. The odds against hundreds of thousands of "left-handed" amino acids (as are found in living things) coming together out of an original equal mix of "left-handed" and "right-handed" has been compared to a man making two kinds of bricks, red and yellow. After he has made a pile of millions of red and yellow bricks all mixed together he takes a gigantic steam shovel and scoops several hundred thousand bricks out of the pile, and, by chance, every one of them is a red brick! In the same way, by chance, every one of the hundreds of thousands of amino acids forming the simplest one-celled organism we need as the first life form must be "left-handed."
4. The different kinds of amino acids of our first living, reproducing organism must not only come together in the right kind and amount, they must also link together in the correct order. So the huge steam shovel must not only scoop up all red bricks (left-handed amino acids), but also accidentally drop them somehow each into its proper spot!
5. A cell membrane is extremely complex, made up of sugar, protein, and fatty molecules. It is essential for a living cell. But there is no plausible explanation how even the fats in the complex membrane could have originated by themselves (p.145, The Origin of Life, Bernal).
To find the final overall odds for a chain of events leading up to a single result you must multiply the odds of each event. For instance, if someone reaches into a hat that has one white marble and two black ones, there is one chance in three that he will draw the white one. However, if she is presented with two hats each containing one white marble and two black ones the odds multiply not add. Even though there are only 6 marbles altogether, the two events total up to odds of 1 out of 9 (not 1 out of 6). 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/9.
If there had been 3 marbles (1 white and 2 black) in each of three hats the odds would be 1 out of 27 (1/27) that she would draw the three white marbles (1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/27), and so on.
So by multiplying the odds of the different events (considering only the chances of getting the right number and order of left-handed amino acids together as would be found in the simplest theoretically possible self-reproducing organism) we find the odds to be one out of 10 to the 79,360th power (1 followed by 79,360 zeros).
Remember, these are only the odds for the somehow already-formed amino acids accidentally coming together in the right kinds and right order. It ignores the odds of the universe accidentally forming in the first place, a planet of just the right type with just the right composition being found in exactly the right position relative to the right type of star, and all the other myriad "accidents" leading up to this point and all the myriad "accidents" after it (such as the right mixture of elements actually coming to life and functioning and reproducing, etc.)
Yes, these are just the odds for the already-made ingredients getting together properly (like someone putting all the already man-made parts of his wrist watch into a sack and shaking them together into a whole watch). And there's only one chance out of a number so huge (1 followed by 79,360 zeros) that it would take 20 pages just to write its zeros!
Current observations put the universe's age at 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The earliest evidence for life on earth is dated to 3.8 billion years ago. That leaves 700 million years - best case scenario - for life to appear on its own, not eternity. But even IF life had an eternity to appear on it's own the odds still are so great (see above) that the spontaneous production of life will never happen. Dr. Emil Borel, an authority on probabilities, says that if there is less chance for something to happen than 1 in 10 to the 50th power (1 followed by 50 zeros), then it will NEVER happen, no matter how much time is allowed.
For more, see:
Creation
The "Impossible" Universe
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
1. There is simply no real evidence to support the speculation that the earth's atmosphere once had the necessary gases in the right proportion to start the chain reactions that most evolutionists believe led to spontaneous life production.
2. If such an atmosphere did exist at one time, and if the proper amino acids were produced, they would have been destroyed by the same source of energy that split the methane and water vapor in the first place. Dr. D. E. Hull wrote in the May 28, 1960, scientific magazine Nature:
"The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them."
And John Horgan wrote in a 1991 Scientific American magazine:
"Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere ... suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere ..... Such an atmosphere [carbon and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life."
3. The odds against hundreds of thousands of "left-handed" amino acids (as are found in living things) coming together out of an original equal mix of "left-handed" and "right-handed" has been compared to a man making two kinds of bricks, red and yellow. After he has made a pile of millions of red and yellow bricks all mixed together he takes a gigantic steam shovel and scoops several hundred thousand bricks out of the pile, and, by chance, every one of them is a red brick! In the same way, by chance, every one of the hundreds of thousands of amino acids forming the simplest one-celled organism we need as the first life form must be "left-handed."
4. The different kinds of amino acids of our first living, reproducing organism must not only come together in the right kind and amount, they must also link together in the correct order. So the huge steam shovel must not only scoop up all red bricks (left-handed amino acids), but also accidentally drop them somehow each into its proper spot!
5. A cell membrane is extremely complex, made up of sugar, protein, and fatty molecules. It is essential for a living cell. But there is no plausible explanation how even the fats in the complex membrane could have originated by themselves (p.145, The Origin of Life, Bernal).
To find the final overall odds for a chain of events leading up to a single result you must multiply the odds of each event. For instance, if someone reaches into a hat that has one white marble and two black ones, there is one chance in three that he will draw the white one. However, if she is presented with two hats each containing one white marble and two black ones the odds multiply not add. Even though there are only 6 marbles altogether, the two events total up to odds of 1 out of 9 (not 1 out of 6). 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/9.
If there had been 3 marbles (1 white and 2 black) in each of three hats the odds would be 1 out of 27 (1/27) that she would draw the three white marbles (1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/27), and so on.
So by multiplying the odds of the different events (considering only the chances of getting the right number and order of left-handed amino acids together as would be found in the simplest theoretically possible self-reproducing organism) we find the odds to be one out of 10 to the 79,360th power (1 followed by 79,360 zeros).
Remember, these are only the odds for the somehow already-formed amino acids accidentally coming together in the right kinds and right order. It ignores the odds of the universe accidentally forming in the first place, a planet of just the right type with just the right composition being found in exactly the right position relative to the right type of star, and all the other myriad "accidents" leading up to this point and all the myriad "accidents" after it (such as the right mixture of elements actually coming to life and functioning and reproducing, etc.)
Yes, these are just the odds for the already-made ingredients getting together properly (like someone putting all the already man-made parts of his wrist watch into a sack and shaking them together into a whole watch). And there's only one chance out of a number so huge (1 followed by 79,360 zeros) that it would take 20 pages just to write its zeros!
Current observations put the universe's age at 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The earliest evidence for life on earth is dated to 3.8 billion years ago. That leaves 700 million years - best case scenario - for life to appear on its own, not eternity. But even IF life had an eternity to appear on it's own the odds still are so great (see above) that the spontaneous production of life will never happen. Dr. Emil Borel, an authority on probabilities, says that if there is less chance for something to happen than 1 in 10 to the 50th power (1 followed by 50 zeros), then it will NEVER happen, no matter how much time is allowed.
For more, see:
Creation
The "Impossible" Universe
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
In what year does the Bible indicate the Great Flood occurred and why didn't Noah's father and grandfather enter the ark?
The Bible says that Methuselah (Noah's grandfather) died at the age of 969...the same year as the Flood. But the Scriptures say that Methuselah simply “died,” NOT that he perished in the Deluge as a result of divine execution. (See Gen. 5:27.)
The Bible shows that Lamech (son of Methuselah and father to Noah) lived 777 years, dying about five years before the Flood in 2370 B.C.E. (Gen. 5:30, 31) His name is listed in the genealogy of Jesus Christ at Luke 3:36.
According to the Bible, the time span between Adam’s creation to the Flood was 1,656 years.
Genesis 5:1-29 and 7:6 outlines this:
From Adam’s creation to the birth of Seth: 130 years
Then to the birth of Enosh: 105 years
To the birth of Kenan: 90 years
To the birth of Mahalalel: 70 years
To the birth of Jared: 65 years
To the birth of Enoch: 62 years
To the birth of Methuselah: 65 years
To the birth of Lamech: 187 years
To the birth of Noah: 182 years
To the Flood: 600 years
Total: 1,656 years
For more, see:
According to the Bible, what was the time span between Adam’s creation to the Flood?
Did the Great Flood of Noah's Day Really Happen?
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
The Bible shows that Lamech (son of Methuselah and father to Noah) lived 777 years, dying about five years before the Flood in 2370 B.C.E. (Gen. 5:30, 31) His name is listed in the genealogy of Jesus Christ at Luke 3:36.
According to the Bible, the time span between Adam’s creation to the Flood was 1,656 years.
Genesis 5:1-29 and 7:6 outlines this:
From Adam’s creation to the birth of Seth: 130 years
Then to the birth of Enosh: 105 years
To the birth of Kenan: 90 years
To the birth of Mahalalel: 70 years
To the birth of Jared: 65 years
To the birth of Enoch: 62 years
To the birth of Methuselah: 65 years
To the birth of Lamech: 187 years
To the birth of Noah: 182 years
To the Flood: 600 years
Total: 1,656 years
For more, see:
According to the Bible, what was the time span between Adam’s creation to the Flood?
Did the Great Flood of Noah's Day Really Happen?
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Monday, April 26, 2010
Eph. 5:5 and "Sharp's Rule" (Primer)
In an attempt to prove the trinity doctrine, Granville Sharp made up a rule in 1798. It is often called "Sharp's Rule" by trinitarians. It says, in effect, that when two or more words (nouns) in the original Greek New Testament (NT) text are joined by the word "and," they all refer to the same person if the word "the" (the article) comes before the first noun and not before the other noun(s).
For example, if we saw "the king and _master of the slave" in the Greek text of the Bible, it would always mean, according to Sharp, that only one person was being called both "king" and "master." ("King" and "master" are joined by "and" - - but only "king" has the article 'the" with it.)Sharp invented this rule after he noticed this particular construction (sometimes called a "Sharp's construction") was used with "God" and "Christ" in 5 places in the NT. If he could convince others that his "rule" was true, then they would think there was finally (after 1400 years of a "trinity" tradition) absolute grammatical Bible proof that God and Jesus are the same "person"!
One of the 5 "proofs" of Jesus' Godhood according to Sharp is found at Eph. 5:5.
... en th basileia tou cristou kai qeou [symbol font]
"...in the kingdom of the Christ and God"
Since the first noun ("Christ" here) has the article ("the") with it and the following noun ("God" in this scripture) does not have the article ("the"), then (according to Sharp) God and Christ are the same person!
There are a number of reasons why Sharp's Rule, as applied to these 5 "proofs," is invalid. One important strike against it is the fact that even many respected trinitarian NT grammar experts and translators have rejected it as a valid rule - e.g., see G. B. Winer; J. H. Moulton; C. F. D. Moule; Dr. James Moffatt (see Titus 2:13; and 1 Tim. 5:21); Dr. William Barclay (2 Thess. 1:12); and Roman Catholic scholar Karl Rahner (2 Peter 1:1).
For example, examine the following trinitarian Bible's renderings of these "Sharp's Constructions":
2 Thess. 1:12 - KJV; KJIIV; NASB; NAB (1970); MLB; LB; GNB; RSV; NRSV; NIV.
Eph. 5:5 - KJV; KJIIV; RSV; NRSV; LB; MLB; NIV; NEB; REB; GNB; TEV; NAB (`70,'91).
2 Tim. 4:1 - most trinitarian Bibles.
1 Tim. 6:13 - all trinitarian Bibles.
These many respected Bibles, translated by expert trinitarian New Testament scholars, clearly disregard Sharp's "Rule" at these (and other) places and show two persons being spoken of!
Notice Eph. 5:5, for example. Most trinitarian Bibles translate this example of Sharp's Construction: "in the kingdom of Christ and of God" - KJV; NRSV; RSV; NIV; NEB; REB; NAB; Douay; MLB; LB; GNB; TEV; The Amplified Bible; Third Millenium Bible; New Living Translation; New Century Version; God's Word; Holman Christian Standard Bible; Wesley's New Testament; Phillips; and the Webster Bible. This is not the way it would be translated if the two descriptions were of the same person! (At the very least it would be rendered more literally as "the kingdom of the Christ and God.") Instead it clearly shows two persons!
Also, 1 Tim. 6:13 is translated in trinitarian Bibles as: "before (in the sight or presence of) God ... and before Christ Jesus...". Although Sharp's Rule insists that this should be translated to show that it is speaking of the same person, it obviously is not! Most trinitarian grammar experts simply do not believe Sharp's Rule is a valid absolute rule! Of the many reasons invalidating Sharp's Rule grammatically there are at least two of extreme importance - each of which is conclusive by itself.
(1) Prepositional Constructions (with phrases containing prepositions: "of God;" "in the Lord;" "God of...;" etc.) are known by all NT grammarians to cause uncertainty of article usage. That is, if a prepositional phrase (including genitives) is attached to a word, that word may sometimes have the article ("the") and sometimes not have it -- without changing the intended meaning! (See A. T. Robertson, pp. 780, 790, 791; C. F. D. Moule, p. 117; J. H. Moulton, pp. 175, 179-180; et al.)
This means that the NT writers sometimes wrote, for example, "The God of me" (with article) and "_God of me" (without article) with exactly the same intended meaning. The definite article ("the") was ambiguous in such cases.
Therefore any grammatical rules which depend on the presence or absence of the article in the NT Greek must not use as examples those scriptures which use a prepositional construction attached to a word (noun) in question if they are to be used honestly and properly.
But if you examine the 5 trinitarian "proofs" above, you will see that they all use such prepositional constructions: "of us" in (a) Titus 2:13 and (b) 2 Peter 1:1 is a "prepositional" genitive, and even "savior" itself is a genitive in both scriptures and literally means "of savior;" "Lord" in (c) 2 Thess. 1:12 is a genitive and literally means "of Lord" (as rendered in the Modern Language Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; Douay Version; New American Bible [1970 ed.]; and Barclay's Daily Study Bible); "Christ" in (d)1 Tim. 5:21 is a genitive and literally means "of Christ" (as in the Good News Bible [& TEV]; New American Standard Bible; Modern Language Bible; Revised Standard Version; and New Revised Standard Version); and "God" in (e) Eph. 5:5 is a genitive and literally means "of God" (as in the King James Version; Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; Living Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; Modern Language Bible; New American Bible (1970 & 1991); Douay Version; New International Version; Good News Bible; and Phillips translation).
Therefore all 5 Sharp's "proofs" are invalid on the basis of prepositional constructions alone!
(2) New Testament scholars, including noted trinitarian NT grammar experts, point out that the use of proper names ("John," "Moses," "Jesus," etc.) also causes uncertain article usage in NT Greek. (A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 791, and Word Pictures, p. 46, Vol. iv; C. F. D. Moule, p. 115; J. H. Moulton [Turner], Vol. 3, pp. 165-167; et. al.)
So not only did the NT Bible writers sometimes use the article and sometimes not use the article with the very same intended meaning with the very same proper name (e.g. "the James" and "James"), but even when a proper name is used as an appositive it also causes irregular article usage with the other associated nouns. - Robertson, pp. 760, 791.
For example, when "Jesus" and "Christ" are in apposition to each other ("Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus"), they are nearly always (96% of the time - see SHARP study paper) written without the definite article in the writings of Paul regardless of "Sharp's rule" or any other grammatical/syntactical consideration!
If we examine the first 4 of the 5 "proofs" above, we see that the proper name "Jesus" is used as an appositive with the word in question in each case! In other words, "Christ Jesus" is the appositive for "savior" in Titus 2:13. This means sometimes "savior" will have "the" with it in such a situation and sometimes it won't (with no change in meaning). "Jesus Christ" is the appositive for "savior" in 2 Peter 1:1, and article usage (or non-usage) with "savior" in the original NT Greek in such circumstances is virtually meaningless. "Jesus Christ" is in apposition to (an appositive for) "Lord" in 2 Thess. 1:12. And "Jesus" is in apposition (at least) to "Christ" in 1 Tim. 5:21. These examples, therefore, are completely invalid as evidence for Jesus being God even if there were actually some validity to Sharp's "Rule" with proper examples! And the 5th example, Eph. 5:5, is incredibly poor in context alone. Even noted trinitarian scholar A.T. Robertson has to admit that the 'evidence' of Eph. 5:5 is doubtful - Word Pictures, Vol. 14, pp. 46 and 543. No objective person could accept it alone as real evidence of Jesus' Godhood!
Some PREPOSITIONAL examples found in NT Greek:
"The God of Abraham and _God of Isaac and _God of Jacob" - Luke 20:37.
"The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" - Matt. 22:32.
"James, _slave of God and _Lord Jesus Christ" - James 1:1
"By command of _God savior of us and _Christ Jesus" - 1 Tim. 1:1.
"I am the root and the offspring of David" - Rev. 22:16.
Some PROPER NAME examples found in NT Greek:
"having seen _Peter and _John" (no articles) - Acts 3:3.
"holding fast ... the Peter and the John" (both articles) - Acts 3:11.
"beholding the outspokenness of the Peter and _John" (Sharp's) - Acts 4:13.
"But the Peter and _John" (Sharp's construction) - Acts 4:19.
So we see the Bible writer who is recognized as the most knowledgeable in NT Greek (Luke) showing the great ambiguity of article usage with proper names. If we did not exclude proper names as valid examples, we would have to agree that either Luke believed Peter and John were the same person or that he was completely unaware of Sharp's Rule (or any first century equivalent)!
* * * * *
So, although we can find such constructions as "the king and master of the slave" where the first noun (with the definite article, `the') is the same person as the second noun (without the definite article), there is no grammatical reason that this must always be so. Such constructions as "the boy and girl" and "the President and Vice President" (found in Amendment XX [as ratified in 1933] of the Constitution of the United States of America), which refer to more than one individual, are just as grammatically correct in both English and NT Greek.
For much more on this scripture and Sharp's Rule, click here.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
Rom. 1:24-27: "God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them . . . God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."
1 Tim. 1:9-11: "Law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, . . . fornicators, men who lie with males, . . . and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching according to the glorious good news of the happy God." (Compare Leviticus 20:13.)
Jude 7: "Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they . . . [had] gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire." (The name Sodom has become the basis for the word "sodomy," which usually designates a homosexual practice. Compare Genesis 19:4, 5, 24, 25.)
1 Tim. 1:9-11: "Law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, . . . fornicators, men who lie with males, . . . and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching according to the glorious good news of the happy God." (Compare Leviticus 20:13.)
Jude 7: "Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they . . . [had] gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire." (The name Sodom has become the basis for the word "sodomy," which usually designates a homosexual practice. Compare Genesis 19:4, 5, 24, 25.)
Saturday, April 24, 2010
1 John 5:20 "We are in him that is true, even in his Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." - KJV
1 Jn 5:20 -
"We are in him that is true [alethinos], even in his Son, Jesus Christ. This [outos] is the true [alethinos] God, and eternal life." - KJV.
Some trinitarians actually insist that the word "this" (outos) here refers to Jesus. In other words, "[Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life." For example, Robert M. Bowman in his Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John states that at 1 Jn 5:20 Jesus is called `the true God and eternal life' "indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament." - p. 41, Baker Book House, 1991 printing. I understand why some trinitarians are so desperate in their search for non-existent scriptural "evidence" that they have to make it up, but this is incredibly poor!
It is obvious that grammatically the word "this" (outos) could be referring to either the Father or Jesus in this particular scripture (see the footnote for 1 John 5:20 in the very trinitarian NIV Study Bible). But the fact that the true God (or "the true One") has just been identified as the Father of Jesus (1 Jn 5:20, TEV and GNB) makes it highly probable that "this is the true God" refers to the Father, not Jesus. The highly trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris sums up his 13-page analysis of this scripture as follows:
"Although it is certainly possible that outos refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to `the true one,' God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, outos = God [Father], is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter." - p. 253, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.
Notice how this trinitarian scholar actually admits that the probability is that the Father (not Jesus) is being called the true God here. He even tells us (and cites examples in his footnotes) that New Testament grammarians and commentators (most of them trinitarian, of course) agree!
So this single "proof" that the "true God" is a title for anyone other than the Father alone is not proof at all. The grammar alone merely makes it a possibility. The immediate context makes it highly improbable since (as in all other uses of the term) the true God (or the true one) was just identified as the Father ("We are in the one who is true as we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and this is eternal life." - NJB; and "We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God - in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and this is eternal life." - TEV.).
So the immediate context alone makes it probable that the true God is the Father in this scripture also. As we have seen, if we include the context of all the uses of the `true God,' it is certain that He is the Father alone (whose personal name is Jehovah - Ps. 83:18, Ex. 3:15).
To clinch John's intended meaning at 1 John 5:20, let's look at his only other use of the term: John 17:1, 3, where, again (as in 1 Jn 5:20), he mentions Father, Son, and eternal life. Here the Father alone is not only very clearly identified as the only true God, but Jesus Christ is pointedly and specifically excluded from that identification ("AND Jesus Christ whom YOU [the only true God] have sent").
For more, see:
"The Only True God"
"We are in him that is true [alethinos], even in his Son, Jesus Christ. This [outos] is the true [alethinos] God, and eternal life." - KJV.
Some trinitarians actually insist that the word "this" (outos) here refers to Jesus. In other words, "[Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life." For example, Robert M. Bowman in his Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John states that at 1 Jn 5:20 Jesus is called `the true God and eternal life' "indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament." - p. 41, Baker Book House, 1991 printing. I understand why some trinitarians are so desperate in their search for non-existent scriptural "evidence" that they have to make it up, but this is incredibly poor!
It is obvious that grammatically the word "this" (outos) could be referring to either the Father or Jesus in this particular scripture (see the footnote for 1 John 5:20 in the very trinitarian NIV Study Bible). But the fact that the true God (or "the true One") has just been identified as the Father of Jesus (1 Jn 5:20, TEV and GNB) makes it highly probable that "this is the true God" refers to the Father, not Jesus. The highly trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris sums up his 13-page analysis of this scripture as follows:
"Although it is certainly possible that outos refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to `the true one,' God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, outos = God [Father], is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter." - p. 253, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.
Notice how this trinitarian scholar actually admits that the probability is that the Father (not Jesus) is being called the true God here. He even tells us (and cites examples in his footnotes) that New Testament grammarians and commentators (most of them trinitarian, of course) agree!
So this single "proof" that the "true God" is a title for anyone other than the Father alone is not proof at all. The grammar alone merely makes it a possibility. The immediate context makes it highly improbable since (as in all other uses of the term) the true God (or the true one) was just identified as the Father ("We are in the one who is true as we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and this is eternal life." - NJB; and "We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God - in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and this is eternal life." - TEV.).
So the immediate context alone makes it probable that the true God is the Father in this scripture also. As we have seen, if we include the context of all the uses of the `true God,' it is certain that He is the Father alone (whose personal name is Jehovah - Ps. 83:18, Ex. 3:15).
To clinch John's intended meaning at 1 John 5:20, let's look at his only other use of the term: John 17:1, 3, where, again (as in 1 Jn 5:20), he mentions Father, Son, and eternal life. Here the Father alone is not only very clearly identified as the only true God, but Jesus Christ is pointedly and specifically excluded from that identification ("AND Jesus Christ whom YOU [the only true God] have sent").
For more, see:
"The Only True God"
Friday, April 23, 2010
Sin - Links to Information
Click on any of the following links to view:
SIN - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)
Sin (Insight-2 pp. 962-971; Watchtower Online Library)
Adam’s Sin (JW.ORG)
Why Did Sin Continue? (JW.ORG)
Why Do Animals Die if They Don't Sin? (Search For Bible Truths)
If one accepts Jesus and then willfully sins, will that person be forgiven again for any of his sins? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)
What does 1 John 5:16,17 mean: "There is a sin that does incur death...and yet there is a sin that doesn't incur death"? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)
Rom. 6:23 says that "the wages sin pays is death". So why does John 5:28, 29 say that there will be a judgment of the unrighteous if their sins were payed by death? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)
SIN - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)
Sin (Insight-2 pp. 962-971; Watchtower Online Library)
Adam’s Sin (JW.ORG)
Why Did Sin Continue? (JW.ORG)
Why Do Animals Die if They Don't Sin? (Search For Bible Truths)
If one accepts Jesus and then willfully sins, will that person be forgiven again for any of his sins? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)
What does 1 John 5:16,17 mean: "There is a sin that does incur death...and yet there is a sin that doesn't incur death"? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)
Rom. 6:23 says that "the wages sin pays is death". So why does John 5:28, 29 say that there will be a judgment of the unrighteous if their sins were payed by death? (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Is Jesus called "God" in John 10:33? Or is he called "a god"?
John 10:33 "a god" or "God"?
John is the only Gospel writer who used the word theos in all its meanings. It should not be surprising, then, that he is also the only Gospel writer who clearly applies the title theos directly to Jesus! John, like some of those ancient Hebrew Scripture writers of the Old Testament who used elohim in all its various meanings, used it to mean the only true God over 90% of the time. But in a few scriptures he used it to mean "a god" in its positive, subordinate, secondary sense. A clear instance of this is found at John 10:33-36 where Jesus quotes from and comments on Psalm 82:6.
It is certainly better to use the trinitarian-translated New English Bible (NEB) here because it obviously translates theos correctly at John 10:33 ("a god") whereas the King James Version and many other trinitarian translations do not.
The context of John 10:33-36 (and of Psalm 82:6 which is quoted there) and NT Greek grammar show "a god" to be the correct rendering. Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 62, by the respected trinitarian, Dr. Robert Young, confirms this:
"`makest thyself a god,' not `God' as in C.V. [King James Version or `Common Version'], otherwise the definite article would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses, -- `gods .. gods,' where the title is applied to magistrates, and others ...."
It is also admitted that this is the meaning of Jn 10:33 by noted trinitarian NT scholar C. H. Dodd:
"The word [theos] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34" - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
So, in the NEB it reads:
" 'We are not going to stone you for any good deed, but for your blasphemy. You, a mere man, claim to be a god.' Jesus answered, 'Is it not written in your own Law, "I said: You are gods"? Those are called gods to whom the word of God was delivered - and Scripture cannot be set aside. Then why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, "I am God's SON"?' "
Not only do we see John using theos in its positive alternate meaning here, but we also see Jesus clarifying it. When some of the Jews were ready to stone him because they said he was claiming to be a god (Jesus' reply about men being called gods in the scriptures would have been nonsensical if he were replying to an accusation of being God), Jesus first pointed out that God himself had called judges of Israel gods (Ps. 82:6)!
The context of John 10:33-36 (and of Psalm 82:6 which is quoted there) and NT Greek grammar show "a god" to be the correct rendering. Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 62, by the respected trinitarian, Dr. Robert Young, confirms this:
"`makest thyself a god,' not `God' as in C.V. [King James Version or `Common Version'], otherwise the definite article would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses, -- `gods .. gods,' where the title is applied to magistrates, and others ...."
It is also admitted that this is the meaning of Jn 10:33 by noted trinitarian NT scholar C. H. Dodd:
"making himself a god." - The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 205, Cambridge University Press, 1995 reprint.
A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John by trinitarians Newman and Nida insists that "a god" would not be "in keeping with the theology of John" and the charge of blasphemy by the Jews, but, nevertheless, also admits:
"Purely on the basis of the Greek text, therefore, it is possible to translate [John 10:33] 'a god,' as NEB does, rather than to translate God, as TEV and several other translations do. One might argue on the basis of both the Greek and the context, that the Jews were accusing Jesus of claiming to be `a god' rather than 'God.' "- p. 344, United Bible Societies, 1980.
The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine indicates the proper rendering here:"Purely on the basis of the Greek text, therefore, it is possible to translate [John 10:33] 'a god,' as NEB does, rather than to translate God, as TEV and several other translations do. One might argue on the basis of both the Greek and the context, that the Jews were accusing Jesus of claiming to be `a god' rather than 'God.' "- p. 344, United Bible Societies, 1980.
"The word [theos] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34" - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
So, in the NEB it reads:
" 'We are not going to stone you for any good deed, but for your blasphemy. You, a mere man, claim to be a god.' Jesus answered, 'Is it not written in your own Law, "I said: You are gods"? Those are called gods to whom the word of God was delivered - and Scripture cannot be set aside. Then why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, "I am God's SON"?' "
Not only do we see John using theos in its positive alternate meaning here, but we also see Jesus clarifying it. When some of the Jews were ready to stone him because they said he was claiming to be a god (Jesus' reply about men being called gods in the scriptures would have been nonsensical if he were replying to an accusation of being God), Jesus first pointed out that God himself had called judges of Israel gods (Ps. 82:6)!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Idolatry - Links to Information
Click on any link to view:
IDOLATRY - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)
IDOL, IDOLATRY (Insight-1 pp. 1167-1172; Watchtower Online Library)
Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Not Use Images in Their Worship? (w09 2/1 pp. 30-31; Watchtower Online Library)
Should God Be Worshipped Through Images? (g 8/08 pp. 20-21; Watchtower Online Library)
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship? (Search For Bible Truths)
How does God view images that are objects of worship and what does His Word say about the making of them? (Search For Bible Truths)
What effect could use of images in worship have on our own future? (Search For Bible Truths)
May images be used simply as aids in worship of the true God? (Search For Bible Truths)
How should Christians today feel about any images that they may formerly have venerated? (Search For Bible Truths)
Should we venerate "saints" as intercessors with God, perhaps using images of them as aids in our worship? (Search For Bible Truths)
IDOLATRY - Links to Information (INDEX; Watchtower Online Library)
IDOL, IDOLATRY (Insight-1 pp. 1167-1172; Watchtower Online Library)
Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Not Use Images in Their Worship? (w09 2/1 pp. 30-31; Watchtower Online Library)
Should God Be Worshipped Through Images? (g 8/08 pp. 20-21; Watchtower Online Library)
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship? (Search For Bible Truths)
How does God view images that are objects of worship and what does His Word say about the making of them? (Search For Bible Truths)
What effect could use of images in worship have on our own future? (Search For Bible Truths)
May images be used simply as aids in worship of the true God? (Search For Bible Truths)
How should Christians today feel about any images that they may formerly have venerated? (Search For Bible Truths)
Should we venerate "saints" as intercessors with God, perhaps using images of them as aids in our worship? (Search For Bible Truths)
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
2 Cor. 4:4 "Christ, who is the image of God"
First, an image, likeness, reflection (no matter how perfect) is still only an image - - it's not the real thing. It's not even equal to the real thing.
2 Cor. 4:4 - "Christ, who is the image [eikon] of God".
Notice, this is no longer the fleshly Jesus on earth. This is the resurrected, glorious, heavenly Christ. But he still is not God. He is the image of God. He is seated (or standing) beside God (Acts 2:33-36; Ro. 8:34; Heb. 10:12, 13; 1 Pet. 3:22). He is not God. The Father alone, beside whom Jesus is seated, is Jehovah God (Eph. 1:17, 20; Rev. 3:21; Ps. 110:1). In fact God (the Father alone) is the God of Jesus (Eph. 1:3, 17; Rev. 3:12; Micah 5:4, ASV).
Yes, Jesus is the image of God. And how should we consider the worship of an image of God as being God? (Ex. 20:4, 5; Lev. 26:1)
In spite of a man (and the heavenly Christ) being in the image of God, we don't know exactly what God looks like. ("No man has seen God at any time" [but many men have seen Christ, even after his resurrection] - Jn 1:18; 1 John 4:20). We know, however, that the man created by God to be in God's image and likeness (Adam), the son of God (Luke 3:38), was a single person. He could have easily been created as three separate persons. He could have been created with three faces. But God expressly made him (in his image) with one body, one head, one face, one mind, one personality: one person.
"...it is the whole of man, rather than some part or aspect of him, that is the image of God. The whole man, body and soul, is the image of God." - p. 508, New Bible Dictionary, Dr. J. D. Douglas, Ed., (Editor-at-large, Christianity Today), Tyndale House Publ., 1984.
Jesus, too, being an image of God, had those very same qualities. Surely God, the one in whose image we are, is one person. Surely the God who Jesus perfectly reflects, then, is one person. (In spite of numerous rationalizations designed to show the "plurality" of God. Using such "evidence" we could even find many trinitarian-like generalizations and allegorical "proofs" to show that Christ himself is actually composed of many persons: a 'three-in-one' Christ, for example - See the TRIN-TYPE study.)
The fact that a man is in God's image tells us (1) that a man cannot possibly be that God, and (2) that God is a single person also (to correspond with a man being in His image). In the same manner, but more perfectly, we see (1) that Jesus, the image of God, cannot be God, and (2) that, again, as represented by the single-person Christ himself (God's perfect image), God must also be one, single person (the Father alone, Jehovah).
It is highly significant that we never see Jehovah (or the Father, who alone is Jehovah) described as being in the image of God. He is God (alone).
Would the inspired Bible writers (who knew the scriptures and knew that an image of God was not to be worshiped as God) really call Jesus an "image of God" if they believed he actually was God? Would those same inspired writers who tell us to worship the Father in truth really believe we should worship Jesus as God and then call him the image of God?
- You must not worship an image of God. - Lev. 26:1, NIV.
- Jesus is the image of God. - 2 Cor. 4:4
- The Father is the only true God. - Jn 17:3
- We must worship the Father in truth. - Jn 4:24
Monday, April 19, 2010
Does God Really Exist?
The current understanding by scientists and astronomers is that our physical Universe did not exist until some 13.7 billion years ago, when somehow an infinitely dense, infinitely small point called a singularity suddenly materialized and exploded into the present universe. They have ended up calling this the 'Big Bang' Theory.
What is interesting to me, is that if astronomers are correct about this theory, then not only did the Universe in fact have a beginning, but even more importantly, it had to have been formed in a highly ordered state according to it's own physical laws.
Consider:
One dictionary describes cosmological entropy as the "tendency for the Universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature". In other words, over time, forces within the Universe itself act to rearrange things, things will get more messy or disordered than ordered. This also means that there is a difference between the past and the future: the past was more ordered and the future will be less ordered because this is the most likely way for things to play out.
If you take a university physics degree this is what you will learn about entropy and the arrow of time - the past had a lower entropy than the future; ordered things become disordered as time ticks by. So one might legitimately ask where all the order in the Universe came from in the first place.
Some scientists admit to believing in God because of their observations of what appears to be a fine-tuning of our Universe in general. It is equipped with fixed physical laws and with natural constants that are precisely and ideally suited to support a planet like ours and all the life on it. So how did the Earth get here? It's very ordered. And how did the Milky Way appear if it is composed of billions of ordered worlds orbiting around billions of ordered stars? There must have been some reason why the Universe began in such a highly ordered state, such that it can gradually fall into place this way. The Universe began with sufficient order in the bank to allow planets, stars and galaxies to appear. And the precise settings of the four fundamental physical forces (electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force), affect every object in the universe. They are set and balanced so precisely that even slight changes could render the universe lifeless. So there must have been a LOT of order to begin with.
In other words, the Universe was born in a highly ordered state, and there should be a reason for that. It is unlikely to have been chance. Since the Universe is far less ordered today than it was 13.7 billion years ago, this means that it would have been far more likely that our Universe popped into existence a billionth of a second ago, fully formed with planets, stars, galaxies and people, than it was that the Universe popped into existence at the Big Bang in a highly ordered state. Yet, that exactly is what astronomers say happened.
In summary, SOMETHING had to have always existed in order for the physical Universe to be here at all. Because the design of the Universe is SO ordered and had to have begun in such a precise fashion, this lends significant evidence of a Designer. As the Bible stated the obvious millenia ago:
"Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God." (Heb. 3:4; also see Romans 1:20; Isaiah 40:26 and Psalm 19:1)
Undoubtedly, the concept of Someone never having a beginning is completely baffling and foreign to our human minds. But we are forced to perceive things through only our physical Universe. God, on the other hand is described as a "Spirit" (John 4:24) and His thoughts are higher than ours (Isa. 55:9). Perhaps someday we will come to understand. But until then, we can be satisfied to know for all intents and purposes that God truly has existed "from time indefinite to time indefinite". (Ps. 90:2)
For more, see:
The "coincidences" of extra protons, and the very small mass difference between a neutron and proton, etc. (Search For Bible Truths)
The "Just Right" Status of the Gravitational Force (Search For Bible Truths)
Why Do Some Scientists Believe in God? (Search For Bible Truths)
What is the Big Bang Theory? (Search For Bible Truths)
How Did the Universe and Life Originate? (g02 6/8 pp. 4-7; Watchtower Online Library)
Is There Really a Most High Creator? (pc pp. 9-12; Watchtower Online Library)
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Jn 5:23 - "That all may honor the Son JUST AS [kathos] they honor the Father." - NIV
Jn 5:23 - "That all may honor the Son JUST AS [kathos] they honor the Father." - NIV
Some trinitarians insist that if we honor the Son just as we honor the only true God (in the person of the Father), then we are honoring him as God!
However, kathos simply does not have to mean "exactly equal" as these trinitarians want us to believe. Therefore John 5:23 does not have to mean that the honor given to the Son has to be exactly equal in quantity and quality as that given to the Father.
For example,
"just as [kathos] Moses lifted up the [copper] serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up" - John 3:14, NRSV.
These two events are hardly exactly equal. There is a degree of similarity only. Just as there was a "lifting up" in one part of the comparison, there was also a "lifting up" (of a different kind and to a different degree) in the other part. We know Moses didn't lift up a timber as large and heavy as the one Jesus died on. We know he didn't swing it up and anchor one end in a hole in the ground until the copper serpent died a horrible death. We know that the one act was much more important than the other in all respects. It was a similar act only in a certain respect and to a certain degree.
And examine Luke 11:30,
"Just as [kathos] Jonah became a sign to the people of Ninevah, so the Son of man will be to this generation," - NRSV
This does not mean the two signs are equal either literally or figuratively. The details of the sign to the Ninevites were very different from the sign of Jesus' death and resurrection. The degree of importance of the sign of Jonah was much less than that of Jesus!
And John 17:16,
"[Jesus followers] are not of the world, just as [kathos] I am not of the world." - NKJV
It would be foolish to insist that, in every aspect of the phrase, Jesus' followers were not of the world precisely as he was not. We could, in such a case, end up `proving' that Jesus' followers had been created in heaven as spirit persons before all the rest of creation, just as he had been. (Or for trinitarians, that they had always existed as God Himself from all eternity.)
It seems evident from context alone that kathos, as used by Jesus in all the above examples at least, merely means that one event or circumstance is just as certain as the other event:
(1) "Just as certainly as Moses lifted up the copper serpent in the desert, so must the
(2) "Just as surely as Jonah became a sign ..., so the Son of man will be to this
(4) "That all may honor the Son just as surely as they also honor the Father."
There are many such examples (e.g., Jn 13:15; 17:18; 1 Jn 4:17 ["like" in NIV]). They also illustrate the fact that the honor of the Son may be of a lesser degree and/or kind than that of the Father in spite of "just as" [kathos] at John 5:23.
(There is another word that can mean "as," "just as," "equal to," etc. That is wV - see Thayer, # 5613, [2. c.]. At Matt. 5:48 we read: "You [true worshipers of God] must therefore be perfect, just as (wV) your heavenly father is perfect." - NJB. But God (and only God) is absolutely perfect. So what happens when you apply the same type of trinitarian reasoning as above to this scripture? - - The same thing happens if you insist on interpreting kathos at John 17:18 with the "exactly equal" understanding: Jesus' followers, in that case, were spirit creatures in heaven before the creation of the earth [and equally God, trinitarians would be forced to say], and Jesus sent them to earth to assume fleshly bodies and to die sacrificial deaths to ransom all of mankind! Surely such an interpretation of kathos in this scripture is unacceptable to Christians!)
Another interpretation for Jn 5:23 for those who will not acknowledge the truth of the above grammatical and contextual evidence, but insist on an "absolute equality of honor" interpretation:
Just as an official representative or ambassador sent from a king was to be treated by the king's subjects with the same honor as the king himself (when the ambassador was acting in his official capacity) in those times, so Jesus (sent by God himself) was to be given the same honor in his capacity as God's appointed judge as God himself would expect. Although the honor actually due the individual ambassador in his own right may have been very little (if any), when he was representing the king, the honor given to him was considered to be actually given through this representative to the king himself! Honoring Jesus' judgments would be honoring the one who sent him. "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." - Jn 5:23.
For more, see:
Trinity Indexes
Examining Trinity 'Proof Texts'
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Some trinitarians insist that if we honor the Son just as we honor the only true God (in the person of the Father), then we are honoring him as God!
However, kathos simply does not have to mean "exactly equal" as these trinitarians want us to believe. Therefore John 5:23 does not have to mean that the honor given to the Son has to be exactly equal in quantity and quality as that given to the Father.
For example,
"just as [kathos] Moses lifted up the [copper] serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up" - John 3:14, NRSV.
These two events are hardly exactly equal. There is a degree of similarity only. Just as there was a "lifting up" in one part of the comparison, there was also a "lifting up" (of a different kind and to a different degree) in the other part. We know Moses didn't lift up a timber as large and heavy as the one Jesus died on. We know he didn't swing it up and anchor one end in a hole in the ground until the copper serpent died a horrible death. We know that the one act was much more important than the other in all respects. It was a similar act only in a certain respect and to a certain degree.
And examine Luke 11:30,
"Just as [kathos] Jonah became a sign to the people of Ninevah, so the Son of man will be to this generation," - NRSV
This does not mean the two signs are equal either literally or figuratively. The details of the sign to the Ninevites were very different from the sign of Jesus' death and resurrection. The degree of importance of the sign of Jonah was much less than that of Jesus!
And John 17:16,
"[Jesus followers] are not of the world, just as [kathos] I am not of the world." - NKJV
It would be foolish to insist that, in every aspect of the phrase, Jesus' followers were not of the world precisely as he was not. We could, in such a case, end up `proving' that Jesus' followers had been created in heaven as spirit persons before all the rest of creation, just as he had been. (Or for trinitarians, that they had always existed as God Himself from all eternity.)
It seems evident from context alone that kathos, as used by Jesus in all the above examples at least, merely means that one event or circumstance is just as certain as the other event:
(1) "Just as certainly as Moses lifted up the copper serpent in the desert, so must the
Son of man be lifted up."
(2) "Just as surely as Jonah became a sign ..., so the Son of man will be to this
generation."
(3) "[Jesus' followers] are not of the world, just as surely as I am not of the world."
(3) "[Jesus' followers] are not of the world, just as surely as I am not of the world."
(4) "That all may honor the Son just as surely as they also honor the Father."
There are many such examples (e.g., Jn 13:15; 17:18; 1 Jn 4:17 ["like" in NIV]). They also illustrate the fact that the honor of the Son may be of a lesser degree and/or kind than that of the Father in spite of "just as" [kathos] at John 5:23.
(There is another word that can mean "as," "just as," "equal to," etc. That is wV - see Thayer, # 5613, [2. c.]. At Matt. 5:48 we read: "You [true worshipers of God] must therefore be perfect, just as (wV) your heavenly father is perfect." - NJB. But God (and only God) is absolutely perfect. So what happens when you apply the same type of trinitarian reasoning as above to this scripture? - - The same thing happens if you insist on interpreting kathos at John 17:18 with the "exactly equal" understanding: Jesus' followers, in that case, were spirit creatures in heaven before the creation of the earth [and equally God, trinitarians would be forced to say], and Jesus sent them to earth to assume fleshly bodies and to die sacrificial deaths to ransom all of mankind! Surely such an interpretation of kathos in this scripture is unacceptable to Christians!)
Another interpretation for Jn 5:23 for those who will not acknowledge the truth of the above grammatical and contextual evidence, but insist on an "absolute equality of honor" interpretation:
Just as an official representative or ambassador sent from a king was to be treated by the king's subjects with the same honor as the king himself (when the ambassador was acting in his official capacity) in those times, so Jesus (sent by God himself) was to be given the same honor in his capacity as God's appointed judge as God himself would expect. Although the honor actually due the individual ambassador in his own right may have been very little (if any), when he was representing the king, the honor given to him was considered to be actually given through this representative to the king himself! Honoring Jesus' judgments would be honoring the one who sent him. "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." - Jn 5:23.
For more, see:
Examining Trinity 'Proof Texts'
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Saturday, April 17, 2010
How does God view images that are objects of worship and what does His Word say about the making of them?
Ezek. 14:6, ASV: "Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Return ye, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations."
Ezek. 7:20, NLT: "They were proud of their gold jewelry and used it to make vile and detestable idols. That is why I will make all their wealth disgusting ["uncleanness," Dy; "refuse," NAB] to them."
Ex. 20:4, 5, JB: "You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them ["bow down before them or worship them," NAB]. For I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God." (Notice that the prohibition was against making images and bowing down before them.)
Lev. 26:1, ASV: "Ye shall make you no idols, neither shall ye rear you up a graven image, or a pillar, neither shall ye place any figured stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am Jehovah your God."
2 Cor. 6:16, JB: "The temple of God has no common ground with idols, and that is what we are—the temple of the living God."
1 John 5:21, NAB: "My little children, be on your guard against idols ["idols," Dy, CC; "false gods," JB]."
Jer. 10:14, 15, JB: "Every goldsmith blushes for the idol he has made, since his images are nothing but delusion, with no breath in them. They are a Nothing, a laughable production."
Isa. 44:13-19, JB: "The wood carver takes his measurements, outlines the image with chalk, carves it with chisels, following the outline with dividers. He shapes it to human proportions, and gives it a human face, for it to live in a temple. He cut down a cedar, or else took a cypress or an oak which he selected from the trees in the forest, or maybe he planted a cedar and the rain made it grow. For the common man it is so much fuel; he uses it to warm himself, he also burns it to bake his bread. But this fellow makes a god of it and worships it; he makes an idol of it and bows down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire, on the live embers he roasts meat, eats it and is replete. He warms himself too. `Ah!' says he `I am warm; I have a fire here!' With the rest he makes his god, his idol; he bows down before it and worships it and prays to it. `Save me,' he says `because you are my god.' They know nothing, understand nothing. Their eyes are shut to all seeing, their heart to all reason. They never think, they lack the knowledge and wit to say, `I burned half of it on the fire, I baked bread on the live embers, I roasted meat and ate it, and am I to make some abomination of what remains? Am I to bow down before a block of wood?'"
For more, see:
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship?
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship? (WBTS article)
Should Images, "Patron Saints" or the Rosary be used in prayer? (WBTS article)
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Ezek. 7:20, NLT: "They were proud of their gold jewelry and used it to make vile and detestable idols. That is why I will make all their wealth disgusting ["uncleanness," Dy; "refuse," NAB] to them."
Ex. 20:4, 5, JB: "You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them ["bow down before them or worship them," NAB]. For I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God." (Notice that the prohibition was against making images and bowing down before them.)
Lev. 26:1, ASV: "Ye shall make you no idols, neither shall ye rear you up a graven image, or a pillar, neither shall ye place any figured stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am Jehovah your God."
2 Cor. 6:16, JB: "The temple of God has no common ground with idols, and that is what we are—the temple of the living God."
1 John 5:21, NAB: "My little children, be on your guard against idols ["idols," Dy, CC; "false gods," JB]."
Jer. 10:14, 15, JB: "Every goldsmith blushes for the idol he has made, since his images are nothing but delusion, with no breath in them. They are a Nothing, a laughable production."
Isa. 44:13-19, JB: "The wood carver takes his measurements, outlines the image with chalk, carves it with chisels, following the outline with dividers. He shapes it to human proportions, and gives it a human face, for it to live in a temple. He cut down a cedar, or else took a cypress or an oak which he selected from the trees in the forest, or maybe he planted a cedar and the rain made it grow. For the common man it is so much fuel; he uses it to warm himself, he also burns it to bake his bread. But this fellow makes a god of it and worships it; he makes an idol of it and bows down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire, on the live embers he roasts meat, eats it and is replete. He warms himself too. `Ah!' says he `I am warm; I have a fire here!' With the rest he makes his god, his idol; he bows down before it and worships it and prays to it. `Save me,' he says `because you are my god.' They know nothing, understand nothing. Their eyes are shut to all seeing, their heart to all reason. They never think, they lack the knowledge and wit to say, `I burned half of it on the fire, I baked bread on the live embers, I roasted meat and ate it, and am I to make some abomination of what remains? Am I to bow down before a block of wood?'"
For more, see:
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship?
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship? (WBTS article)
Should Images, "Patron Saints" or the Rosary be used in prayer? (WBTS article)
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
What effect could use of images in worship have on our own future?
Deut. 4:25, 26, JB: "If you act perversely, making a carved image in one shape or another ["some idol," Kx; "any similitude," Dy], doing what displeases Yahweh and angers him, on that day I will call heaven and earth to witness against you; . . . you shall be utterly destroyed." (Malachi 3:5, 6 shows that God's viewpoint has not changed.)
Ps. 115:4-8, NASB: "Their idols are silver and gold, The work of man's hands. They have mouths, but they cannot speak ; They have eyes, but they cannot see ; They have ears, but they cannot hear ; They have noses, but they cannot smell ; They have hands, but they cannot feel ; They have feet, but they cannot walk ; They cannot make a sound with their throat. Those who make them will become like them."
For more, see:
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship?
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship? (WBTS article)
Should Images, "Patron Saints" or the Rosary be used in prayer? (WBTS article)
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Ps. 115:4-8, NASB: "Their idols are silver and gold, The work of man's hands. They have mouths, but they cannot speak ; They have eyes, but they cannot see ; They have ears, but they cannot hear ; They have noses, but they cannot smell ; They have hands, but they cannot feel ; They have feet, but they cannot walk ; They cannot make a sound with their throat. Those who make them will become like them."
For more, see:
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship?
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship? (WBTS article)
Should Images, "Patron Saints" or the Rosary be used in prayer? (WBTS article)
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Friday, April 16, 2010
Are tattoos for Christians today?
It is significant that the Mosaic Law forbade God's people to tattoo themselves. Leviticus 19:28 says:
"(You) shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am Jehovah." (ASV)
Even though Christians today are not under the Mosaic Law, the prohibition it laid on tattooing is sobering. (Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14, 15) Additionally, if you are a Christian, the Bible counsels that you certainly would not want to make markings on your body—even temporarily—that has any trace of paganism or false worship. (See 2 Corinthians 6:15-18.)
Another thing to consider is whether choosing to get a tattoo would enhance or undermine your claim of being a Christian. As many react negatively, one could ask themselves, "How may others feel about my wearing a tattoo?" (1 Corinthians 10:29-33) Could it be a "cause for stumbling" others? (2 Corinthians 6:3)
One who seeks to please God should also keep in mind that becoming a Christian involves the offering of oneself to God. The Bible says that our bodies are living sacrifices presented to God for his use:
"And so, dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to give your bodies to God. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice – the kind he will accept. When you think of what he has done for you, is this too much to ask?" - Rom 12:1 (NLT)
For more, see:
Should I Get a Tattoo? (Article from the WBTS)
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
"(You) shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am Jehovah." (ASV)
Even though Christians today are not under the Mosaic Law, the prohibition it laid on tattooing is sobering. (Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14, 15) Additionally, if you are a Christian, the Bible counsels that you certainly would not want to make markings on your body—even temporarily—that has any trace of paganism or false worship. (See 2 Corinthians 6:15-18.)
Another thing to consider is whether choosing to get a tattoo would enhance or undermine your claim of being a Christian. As many react negatively, one could ask themselves, "How may others feel about my wearing a tattoo?" (1 Corinthians 10:29-33) Could it be a "cause for stumbling" others? (2 Corinthians 6:3)
One who seeks to please God should also keep in mind that becoming a Christian involves the offering of oneself to God. The Bible says that our bodies are living sacrifices presented to God for his use:
"And so, dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to give your bodies to God. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice – the kind he will accept. When you think of what he has done for you, is this too much to ask?" - Rom 12:1 (NLT)
For more, see:
Should I Get a Tattoo? (Article from the WBTS)
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Should we venerate "saints" as intercessors with God, perhaps using images of them as aids in our worship?
Notice what Peter's response was to a certain situation in the account of Acts 10:25, 26, JB:
"As Peter reached the house Cornelius went out to meet him, knelt at his feet and prostrated himself. But Peter helped him up. `Stand up,' he said `I am only a man after all!'"
Since Peter did not approve of such adoration when he was personally present, he certainly would also not encourage us to kneel before an image of him. (See also Revelation 19:10.)
Jesus clearly states in John 14:6, 14 that our approach to the Father can be only through him and that our requests are to be made in Jesus' name:
"Jesus said: `I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you ask for anything in my name, I will do it.'" (JB)
1 Tim. 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (NASB)
Martin Luther wrote concerning the reverence of Roman Catholic Saints:
"The pity is that we are so blind that we do not leave the devil alone to play his tricks in his own way; rather, we support him and multiply them. I wish people would leave the saints in peace, and not mislead humble folk. What spirit was it that gave the pope authority to canonize saints? Who tells him whether they are holy or not? .... God is just in judging us with His wrath and in allowing the devil to lead us hither and thither, to institute pilgrimages, ... to set about canonizing saints and other foolish things." - p. 458, Martin Luther, Selections From His Writings, Dr. John Dillenberger, Anchor Books, Doubleday Company, Inc., 1961.
For more, see:
How Should We Pray to God? (WBTS article)
Some may say that "saints" act merely as intercessors with God. (John 14:6, 13) Jesus thus ruled out the idea that anyone called a saint could serve in ...
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship?
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship? (WBTS article)
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
"As Peter reached the house Cornelius went out to meet him, knelt at his feet and prostrated himself. But Peter helped him up. `Stand up,' he said `I am only a man after all!'"
Since Peter did not approve of such adoration when he was personally present, he certainly would also not encourage us to kneel before an image of him. (See also Revelation 19:10.)
Jesus clearly states in John 14:6, 14 that our approach to the Father can be only through him and that our requests are to be made in Jesus' name:
"Jesus said: `I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you ask for anything in my name, I will do it.'" (JB)
1 Tim. 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (NASB)
Martin Luther wrote concerning the reverence of Roman Catholic Saints:
"The pity is that we are so blind that we do not leave the devil alone to play his tricks in his own way; rather, we support him and multiply them. I wish people would leave the saints in peace, and not mislead humble folk. What spirit was it that gave the pope authority to canonize saints? Who tells him whether they are holy or not? .... God is just in judging us with His wrath and in allowing the devil to lead us hither and thither, to institute pilgrimages, ... to set about canonizing saints and other foolish things." - p. 458, Martin Luther, Selections From His Writings, Dr. John Dillenberger, Anchor Books, Doubleday Company, Inc., 1961.
For more, see:
How Should We Pray to God? (WBTS article)
Some may say that "saints" act merely as intercessors with God. (John 14:6, 13) Jesus thus ruled out the idea that anyone called a saint could serve in ...
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship?
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship? (WBTS article)
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
May images be used simply as aids in worship of the true God?
The Scriptures provide the clear answer:
Isa. 42:8: "I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images." (ASV)
John 4:23, 24: "True worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth: that is the kind of worshipper the Father wants. God is spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth." (JB) Those who rely on images as aids to devotion are not worshiping God "in spirit" but they depend on what they can see with their physical eyes.
2 Cor. 5:7: "We walk by faith, not by sight." (NAB)
Isa. 40:18: "To whom, then, can we compare God? What image might we find to resemble him?" (NLT)
Acts 17:29: "Since we are the children of God, we have no excuse for thinking that the deity looks like anything in gold, silver or stone that has been carved and designed by a man." (JB)
For more, see:
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship?
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship? (WBTS article)
Should Images, "Patron Saints" or the Rosary be used in prayer? (WBTS article)
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Isa. 42:8: "I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images." (ASV)
John 4:23, 24: "True worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth: that is the kind of worshipper the Father wants. God is spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth." (JB) Those who rely on images as aids to devotion are not worshiping God "in spirit" but they depend on what they can see with their physical eyes.
2 Cor. 5:7: "We walk by faith, not by sight." (NAB)
Isa. 40:18: "To whom, then, can we compare God? What image might we find to resemble him?" (NLT)
Acts 17:29: "Since we are the children of God, we have no excuse for thinking that the deity looks like anything in gold, silver or stone that has been carved and designed by a man." (JB)
For more, see:
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship?
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship? (WBTS article)
Should Images, "Patron Saints" or the Rosary be used in prayer? (WBTS article)
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
How should Christians today feel about any images that they may formerly have venerated?
Christians today are not authorized to destroy images that belong to other people. But Deut. 7:25 and 26 outlines a command to Israel and provides a pattern as to how Christians today should view any images in their possession that they may have venerated:
"You must set fire to all the carved images of their gods, not coveting the gold and silver that covers them; take it and you will be caught in a snare: it is detestable to Yahweh your God. You must not bring any detestable thing into your house or you, like it, will come under the ban too. You must regard them as unclean and loathsome ["thoroughly loathe it and absolutely detest it," NW]." (Deut. 7:25, 26) JB
(Also see Acts 19:19.)
For more, see:
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship?
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship? (WBTS article)
Should Images, "Patron Saints" or the Rosary be used in prayer? (WBTS article)
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
"You must set fire to all the carved images of their gods, not coveting the gold and silver that covers them; take it and you will be caught in a snare: it is detestable to Yahweh your God. You must not bring any detestable thing into your house or you, like it, will come under the ban too. You must regard them as unclean and loathsome ["thoroughly loathe it and absolutely detest it," NW]." (Deut. 7:25, 26) JB
(Also see Acts 19:19.)
For more, see:
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship?
Should Idols / Icons be used in worship? (WBTS article)
Should Images, "Patron Saints" or the Rosary be used in prayer? (WBTS article)
Search For Bible Truths - ARCHIVE
Scriptures Index
Search For Bible Truths - Search Guide
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The "Impossible" Universe
Included in this study paper:
A. The Impossible Beginning
B. Impossible "Coincidences"
C. Impossible Creatures
D. Impossible Earth
A. The Impossible Beginning
There are two major rational possibilities to explain the beginning of our "impossible" universe: Either a creator who has always existed brought it into being, or, the universe has always existed and by some natural cyclic process keeps renewing itself.
The only theory that provides an acceptable answer for many scientists is one that excludes a creator. So, although it is no more difficult to imagine an intelligent being who has always existed than to imagine a highly complex, decaying universe that has always existed, these scientists have produced a theory of a "closed universe." This theory is that there is a cycle of "beginnings" and "endings" for the universe that continues forever. (The idea, apparently, is that it's easier - at least emotionally, for many - to believe in a universe that has always existed [and always will] than to believe in an intelligent creator who has always existed.)
There is strong evidence for the Big Bang theory (or something similar) that approximately 13.7 billion years ago the universe started in a compressed ball of matter (or energy) which exploded out in all directions (and is still expanding today in all directions away from that original point), cooled, and formed the galaxies, stars, planets, etc. that we know today.
The closed universe theory includes the Big Bang Theory. Starting with the Big Bang, then, these theorists say the universe will continue to expand and cool until, after 50 billion years (or so), the stars have burned out, and the gravity of all the remaining matter left in that expanding universe slows and then stops the expansion.
At this point the remaining dead matter of the entire universe will begin to pull together again (because of the internal gravity of the whole mass) and eventually compress to a point where the terrific gravitational pressure will generate so much heat and energy that a new Big Bang will be produced. Then, say these theorists, a new universe will arise like a phoenix from the "ashes" of its previous existence, and the cycle will thus continue forever.
The one necessity these scientists have not been able to verify is the amount of matter remaining in the universe. A certain minimum is required to produce enough gravity to stop the universe's runaway expansion. If there is not enough matter, they admit, the universe must have come into being, once for all time, in a Big Bang and, left to itself, will cool, die, and expand forever (an open universe). This scenario, to most reasonable people, demands a creator, an initial cause!
But scientists have been able to confirm the existence of less than 10% of the matter required to "close" the universe! They have produced some incredible ideas to try to account for the "missing" matter but no real evidence. (See note concerning "dark matter" in appendix.)
But, even IF there were enough matter left in the universe to cause it to stop its rapid expansion and begin to contract, we would STILL not have a "closed universe".
Consider the research of Sidney Bludman, a physicist at the University of Pennsylvania. (See Science `84 - July/August, pp. 7, 10.) Bludman has calculated what would happen IF there were enough matter still left in the universe to eventually stop the expansion and cause a contraction.
Instead of "bouncing" back in a new Big Bang as some physicists have previously speculated, Bludman's calculations
"show that the universe already has too much entropy—that is, far too much of its energy has dissipated into an unreclaimable form—to have enough useful energy left for a bounce."
Now consider what happened during the Big Bang and for billions of years thereafter:
Whether the "Big Bang" started as an incomprehensible ball of energy, some of which was converted into the matter of the universe in the process, (which fits well into my concept of the Creator's method) or whether it started as a big ball of matter which (through tremendous gravitational forces) produced an incomprehensible amount of energy isn't really important.
The same formula developed by Einstein shows the seemingly infinite amount of energy required in the Big Bang and the incomprehensible amount of energy being produced by the billions of billions of stars even today. Much of this energy has been lost as far as a "closed universe" is concerned. The tremendous heat and light has dissipated (and is dissipating today) by the conversion of the universe's matter into energy.
The Big Bang itself lost a tremendous amount of matter from the system as dissipated energy, and 15 billion years (or more) with billions of billions of stars converting their masses into energy has lost a tremendous amount more!
("To better understand the elusive nature of antimatter, we must back up to the beginning of time.
"In the first seconds after the Big Bang, there was no matter, scientists suspect. Just energy. As the universe expanded and cooled, particles of regular matter and antimatter were formed in almost equal amounts.
"But, theory holds, a slightly higher percentage of regular matter developed [?] -- perhaps just one part in a million -- for unknown reasons. That was all the edge needed for regular matter to win the longest running war in the cosmos.
"'When the matter and antimatter came into contact they annihilated, and only the residual amount of matter was left to form our current universe,' Share says." - "The Reality of Antimatter" By Robert Roy Britt Senior Science Writer posted: 07:00 am ET - 29 September 2003.)
So, even IF one Big Bang left enough matter to close the universe once, it would not be able to reach that critical density required for a new Big Bang. But even IF it did, somehow, it is obvious that the process could not possibly have gone on forever! The amounts of matter/energy lost in each theoretical cycle are incomprehensibly large, but even if only a teaspoonful were lost each time it could not have lasted forever until now! (How many times can you keep making a new candle from the wax drippings of the old one?)
As physicist Bludman puts it:
"the universe is converting matter to energy so fast, that even if there is plenty of matter available [now], there won't be enough energy left for another big bang in 30 billion years." - Popular Mechanics, Dec. 1984, p.24.
In addition, astrophysicists have discovered an incredible number of clusters, groupings, and complex lattice-like structures of galaxies extending many hundreds of light-years in length. All of this structure is unexplainable to scientists. They say the Big Bang was extremely smooth and uniform, according to the background radiation it left behind. But such a smooth, uniform beginning, left to itself, should not have led to such massive and complex structures at this point in time. Noted astrophysicist Margaret Geller of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, admits she cannot begin to understand what she sees. Gravity alone cannot account for these amazing structures. "I often feel," she admits, "we are missing some fundamental element in our attempts to understand this structure."
Andre Linde, one of the originators of the popular inflationary version of the Big Bang theory, admits that there is simply no way (for non-Creationists) to account for the most fundamental and important question of all, "Explaining this initial singularity - where and when [and how] it all began - still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology."
Someone brought this universe into existence once, probably about 13.7 billion years ago, and carefully, meticulously intervened throughout its growth to ensure its present characteristics. That someone has always existed, but this universe has not, and, without His intervention, this universe will eventually die. There cannot be a self-existent cycle of energy-bleeding universes for all eternity.
B. Impossible "Coincidences"
There is another problem for anti-creation scientists concerning the beginning of our universe. Science `84 explains,
"The universe is figuratively balanced on a knife-edge. Suppose ... that the density had been a little too high in the beginning. Then, according to Einstein's general relativity, the universe would never have gone anywhere. The gravitational attraction of one particle for another would have quickly brought the expansion to a halt and the universe would have collapsed back into a point—more of a `Big Burp' than a Big Bang.
"Suppose, on the other hand, that the density had been a little too low in the beginning. Then there would have been no problem with a Big Burp. In fact, the universe would have continued to expand forever—but so rapidly that particles of matter never would have been able to catch each other. Stars and galaxies never would have formed. We wouldn't be here to worry about it.
"... the early universe must have started out very close to a certain critical density of matter. The problem is that it had to be absurdly close. Princeton University physicists Robert H. Dicke and P. James E. Peebles, who were the first to discuss the problem in 1979, calculated that the real density must have differed from the critical density by less than one-quadrillionth of one percent ....
"THIS CAN'T BE COINCIDENCE." - p. 50, January/February, 1984 issue.
Expanding on these scientific observations, Science Digest stated:
"Something strange, it seems, is happening to the universe. In the words of British astronomer Fred Hoyle, it is as though somebody had been `monkeying around' with the laws of nature. And not only Hoyle but an increasing number of other scientists are baffled by a string of apparent `accidents' and `coincidences' so long that it cannot be dismissed.
"At the heart of the mystery lies the discovery that many of the familiar structures of the physical world—atoms, stars, galaxies, and life itself—are remarkably sensitive to the precise form in which the fundamental laws of physics manifest themselves. So sensitive are they that the slightest shift in nature's parameters would bring about a catastrophic change in the organization of the cosmos. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe work properly.
"Consider, for example, the structure of atomic nuclei. The atom's protons and neutrons are bound tightly together within its nucleus by a strange cohesive force. But what would happen if this force were not so strong? A reduction of only a few percentage points would mean that the simplest composite nucleus, deuterium's—consisting of a single proton and a neutron glued together—would come unstuck and fly apart.
"In that case, the sun, which uses deuterium in its fuel chain, would be in severe difficulties, as would most other stars. But if the nuclear force were very slightly stronger, an even worse catastrophe would ensue. As physicist Freeman Dyson has pointed out, it would then be possible for two protons to stick together....
"If this strong-force condition had obtained when the Big Bang occurred, when all the cosmic material was highly compressed, such proton `marriages' would have proliferated, initiating a runaway nuclear reaction that would have denuded the universe of free protons, which are the nuclei of hydrogen. Without hydrogen there would be no stable stars that, like the sun, use hydrogen as their fuel.
"Astrophysicist Brandon Carter has discovered yet another touch-and-go aspect of stellar structure. The life of a star is one long struggle between gravity, which tries to crush it, and the forces of electromagnetism, which supply the support that keeps the star from collapsing. The appearance of a star depends on a subtle and improbable balance of the numbers that characterize the strength of the force of gravity and that of electromagnetism. A truly minute shift would turn all stars into either blue giants or red dwarfs.
"WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? [emphasis by Science Digest writer] .... Scientists are aware that if the catalog of `happy accidents'—of which I have given only a sample—had not worked out so propitiously, we should not be around to comment on the fact. Any old universe won't do—it has to be a well-organized job." - Science Digest, October 1983, p. 24.
And other "coincidences" are constantly being discovered. Take the type of planets to be found in a star system. For higher life forms to survive on an earth-type planet there must be other planets. Specifically there must be a giant with the mass of our Jupiter at the proper distance from the life-bearing planet.
"... from its safe distance of half a billion miles [too far away to threaten the earth], Jupiter appears to have been Earth's guardian angel: it has protected our fragile, life-bearing globe from a deadly barrage of comets.
"George Wetherill, a planetary scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington D.C., reached this conclusion after simulating the birth of solar systems on a desktop computer. In every simulation he ran, rocky planets similar in size to Earth assembled from small chunks of debris orbiting near the central star. Larger, gaseous planets formed farther out, along with scads of icy comets zinging around in eccentric orbits.
"As long as one of those gaseous planets has the mass and gravitational pull of Jupiter, Wetherill found, most of the comets never get the chance to collide with one of the inner planets. .... In systems lacking Jupiter-size planets, however, the small inner worlds are relentlessly bombarded. Without a full-size Jupiter, Wetherill estimates, Earth would have been struck by comets at least 1000 times more often, and catastrophic impacts of the kind that probably exterminated the dinosaurs would have occurred every 100,000 years or so instead of every 100 million.
"`It may well be that if Jupiter weren't there, we wouldn't be here either,' says Wetherill. ....
"Unfortunately for devotees of extraterrestrial civilizations, Wetherill's simulations also indicate that Jupiter-size planets might be relatively rare in the cosmos. .... Which means that solar systems where life can evolve without being continually obliterated by comets may not be very common." - p. 15, July 1993, Discover.
C. Impossible Creatures
(For a more detailed discussion see the 15 July 1978 Watchtower.)
There are at least 5 pitfalls to the evolutionary theory for the beginning of life.
1. There is simply no real evidence to support the speculation that the earth's atmosphere once had the necessary gases in the right proportion to start the chain reactions that most evolutionists believe led to spontaneous life production.
2. If such an atmosphere did exist at one time, and if the proper amino acids were produced, they would have been destroyed by the same source of energy that split the methane and water vapor in the first place. Dr. D. E. Hull wrote in the May 28, 1960, scientific magazine Nature:
"The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them."
And John Horgan wrote in a 1991 Scientific American magazine:
"Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere ... suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere ..... Such an atmosphere [carbon and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life."
3. The odds against hundreds of thousands of "left-handed" amino acids (as are found in living things) coming together out of an original equal mix of "left-handed" and "right-handed" has been compared to a man making two kinds of bricks, red and yellow. After he has made a pile of millions of red and yellow bricks all mixed together he takes a gigantic steam shovel and scoops several hundred thousand bricks out of the pile, and, by chance, every one of them is a red brick! In the same way, by chance, every one of the hundreds of thousands of amino acids forming the simplest one-celled organism we need as the first life form must be "left-handed."
4. The different kinds of amino acids of our first living, reproducing organism must not only come together in the right kind and amount, they must also link together in the correct order. So the huge steam shovel must not only scoop up all red bricks (left-handed amino acids), but also accidentally drop them somehow each into its proper spot!
5. A cell membrane is extremely complex, made up of sugar, protein, and fatty molecules. It is essential for a living cell. But there is no plausible explanation how even the fats in the complex membrane could have originated by themselves (p.145, The Origin of Life, Bernal)! To find the final overall odds for a chain of events leading up to a single result you must multiply the odds of each event. For instance, if Robin reaches into a hat that has one white marble and two black ones, there is one chance in three that she will draw the white one. However, if she is presented with two hats each containing one white marble and two black ones the odds multiply not add. Even though there are only 6 marbles altogether, the two events total up to odds of 1 out of 9 (not 1 out of 6). 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/9.
If there had been 3 marbles (1 white and 2 black) in each of three hats the odds would be 1 out of 27 (1/27) that she would draw the three white marbles (1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/27), and so on.
So by multiplying the odds of the different events (considering only the chances of getting the right number and order of left-handed amino acids together as would be found in the simplest theoretically possible self-reproducing organism) we find the odds to be one out of 10 to the 79,360th power (1 followed by 79,360 zeros). It would take about 20 pages just to write the zeros for this number.
Remember, these are only the odds for the somehow already-formed amino acids accidentally coming together in the right kinds and right order. It ignores the odds of the universe accidentally forming in the first place, a planet of just the right type with just the right composition being found in exactly the right position relative to the right type of star, and all the other myriad "accidents" leading up to this point and all the myriad "accidents" after it (such as the right mixture of elements actually coming to life and functioning and reproducing, etc.)
Yes, these are just the odds for the already-made ingredients getting together properly (like someone putting all the already man-made parts of their wrist watch into a sack and shaking them together into a whole watch). And there's only one chance out of a number so huge (1 followed by 79,360 zeros) that it would take 20 pages just to write its zeros.
Dr. Emil Borel, an authority on probabilities, says that if there is less chance for something to happen than 1 in 10 to the 50th power (1 followed by 50 zeros), then it will never happen, no matter how much time is allowed! That number (1 followed by 50 zeros) can be written in barely over one line on this page:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
Actually, the odds for natural evolution are so incredibly poor that even noted evolutionists admit that it is virtually impossible, but they believe it anyway, because the only alternative (creation) is so repugnant to them.
Famed evolutionist Julian Huxley said:
"A little calculation demonstrates how INCREDIBLY IMPROBABLE the results of natural selection can be when enough time is available." When discussing the odds that a horse could have evolved from earlier animals through chance alone he referred to "the FANTASTIC ODDS against getting a number of favorable mutations in one strain through pure chance alone," and then added: "A thousand to the millionth power ... when written out, becomes the figure 1 with three million [zeros] after it; and that would take three large volumes of about five hundred pages each, just to print! Actually this is a meaninglessly large figure, but it shows what a degree of improbability natural selection has to surmount .... One with three million [zeros] after it is the measure of the unlikeliness of a horse—the odds against it happening at all. No one would bet on anything so improbable happening."
Notice that Huxley has only considered the odds starting with an already existing animal. He also assumes that the theory of evolution is a proven fact. The odds he cites are only for one simple, (but already living, reproducing) organism changing into a different more complex one over millions (or even billions) of years. Nevertheless, because the only alternative (a Creator) is emotionally unacceptable to him, Huxley then says: "Yet it has happened." - Awake!, 22 March 1973, p. 23.
Nobel Prize-winning biologist Dr. George Wald admits the same thing:
"One only has to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result I believe, of spontaneous generation."
This belief in the impossible by evolutionists is mainly because they don't want to believe in the alternative.
Biologist D. H. Watson once said: Evolution is
"universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." - Doctors Wald and Watson are quoted in The Watchtower, 15 July 1978, p.7.
These impossible odds, admitted by notable evolutionists, again take into account only a very small range of "impossible" and "accidental" events in the examination of the evolution chain. There are literally thousands of other "impossible" events that must be multiplied in to get a true picture. We have already examined a few of them in the first part of this paper. There is one more we will look at.
What do you think the odds are for the "accidental" fine tuning of the Earth's climate?
D. Impossible Earth
Science `83, July/August, p.100: "The climate of the Earth has varied considerably over time .... Yet what puzzles many scientists is not that the climate varies but that it has remained as stable as it has.
"The Earth, they point out, is quite literally poised between fire and ice. Consider, for example, what would happen if we somehow moved the Earth slightly closer to the sun.
"As the oceans grew warmer, more and more water vapor would begin to steam into the atmosphere ....
"In the end our planet would become a twin of unfortunate Venus, the next planet inward to the sun: a gaseous, dry searing hell, its surface covered with clouds, oppressed by a massive atmosphere of carbon dioxide, and hot enough to melt lead.
"Suppose, on the other hand, we moved the Earth further out from the sun. As the planet grew colder, glaciers would grind [toward the equator].... In the end, the Earth would gleam brilliantly—but its oceans would be frozen solid.
"Thus, the climate is balanced precariously indeed—so precariously that many geologists now believe that tiny, cyclic variations in the Earth's orbit, known as the Milankovitch Cycles, were enough to have triggered the ice ages.
"But geologists ... assure us that the oceans of the earth have remained warm and liquid throughout its 4.6 billion-year history.
"Perhaps this is a lucky accident—after all, if the Earth had not formed at just the right distance from the sun to have liquid oceans, we would not be here to worry about it. But the astrophysicists point out that things aren't quite that simple.
"The sun [as must ALL stars of this life-supporting type] they say, ... is inexorably getting hotter with age. In fact, it is about 40 percent brighter now than when the Earth was born. So how could the climate possibly stay constant? If the Earth is comfortable now, then billions of years ago, under a colder sun, the oceans must have been frozen solid. But they were not. On the other hand, if the oceans were liquid then, why has the sun not broiled us into a second Venus by now?"
The Science `83 article concludes that if continuation of life on the Earth depended on an "accident" that has been
"followed by a remarkable fine-tuning of its atmosphere to a warming sun, then the hopes of finding other intelligence in the universe must be slim indeed."
On the contrary, it appears to me that the "accident" and the "remarkable fine-tuning" over billions of years provide evidence of another, much higher intelligence.
Here, then, is a very brief summation of a very few of the things that the "orthodox" anti-creation scientist has to believe just naturally, accidentally happened.
Somehow, exactly the right amount of matter was compressed into a ball to just exactly the right critical density which set off a tremendous explosion. This explosion (the Big Bang) sent all matter (then an unbelievably hot ball of plasma, or superhot "gas") blasting out in all directions. This gas, as it began to cool, somehow began to clump together in areas. These clumps (due to their own gravity) compressed until galaxies, stars, and planets finally formed.
Somehow there has always been just enough matter to cause the expanding universe to stop expanding and then close and reach critical density time after time forever, in spite of the fact that incredible amounts of matter must be lost (in the form of energy) each time!
Somehow in this particular universe the Earth (and possibly other planets) had just the right mixture of gases in its atmosphere so that somehow just the right kinds of amino acids formed (at least 20 different kinds). Somehow just the right kind and amount of energy at the right time and right spot (which somehow did not also decompose them as it should have) helped form these amino acids. Somehow hundreds of thousands of only the left-handed amino acids came together at exactly the right spots in exactly the right order.
Somehow several hundred different chains of left-handed amino acids then joined together, and then somehow this collection of chains came to life! And somehow these now-living, joined-together chains began to function (take in food, excrete waste, etc.) and reproduce!
This theoretical first and simplest life form then somehow changed into ever more complex higher life forms over a few billion years. For this to happen we had to have a planet of the right size and chemical composition revolving around a special type of a star (which has somehow been allowed to form because of an incredibly precise balance between basic forces). And somehow this planet has had to maintain precisely the right temperature and climate despite the ever-increasing heat and light from that star for billions of years!
The odds against this chain of events are so high that there has never been enough paper (or trees to make the paper) to write all the zeros required to express it!
Even if a person can't see the high probability of the existence of a creator, he must see the distinct possibility of a creator vs. the impossible materialistic belief in a long chain of extremely improbable "coincidences".
Recently two prominent British scientists, sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, admittedly were `driven by logic' to conclude that there MUST be a Creator. `It is quite a shock,' said Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy. The Sri Lankan-born astronomer explained: `From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it.'
Though Wickramasinghe and Hoyle continue to believe that evolution controls the development of life forms, their calculations of the odds against life itself starting spontaneously moved the professors to write: `Once we see ... that the probability of life, originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect "deliberate,"' or created.
Professor Wickramasinghe also said: `I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale .... We were hoping as scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there isn't.'" - Quoted in The Watchtower, 1 Dec. 1981, p. 15.
Most scientists would agree with the idea expressed by "Occam's Razor." Occam's Razor is the concept that (1) the best theory is the one which properly answers the most questions, and (2) if more than one theory answers all the questions then you must choose the simplest one as the best theory.
Not only does the closed universe/evolutionary/"happy accidents" theory not answer all the questions, it even raises many new unanswered questions. It also is far from simple.
The creation concept, however, answers all the questions in the simplest possible way. The only difficulty is believing in an intelligence that has always existed and which we cannot see. Is this more difficult than believing in a universe that has always existed and a cyclic system of universe formation which we not only have not seen but which is provably impossible (because of the tremendous loss of matter each time) and a chain of such highly improbable events as to be absolutely statistically impossible?
It truly is an impossible universe if you deny its Creator!
"For since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking...." - Romans 1:20-21, RSV.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
Material to be analyzed, rewritten, and perhaps included in section A. "The Impossible Beginning":
EQUAL AMOUNTS OF MATTER AND ANTI-MATTER FORMED IN BIG BANG. SO WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE ANTI-MATTER?
"During such experiments [with `atom smashers', or accelerators], physicists confirmed a theory that seemed unbelievable when it was first put forth: every particle of matter has an equivalent particle made of a weird substance called antimatter. In effect, antimatter is a mirror image of ordinary matter. Now that the first such antimatter particles have been discovered inside accelerators, scientists have suggested that there may be vast regions out in space, perhaps even whole galaxies, made up entirely of antimatter. If such an antimatter galaxy were to bump into a galaxy made of ordinary matter, like our Milky Way, the two would totally annihilate each other in a cataclysmic explosion." - p.45.
And, "Another explanation was that quasars might be created by the annihilation of matter and antimatter. Such an encounter could be far more violent than conventional nuclear reactions because all the matter and antimatter involved would be converted into energy." - p.106, Quasars, Pulsars, and Black Holes, Frederick Golden, Pocket Book Edition, 1977.
* * * * *
"About 15 billion years ago an infinitesimally small infinitely dense and hot point of energy erupted in a titanic explosion that created all of space and time and matter and energy - we call it the Big Bang.
"Packets of energy called photons raced through the early universe. Photons are massless, neutral particles that travel at the speed of light and carry electromagnetic energy, such as sunlight. In a sense the universe at this point was light.
"The photons' energy depended on the temperature of the universe. Although the temperature had cooled a lot since the inception of the universe less than a millionth of a second before, it was still enormously hot - hundreds of times hotter than a detonating hydrogen bomb. At these temperatures, matter emerged as elementary particles when photon collided with photon. Einstein's famous equation [E = MC2] beautifully documents this early era when energy and matter flowed back and forth interchangeably. This was also when other massless packets of energy such as neutrinos sprang into existence. But unlike photons, neutrinos very rarely interact with matter.
"The photon collisions produced particles such as electrons, protons, and neutrons. They also produced antiparticles [antimatter] - bits of matter with the same mass but the opposite electrical charge. (The antiparticle of the negatively charged electron, for example, is the positively charged positron.) When photon smashed into photon, it created particle and antiparticle PAIRS shooting off in different directions. Once separated, the particles lasted but instants before each collided with its antiparticle, whereupon the particles annihilated one another and set two photons flying free again.
"All the while the universe was expanding, cooling, and losing energy. The four presently known physical forces appeared - gravity, electromagnetic, and the weak and strong nuclear forces. At one critical moment the universe cooled enough to switch off the free interchange between photons and particles. In one final, annihilating burst the universe turned almost all its protons, neutrons, and electrons into light. This was truly momentous, for today's universe of matter very nearly disappeared forever in that instant. Only a slight overabundance of particles relative to antiparticles allowed particles to win out - and our present universe to exist." - August 1988, Astronomy, p. 81.
(So, "everything" was in existence, although in total, fluidic chaos, and then there was light!! - Gen. 1:1-3)
Although we know (from the basic theory itself as well as from countless observations of the production of antimatter within `accelerators' or `atom smashers') that equal amounts of matter and anti-matter are produced at the same time, the universe now contains extremely little, if any, anti-matter.
"Every second, millions of high-speed particles - mostly protons - arrive on Earth from thousands of trillions of miles away [every "corner' of the universe]. For over 20 years now, physicists have been monitoring these transient samples of the galactic and extragalactic environment, and the evidence is that not one of those cosmic rays started its journey as an antiparticle [anti-matter]." - Science Digest, p.36, Feb. 1985.
Scientists, then, are forced to believe that there were equal amounts of matter and anti-matter formed in the "Big Bang." They also know that within a fraction of a second the anti-matter was gone and only matter was left. To help them accept this "impossibility" [impossible without an intelligent designer/creator] they have had to assume that some "Original Flaw" caused the destruction of slightly more anti-matter than matter. So they speculate that this "flaw" [or "unknown Force"] somehow caused an overabundance of "one part in 10 billion excess of matter over antimatter." That relatively infinitesimal bit of excess matter that makes up our universe today, then, is all that exists of the initially enormous production of mass/energy. In other words, 20 billion times the amount of matter now existing was initially produced (as matter/anti-matter) and annihilated itself in matter/antimatter collisions! This kind of "impossible" universe certainly could not possibly keep on "recycling" by closing and renewing itself forever (or even more than once)!
"Dark Matter"
Many anti-Creation scientists have tried to "find" enough matter to "close" the universe by speculating on the amount of "Dark Matter" or matter that "must" be out there "somewhere" which we simply cannot detect. This speculation has "manufactured" an immense amount of "dark matter" through theoretical speculation only. Even so, this invented "invisible matter" still hasn't been quite enough to provide a "closed universe." But we find now that real evidence has shown much of this speculative "dark matter" to be in actuality much smaller than previously theorized.
Science News, Vol. 136, August 5, 1989, p. 84, tells us:
"But new observations indicate astronomers have overestimated by about a factor of 10 the amount of `dark' matter - mass hidden from view because it does not radiate at any observed wavelength - in the M96 galaxy group that contains the unusual ring. In addition, statistical analysis of 155 other small galactic groups suggests scientists have similarly misjudged the amount of dark matter in these systems...."
"...several astronomers say the revised estimates fit with other observations indicating the heavens hold only enough total mass to generate a relatively weak gravitational tug."
Strangely enough, the August 1989 issue of Scientific American reveals another recent study of a similar nature with similar results. Under the title "Pride and Prejudice" (pp. 16,17) this article tells us:
"Current cosmological prejudice requires that the universe be flat - just balanced between a universe doomed to recollapse [closed] and one destined to expand forever [open]. The cosmos, however, does not appear to be swayed by prejudice. ...the latest evidence [suggests] either that the universe will expand forever or that the bulk of its mass is hidden in exotic, undetected particles."
The article further states,
"All theoretical nucleosynthesis studies show that to produce the observed amounts of helium and deuterium the baryon [protons and neutrons formed by the `big bang'] density must be much less than the critical value, the density to transform the universe from open (ever expanding) to closed (doomed to recollapse)."
The article concludes:
"the two-standard-deviation lower limit to the baryon density of the universe is about 2 percent of the critical density, and the upper limit is about 10 percent.
"These numbers are not new but support previous claims that the universe cannot be closed by baryons alone. Theorists who claim that the universe is exactly flat are, once again, forced to invoke nonbaryonic matter to do the trick."
Our knowledge of the "dark matter" is further increased by a report in the November 1989 Discover magazine. This article tells us that in addition to the motion observed due to the overall expansion of the universe, "our Milky Way and the 20 or so other galaxies that make up the Local Group are all streaming through space at about 370 miles per second." The article explains that this movement is because "the Local Group must be streaming toward a huge mass - a Great Attractor."
"It consists of two dense superclusters - clusters of galaxy clusters - that are centered on a region 150 million light-years from Earth, in the direction of the constellations Hydra and Centaurus." - p. 20.
"The estimated density of the Great Attractor, however," this article concludes, "is so large that its very existence has called the cold-dark-matter theory into question. `The problem,' says MIT astrophysicist Edmund Bertschinger, `is that if perturbations are this large on large scales, they should be even larger on smaller scales. Galaxies ought to be more clustered than they are.' In other words, if enough time has elapsed since the Big Bang for galaxies to coalesce into huge attractors, there shouldn't be so many galaxies still floating in loose clusters; they should all be tightly bunched. At the very least, according to the cold-dark-matter theory, attractors should be rare. But the observations of Scaramella and other astronomers suggest they're not.
"All this makes theoreticians anxious, says Bertschinger - but not anxious enough to throw out cold dark matter. `Even if we were eager to abandon our theories,' he says, `we don't have good guidance for where to turn next.'" - p. 23.
He might as well have concluded: "And how could anyone but a `creationist' actually believe that the universe came into being in a single flash - out of nothingness? Impossible! Non-`creationists' must believe in an eternal, self-existent universe perpetually renewing itself."
Of course there must be some matter in the universe that can't be seen from earth, and measurements which examine the effects of gravity within galaxies and galaxy clusters bear this out according to an article in the December 1989 Astronomy magazine. However, similar measurements used for the entire universe show there simply is not nearly enough total matter (whether "dark" or not) to close the universe.
Science News tells us in its Jan. 20, 1990 issue that Gregory D. Bothun of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and his research team have data measurements which indicate the universe will never stop expanding on its own.
"Bothun, working with Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., determined the velocity of a group of galaxies located on the `surface' of a huge bubble embedded in the so-called Great Wall.... Bothun's measurements show that the gravitational force exerted by the Coma cluster attracts the galaxies on the bubble surface, pulling them off course from the Universe's expansion. The strength of that attraction depends on how much the rest of the mass in the universe pulls the bubble galaxies away from the cluster. By calculating the Coma contribution, Bothun and his colleagues deduce that `the mean mass density' of the universe is less than one-third that required to reverse its outward expansion." - Science News, p. 45.
And Astronomy Magazine concludes:
"If the universe is closed, space of great distances should be curved. Cosmological tests for curvature - such as measurements of the mass and luminosity of nearby-versus-distant elliptical galaxies and counts of galaxies of various magnitudes in a given direction in the sky - consistently indicate a flat or open universe. So far, no measurements have implied a closed universe.
"This goes against what Parker calls a `prejudice' among astronomers for a closed universe. Although there are theoretical reasons to support this more philosophically satisfying concept, the problem is in finding enough mass to close the universe.
".... astronomers have measured galaxies and galaxy clusters and know [by the observable effects of the gravity within these structures] that matter is missing, but they can't identify it. In the case of the universe, however, `you measure and you find it's not there. But you want to believe it's there.'" - p. 119, Astronomy, December 1989.
* * * * *
"UNIVERSE APPEARS OPEN
....
"Using over 15 million test particles to trace the motion of mass through the universe, Bahcall and Cen [astronomers at Princeton University] looked at how matter clustered in their computer model. They found that their model best reproduced observed clustering by galaxies only for low densities, around 25 percent of the critical density. Their result is consistent with several other observable cosmological quantities, such as the recent Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite's discovery of fluctuations in the microwave background radiation.
"More importantly, they also found that models with a density near the critical density are inconsistent with clustering observations. They can construct flat [stable, neither expanding forever nor ultimately collapsing] universe models that agree with individual observations, but these models violate other constraints such as the COBE results or cluster frequency." - pp. 20,21, Astronomy, February 1993.
*****************
Worse yet, at the time of this update [Sept. 2003], it has been determined by measurements that the universe is not only not slowing its expansion, IT IS ACCELERATING!!!
For MUCH more, see:
Creation
The "coincidences" of extra protons, and the very small mass difference between a neutron and proton, etc.
The "Just Right" Status of the Gravitational Force
Why Do Some Scientists Believe in God?
What is the Big Bang Theory?
Is the Earth really only 10,000 years old?
Articles from the WTBS:
Can Science Help You to Find God? - Scientists In Their Own Words
Can Science Help You to Find God? - Where Can You Find Answers?
Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account?
Is It Unscientific to Believe in God?
Is There a CREATOR? - Whom Should You Believe?
Our Awesome Universe - Did the Elements Come About by Chance?
Our Awesome Universe - The Earth—Was it "Founded" by Chance?
OUR UNIQUE SOLAR SYSTEM - HOW IT GOT HERE
RECONCILING Science and Religion
The Awesome Universe - 'Something is Missing'—What?
The Awesome Universe - So Mysterious, yet So Beautiful
The Awesome Universe - What the Big Bang Explains—What It Doesn't
The Earth—Just Right for Us
THE EARTH—Just Right for Us - AN EVERLASTING GIFT FROM THE CREATOR
The Great Designer REVEALED
The Universe — Did It Come About by Chance?
Why I Believe The Bible - A Nuclear Scientist Tells His Story
Why Some Scientists Believe in God
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)