Galaxy's Distance Doesn't Tell Age by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3727

Galaxy's Distance Doesn't Tell Age

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Maggie Fox recently reported that scientists believe they have discovered the “oldest” galaxy ever seen. This galaxy is supposed to be 13.2 billion years old, “only” 480 million years younger than the entire Universe (Fox, 2011). How do scientists arrive at such a great age? They base their calculations on the Big Bang theory and equate distance with age. What the scientists have actually found is what they believe to be the most distant galaxy ever seen. By equating distance with age, they conclude that the most distant galaxy must be the oldest.

If the Big Bang theory is incorrect, however, the assumption that distance equals age is false. It has been repeatedly shown that Big Bang theory cannot possibly be scientifically, mathematically, or historically true (see Thompson, Harrub, and May, 2003). Not only that, it is also true that the dating methods used to arrive at the billions-of-years scenario are faulty (DeYoung, 2005). Thus we can know that a galaxy’s distance does not indicate its age in billions of years. What we “know” (I put the word “know” in quotation marks because science often even gets the distances wrong) is approximately how far the galaxy is. The incorrect interpretation shackled to that knowledge is the idea that distance equals age.

We regularly see this tactic used in the biological sciences. Often a biologist will measure the amount of similarity between two organisms’ molecular structures. The biologist will assume Darwinian evolution to be true and report how closely the organisms are related. Yet similarity only equals relationship if evolution is true (which it is not). The irony of the situation is that these similarity studies are often used as evidence of evolution. This becomes the epitome of circular reasoning: proving evolution by proving how closely organisms are related, and basing that “relationship” on similarities that only “prove” evolution if you assume it in the first place.

As a critically thinking society, we should demand from the scientific community that they keep their incorrect assumptions and faulty interpretations to themselves, and simply report the “facts.” We are reminded of the admonition to “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Distance does not equal age, similarity does not equal relationship, and the Big Bang theory and evolution do not equal good science.

REFERENCES

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Fox, Maggie (2011), “Telescope Spots Oldest Galaxy Ever Seen,” Reuters, http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110127/sc_nm/us_space_galaxy/print.

Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique,” Reason & Revelation, http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2635.

From Whence Came Morals? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2121

From Whence Came Morals?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

“[E]volutionary psychologists believe they are closing in on one of the remaining mysteries of life, the universal ‘moral law’ that underlies our intuitive notions of good and evil.” Such were the words of Newsweek senior editor Jerry Adler in his article, titled “The New Naysayers” (2006).

It has long been understood that morality exists (see Taylor, 1945, p. 83). Even the most renowned atheists have admitted such (see Simpson, 1967, p. 346): there is good and there is evil; there is right and there is wrong. Different people draw the moral line at different places, but “they all agree that there is such a line to be drawn” (Taylor, 1945, p. 83). Why?

Why are humans moral beings if, as evolutionists teach, we merely evolved from lifeless, mindless, unconscious matter over billions of years? Why do humans feel a sense of “ought” to help the poor, weak, and oppressed if we simply evolved by the natural law of “might makes right” (i.e., survival of the fittest)? Adler highlighted Richard Dawkins in his “New Naysayers” article as one of three scholars who “argue that atheism is smarter” (2006, p. 47). Apparently, one example of atheism’s superiority comes from evolutionists’ new explanation for morality, which they describe as “one of the remaining mysteries of life” (p. 48). According to Adler,

Dawkins attempts to show how the highest of human impulses, such as empathy, charity and pity, could have evolved by the same mechanism of natural selection that created the thumb. Biologists understand that the driving force in evolution is the survival and propagation of our genes. They may impel us to instinctive acts of goodness...even when it seems counterproductive to our own interests—say, by risking our life to save someone else. Evolutionary psychology can explain how selfless behavior might have evolved (pp. 48-49, emp. added).

And what exactly are these explanations? (1) “The recipient [of our acts of goodness—EL] may be a blood relation who carries some of our own genes.” (2) “Or our acts may earn us future gratitude, or reputation for bravery that makes us more desirable as mates.” (3) “The impulse for generosity must have evolved while humans lived in small bands in which almost everyone was related, so that goodness became the default human aspiration” (p. 49).

There you have it—atheism’s “smarter” explanations for morality. Although the “driving force” of evolution—natural selection—runs contrariwise to such moral, human impulses as empathy, charity, and pity, now we are told it “may impel us to instinctive acts of goodness...even when it seems counterproductive to our own interests” (p. 48). In summary, our sense of moral “oughtness” allegedly comes (1) from wanting to pass on our genes, (2) from a desire to be a hero and gain popularity, and/or (3) by default.

In actuality, “smarter” atheism is as foolish as ever (Psalm 14:1; 1 Corinthians 1:25). The desire to pass on one’s genes or to be a hero fails to explain the origins of human morality. When a person sees an unfamiliar child hanging from a six-story balcony and feels compelled to save that child from death (even though no one is watching), that sense of moral obligation must be explained in some way other than evolution. When a person is compelled to spend valuable time, money, and energy to help a poor stranger survive, even though such action may mean risking injury or death, naturalistic explanations simply will not do. To say, “goodness became the default human aspiration” is simply a copout for lacking an adequate naturalistic explanation.

Morality exists and makes sense only if there is a God, because only God could have created it. If all naturalistic explanations for the existence of morality have been shown to be inadequate, by default, the only logical explanation must be Supernatural (i.e., God).

REFERENCES

Adler, Jerry (2006), “The New Naysayers,” Newsweek, September 11, pp. 47-49.

Simpson, George Gaylord (1967), The Meaning of Evolution (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), revised edition.

Taylor, A.E. (1945), Does God Exist? (London: Macmillan).

From Nonlife to Nonlife by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1121

From Nonlife to Nonlife

by	Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

Q.

Organic evolution is based on the concept of something inorganic and nonliving becoming organic and living. Do the actual scientific data support such a concept?

A.

How did life arise from nonliving chemicals? This is the most fundamental, yet sketchiest chapter of evolutionary theory.

One proposal is to start with seemingly lifelike chemicals. This is the approach taken by Julius Rebek and his coworkers (Hong, et al., 1992; Feng, et al., 1992). Like DNA, Rebek’s chemicals can make copies of themselves (i.e., replicate). Further, Rebek can make more efficient replicators by subjecting them to ultraviolet radiation. These new varieties outproduce other forms, eventually dominating their test-tube world. Supposedly, these chemicals could provide the missing link between nonlife and life.

Yet, the gap remains because Rebek’s system contains little information (see Hurst and Dawkins, 1992, 357:199). Life is defined by a set of elegant instructions recorded on the DNA molecule, and there is more to life than replication.

Another proposal tries to circumvent the famous chicken-and-egg problem of chemical evolution by starting with RNA. If we think of DNA as the “brain,” then RNA is the “nervous system” carrying the message of protein formation to the rest of the cell. However, the whole process involves crucial enzymes (specialized proteins). So which came first, the protein or the DNA?

The answer, many evolutionists believe, lies in the discovery that a special part of RNA can act like an enzyme. This means it can carry information and do various jobs within the cell. If this is the case, then perhaps evolution worked both ways, turning RNA into DNA for better information storage, and into specialized enzymes for more efficient copying. Last year, the proponents of this RNA world received a boost from the work of Beaudry and Joyce (1992) who used selection and mutations to make a more efficient RNA enzyme.

Some journalists and scientists have made extraordinary claims about this new research. First, they described the techniques and chemical processes in evolutionary terms such as “selection” and “mutation.” One newspaper article hailed Beaudry and Joyce’s work as the “first complete laboratory demonstration of evolution” (Graham, 1992). Second, they believe the experiments show that “darwinian selection is universal for all lifes” (Hurst and Dawkins, 1992, 357:198), not just for “life as we know it.” And third, because this research has a practical application in biotechnology, they wish to promote evolution as a fundamental tool of science, and not a mere theory.

However, using terms such as selection, mutation, and evolution does not explain the origin of life. These experiments entail a great deal of design and technical innovation. The human experimenters are forcing or directing “evolution” to achieve goals they have set (Culotta, 1992). As Leslie Orgel noted, to really show how life could have evolved, we need to start with something that does not require the “intervention of organic chemists” (1992, 358:207).

Further, this research may come closer to Darwin’s arguments than they would really like. By showing that man can use artificial selection to change species dramatically, even within recorded history, Darwin hoped to establish his case for long-term, large-scale evolution by natural selection (1859, pp. 133,153). But this analogy breaks down because artificial selection, by definition, involves human intelligence. The same is true for this recent research. We are seeing nothing more than high-tech horse breeding. Actually, we may be seeing less, because the experiments do not deal with life at all. If anything, they resemble Edison’s efforts to find a better filament for his electric light bulb.

What we must emphasize is that an evolutionist can invent any theory about the origin of life, no matter how implausible it may sound. He might succeed in modeling that theory in the laboratory. However, a model is not necessarily the same as reality; he has not proved that life evolved in that way. Ultimately, all he would have displayed is his God-given intellectual and physical abilities.

REFERENCES

Beaudry, Amber A. and Gerald F. Joyce (1992), “Directed Evolution of an RNA Enzyme,” Science, 257:635-641, July 31.

Culotta, Elizabeth (1992), “Forcing the Evolution of an RNA Enzyme in the Test Tube,” Science, 257:613, July 31.

Darwin, Charles (1859), The Origin of Species (New York: Avenel Books, 1979 reprint of the 1968 Penguin edition).

Feng, Qing, Tae Kyo Park and Julius Rebek, Jr. (1992), “Crossover Reactions Between Synthetic Replicators Yield Active and Inactive Recombinants,” Science, 256:1179-1180, May 22.

Graham, David (1992), “Evolution in the Lab at Scripps,” San Diego-Union Tribune, July 31, pp. A1-A2, July 31.

Hong, Jong-In, Qing Feng, Vincent Rotello and Julius Rebek, Jr. (1992), “Competition, Cooperation, and Mutation: Improving a Synthetic Replicator by Light Irradiation,” Science, 255:848-850, February 14.

Hurst, Lawrence D. and Richard Dawkins (1992), “Life in a Test Tube,” Nature, 357:198-199, May 21.

 

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" The Blind Man At Bethsaida (8:22-26)

 

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

The Blind Man At Bethsaida (8:22-26)

INTRODUCTION

1. Among the many people Jesus healed included the blind...
   a. As foretold by Isaiah - cf. Lk 4:18
   b. Offered as evidence to John the Baptist - cf. Lk 7:20-22

2. The healing of a blind man in our text is unique in two ways...
   a. It is found only in Mark's gospel
   b. It is the only miracle by that occurs in two stages

[Opening our Bibles to our text (Mk 8:22-26), let's first examine...]

I. THE NARRATIVE

   A. JESUS ARRIVES IN BETHSAIDA...
      1. Bethsaida Julias, near where the 5000 had been fed - Mk 8:22; cf. Lk 9:10
      2. On the NE side of the Sea of Galilee, near the entrance of the Jordan

   B. A BLIND MAN IS BROUGHT TO HIM...
      1. By those who begged Jesus to touch him - Mk 8:22
      2. By concerned friends, similar to those who brought the paralytic - cf. Mk 2:3

   C. JESUS TAKES HIM OUT OF THE TOWN...
      1. Leading the blind man by the hand - Mk 8:23
      2. Similar to what He did with the deaf mute - cf. Mk 7:33

   D. JESUS HEALS HIM IN TWO STAGES...
      1. Stage one - Mk 8:23-24
         a. Jesus spat on his eyes and then touched him
            1) Similar to what He did with the deaf mute - cf. Mk 7:33
            2) Perhaps to convey to the blind man His intentions
            3) The spit - His intention was to heal, saliva was thought
               to have medicinal properties
            4) The touch - "Something will be done for your eyes...and I will do it."
         b. When asked if he saw anything, he looked up and said, "I see men like trees, walking"
      2. Stage two - Mk 8:25
         a. Jesus put His hands on his eyes again and made him look up
         b. His sight was completely restored and saw everyone clearly

   E. JESUS SENDS HIM AWAY WITH AN ADMONITION...
      1. To his house, not into town, not to tell anyone - Mk 8:26
      2. Similar to earlier admonitions following His healings - cf. Mk1:44; 5:43; 7:36
      3. Undue attention would hinder His ability to travel and do His work
      4. Especially by the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Herodians - cf. Mk 8:11

[With the account of this unusual miracle fresh on our minds, allow me to share...]

II. SOME OBSERVATIONS

   A. WE DO NOT KNOW WHY JESUS DID IT THIS WAY...
      1. Why take the blind man out of the town of Bethsaida?
         a. To avoid publicity?
         b. To establish a one-to-one relationship with the man?
         c. Because Bethsaida had been judged already? - cf. Mt 11:21-22
      2. Why didn't the man receive perfect sight immediately?
         a. Was it the spiritual condition of the man himself?
         b. Was it to illustrate the slow progress of the disciples' faith? - cf. Mk 8:18
      -- Any explanation is speculation at best

   B. THE LORD DOES NOT ALWAYS DO THINGS THE SAME WAY...
      1. Jesus healed at least eight blind men, using a variety of approaches
         a. Two men were healed by a simple touch of their eyes - Mt 9:27-31
         b. A blind and mute man was simply healed - Mt 12:22
         c. Two more blind men were healed by a simple touch of the eyes - Mt 20:30-34
         d. In our text, the blind man was healed with touch and spittle, in two stages - Mk 8:22-26
         e. Blind Bartimaeus was healed with but a simple word - Mk 10:46-52
         f. A blind man was healed with the anointment of the eyes with
            clay and spittle, followed by washing in the pool of Siloam - Jn 9:1-7
      2. Similarly, prayer is not always answered the same way
         a. God may say "yes" and the prayer answer immediately
         b. God may say "yes, but wait awhile"
         c. God may say "yes, but not in the way you expect"
      -- Faith is content to receive God's working, however He deems proper

   C. SPIRITUAL GROWTH OCCURS IN STAGES...
      1. Similar to how this particular miracle occurred
      2. Such was the case with Jesus' disciples - cf. Mk 8:18
      3. So we should expect our spiritual growth to take time - cf. 1Co 3:1-2; 2Pe 3:18
      -- Faith is patient, understanding that important things often take time

CONCLUSION

1. Many commentators have noted our similarity with "The Blind Man At Bethsaida"...
   a. We are spiritually blinded by sin, in need of "healing" - Ro 3:23
   b. We need the special attention of Jesus to be "healed" - Mt11:28-30; Mk 16:15-16; Col 2:11-13
   c. When Jesus "heals" us of spiritual blindness, it may take awhile to see clearly - He 5:12-14

2. Are you still in sin...?
   a. Blinded by sin, and alienated from the life of God? - cf. Ep 4:17-19
   b. Then you need Jesus to be renewed in righteousness and holiness - cf. Ep 4:20-24

Begin by coming to Jesus through obedience to His gospel, and continue
by walking with Him, seeing more clearly day by day...!   

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

The Deconversion of Christians by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2019/10/29/the-deconversion-of-christians/

The Deconversion of Christians

Do you ever miss being a Christian?”

“No,” replied Anthony B. Pinn comfortably.

In an online story by The ChristianPost, Leonardo Blair relates the deconversion of a professor of humanities and religion at Rice University in Houston, Texas.

Deconversion is a strange-sounding new word to Christians. We’re familiar with conversion. But deconversion? It’s defined as a loss of faith or leaving one’s religion for another religion, or no religion at all.

Professor Pinn professes “no longer being a Christian doesn’t mean that I’m without ritual, without community, that I’m without relationship or without a sense of awe. I continue to have a sense of awe, but it’s secular. I walk outside and I’m baffled by the beauty. I think about life even from an evolutionary perspective and it creates a sense of awe that we are here.”

Pinn reports that his deconversion wasn’t an “aha! moment,” but a “slow build” over a period of years.

Pinn’s loss of faith is reflected in a recently released study by the Pew Research Center that said the number of those who identify as Christians has dropped to 65 percent. And the number of those who identify as “religiously unaffiliated,” which includes atheists, agnostics, and people who don’t identify with any religion, has swelled to 26 percent of the population. That’s a drop of 12% of those identifying as Christians in the last 10 years. The change, Pew noted, was particularly high among young adults.

Blair writes in the Post that “millions of Americans who were once committed Christians have continued to increasingly disengage with their religion in recent decades, and churches have been struggling with the culture shift in which there are no absolute answers.”

While not as dramatic in terms of denying the existence of God and turning to humanism, the problem of deconversion is increasingly growing among the fellowship of churches of Christ in the past decade. It is been troubling to personally see young people who’ve grown up in Christian homes turning away from “the faith once delivered unto the saints.”

While this trend is perplexing, it’s important to realize that it’s not new. The apostle Paul spoke of those in the first century who once were believers but had “made shipwreck of their faith” (1 Tim. 1:9). He also spoke of Demas who had forsaken him and the Lord because he “loved this present world” (2 Tim. 4:10). And he even warned the Ephesian elders that some spiritual shepherds would arise “speaking perverse things,” distorting the truth, and would “draw away disciples after them” (Ax 20:28-30).

In his parable of the Seed and Sower, Jesus reminds us that tribulation, persecution, the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches can choke out the Word. And of course, some are not properly grounded in the first place. Their faith is not deeply rooted in Truth and so they fall away.

Of course, this offers little comfort to those who’ve seen young people in their families and church families “depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits” (1 Tim. 4:1).

It reminds us not to take our young people for granted just because they’ve grown up in Christian homes. To recognize that each person’s faith is personal and individual. It cannot be inherited or inborn. Faith comes through the seed of God’s Word. It must be nurtured and nourished. Spiritually cultivated. Watered. And fertilized.

Furthermore, it’s important to teach new converts not only what we believe, but why we believe it. To provide answers to difficult questions. To patiently deal with doubts. To establish the authority of the Bible. To speak the Truth in love. To ground them in the Truth of God’s Word instead of the traditions of our church. And to fortify their faith in Christ rather than American customs.

All of this points to the Truth of the second part of Jesus’ Great Commission– “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt 28:20).

Conversion does NOT end with baptism. It really just begins. Discipleship is not an event, but an ongoing process.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

SCRIPTURAL HERMENEUTICS AND SALVATION? by steve finnell

 

https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2016/

SCRIPTURAL HERMENEUTICS AND SALVATION? by steve finnell

Those who deny that water baptism is essential for salvation are guilty of improper Scriptural hermeneutics. When studying the Bible to find the answer to the question, "What must I do to be saved," proper hermeneutics is a must. All the Scriptures about salvation must be considered.

Some assert that men are saved by "faith alone." They claim that if water baptism was essential for salvation it would be mentioned every time the gospel was preached and every time salvation is addressed. That argument is nothing less than fallacious, hypocritical rhetoric.

Acts 15:11 "But we believe that through the grace of of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they." (NKJV)

Does the fact that Acts 15:11 only mentions grace prove that men can be saved without faith, without water baptism, without confessing that Jesus was raised from the dead by God, without confessing that Jesus is the Son of God, or without repenting? No, it does not. Proper hermeneutics dictates all relevant Scriptures must be considered.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and not that of yourselves; it is the gift of God,(NKJV)

Does Ephesians 2:8 prove we are saved by grace only or faith only? No, it does not.

Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved...(NKJV)

Because Mark 16:16 does not mention grace. Does that prove  that men can be saved without God's grace? Of course not.

Titus 3:5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. (NKJV)

In Titus 3:5 we are told we are saved because of God's mercy. Since mercy is not mentioned in every Scripture concerning salvation, does that mean God's mercy is not essential in order to be saved? No it does not.

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.(NKJV)

Seeing that Romans 10:9 does not state that grace and immersion in water are part of salvation, does that prove they are not essential in order to be saved? No, it does not.

1 Peter 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism(not the removal of filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,(NKJV)

Does 1 Peter 3:21 prove that water baptism alone saves men? Of course not.


WHAT MEN HAVE TO DO TO BE SAVED? They need to obey the gospel. 2 Thessalonians 1:8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God and those who not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. (NKJV).

THE GOSPEL
Ephesians 2:8
John 3:16
Acts 16:30-31
Acts 2:38
Acts 3:19
Mark 16:16
John 3:5
Romans 10:9
Acts 15:11
Romans 10:13
Acts 22:16
1 Peter 3:21
Galatians 3:27
Romans 6:3-7
Acts 2:21
Ephesians 5:25-27
John 8:24
Acts 8:35-38
Matthew 28:19
John 14:6
Acts 4:10-12
Luke 24:46-47
Acts 2:29-41 ---THE FIRST DAY OF THE LORD'S CHURCH--

--------------------------------------------------

MEN ARE NOT SAVED BY GRACE ALONE.

MEN ARE NOT SAVED BY WATER BAPTISM ALONE.

MEN ARE NOT SAVED BY FAITH ALONE.

MEN ARE NOT SAVED BY CONFESSION ALONE.

Jesus made salvation very simple. HE THAT BELIEVES AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED.    

The Testimony of Enemies by Richard Mansel

 

https://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Mansel/Richard/Dale/1964/testimon.html

The Testimony of Enemies

We recently studied about Judas and why Jesus chose him to be an Apostle knowing the kind of character he possessed. The last reason we examined was Judas' testimony. Matthew 27:3-5 tells us that Judas felt remorse and tried to return the blood money he had received for his betrayal of Jesus. They ignored him. He had given them what they wanted and he was no longer of any use to them. Finding no outlet for his pain, he committed suicide.

Judas was called the "son of perdition" in John 17:12. Only the "Man of Sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is given this terrible title besides Judas. It refers to someone "doomed to eternal misery."

Yet, with Judas being such an evil man, he said, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." This astounding admission matches up with the accounts of so many avowed enemies of the cross. Their testimony is a clarion call to all of today's doubters.

In Job 1:6-12 we find Satan conversing with God about those who belong to Him. Couple this with Satan's words in Genesis 3 and you see that he obviously knows the Divinity of God.

Interestingly, every time demons speak in the New Testament they affirm the divinity of Christ. In Matthew 8:28-34 we find Jesus meeting two demon-possessed men in the "country of the Gergesenes." When they saw Jesus they cried out, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before our time?" (28:29).

Luke 4:40-41 finds Jesus casting out demons who say, "You are the Christ, the Son of God!"

James 2:19 says, "You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe -- and tremble."

Sadly, the so-called 'people of God' are often the ones with doubts.

In 1 Samuel 4:3 we find Israel doubting they can defeat the Philistines. Accordingly, God lets them go down to defeat and the Ark of the Covenant is stolen. Then from 4:6 through 7:1 the enemies of God show more faith in Him than His own people. This is further evidenced in chapter 8 when Israel demanded a king because they had rejected God.

Today we have members of the Lord's church denying the inspiration of the scriptures and teaching evolution. We have atheists in schools of theology where men are receiving their training. We have Muslims saying Jesus was a great prophet of God and 'Christians' saying He was just a 'good teacher.'

Is it any wonder America is in a crises of faith? Many people need to stop listening to so-called 'men of God' and heed, in these respects, the testimony of the enemies of God! Saying God is not real will not make it true.

His word is "settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89) and He will come back "taking vengeance on those who do not know God" (2 Thessalonians 1:8).

Study the Word yourself and find those who are speaking the truth (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Listen to God and His Word and not men (Romans 10:17).

Richard Mansel

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

TRUTH BOMB by Gary Rose

 

I saw this graphic and was a bit unsure as to what a “truth bomb” meant, so I looked it up in the “Urban dictionary”. The site said that it originated from a TV show called 30 rock (which I have never seen) and defined it as...

"truth bomb”

“A fact spoken in clear, easy to understand terms and without bias.”

From: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=truth%20bomb

So, the term “truth bomb” is something that refers to a communication of “THE TRUTH”, based on facts which are given without bias. As far as the bomb part goes, I think it conveys a bit of surprise on the part of the hearer.

The Source of Truth

Today, in our 21^st century truth has become a “relative” concept to many people. This is especially true in the media where facts and straightforward truth is “spinned” (frankly, I prefer the term.. twisted) to take on whatever meaning is consistent with their biases.

The truth is that TRUTH is absolute. Facts are facts and changing THE TRUTH into something else is a lie. Absolute truth comes from the creator. To know God is to come to grips with true reality and understanding of THE TRUTH. The apostle John said...

John 1 ( World English Bible )

¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

² The same was in the beginning with God.

³ All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made.

⁴ In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

⁵ The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn’t overcome it.

⁶ There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.

⁷ The same came as a witness, that he might testify about the light, that all might believe through him.

⁸ He was not the light, but was sent that he might testify about the light.

⁹ The true light that enlightens everyone was coming into the world.

¹⁰ He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world didn’t recognize him.

¹¹ He came to his own, and those who were his own didn’t receive him.

¹² But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name:

¹³ who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

¹⁴ The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

¹⁵ John testified about him. He cried out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was before me.’”

¹⁶ From his fullness we all received grace upon grace.

¹⁷ For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

¹⁸ No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

God has given us truth and it is found in the Bible and therein is refined by the explanations by Jesus and his apostles through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

The Freedom of Truth

Our lives are bound up in what we accept as facts. What we believe has consequences. If we accept only what humans teach as truth, then our future is limited by the limitations of the finite human mind. In other words, we are in bondage to our own intellectual abilities. To overcome this limitation, we need to turn to the Bible to understand the absolute truth of God. Jesus said….

John 8 ( WEB )

³¹ Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples.

³² You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

³³ They answered him, “We are Abraham’s seed, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How do you say, ‘You will be made free?’”

³⁴ Jesus answered them, “Most certainly I tell you, everyone who commits sin is the bondservant of sin.

³⁵ A bondservant doesn’t live in the house forever. A son remains forever.

³⁶ If therefore the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

³⁷ I know that you are Abraham’s seed, yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you.

³⁸ I say the things which I have seen with my Father; and you also do the things which you have seen with your father.”

³⁹ They answered him, “Our father is Abraham.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.

⁴⁰ But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God. Abraham didn’t do this.

⁴¹ You do the works of your father.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father, God.”

⁴² Therefore Jesus said to them, “If God were your father, you would love me, for I came out and have come from God. For I haven’t come of myself, but he sent me.

⁴³ Why don’t you understand my speech? Because you can’t hear my word.

⁴⁴ You are of your father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn’t stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and its father.

⁴⁵ But because I tell the truth, you don’t believe me.

⁴⁶ Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?

⁴⁷ He who is of God hears the words of God. For this cause you don’t hear, because you are not of God.”

⁴⁸ Then the Jews answered him, “Don’t we say well that you are a Samaritan, and have a demon?”

⁴⁹ Jesus answered, “I don’t have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me.

⁵⁰ But I don’t seek my own glory. There is one who seeks and judges.

⁵¹ Most certainly, I tell you, if a person keeps my word, he will never see death.”

⁵² Then the Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets; and you say, ‘If a man keeps my word, he will never taste of death.’

⁵³ Are you greater than our father, Abraham, who died? The prophets died. Who do you make yourself out to be?”

⁵⁴ Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is our God.

⁵⁵ You have not known him, but I know him. If I said, ‘I don’t know him,’ I would be like you, a liar. But I know him, and keep his word.

⁵⁶ Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day. He saw it, and was glad.”

⁵⁷ The Jews therefore said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”

⁵⁸ Jesus said to them, “Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM.”

⁵⁹ Therefore they took up stones to throw at him, but Jesus was hidden, and went out of the temple, having gone through their midst, and so passed by.

The Jews of the 1^st century had the old covenant Scriptures, but Jesus showed them God-in-the-flesh. They simply would not listen, not accept him. In fact, they tried to kill him.

The Way to Truth

Sooner or later we all will ask questions that show our desire to know things that we do not innately understand. Little children ask questions like: Where did I come from or where will I go when I die or why is there evil in the world?

Want to know what life is truly about? Seek Jesus and L-E-A-R-N what genuine truth is. Jesus said…

John 14 ( WEB )

¹ “Don’t let your heart be troubled. Believe in God. Believe also in me.

² In my Father’s house are many homes. If it weren’t so, I would have told you. I am going to prepare a place for you.

³ If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will receive you to myself; that where I am, you may be there also.

⁴ Where I go, you know, and you know the way.”

⁵ Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going. How can we know the way?”

⁶ Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.

Jesus spoke the above words to his twelve disciples and they did in fact believe and learn the truth. In reality there is ONLY ONE way to God, ONE truth and ONE life. Unfortunately, not everyone will accept this “TRUTH BOMB”.

The Choice of Truth

John 18 ( WEB )

³³ Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, called Jesus, and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”

³⁴ Jesus answered him, “Do you say this by yourself, or did others tell you about me?”

³⁵ Pilate answered, “I’m not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered you to me. What have you done?”

³⁶ Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not of this world. If my Kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I wouldn’t be delivered to the Jews. But now my Kingdom is not from here.”

³⁷ Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”

³⁸ Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” When he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no basis for a charge against him.

This passage recounts Jesus’ interaction with Pilate. In the end of this discussion Pilate obviously views Jesus as nothing more than a Philosopher, because he asks the question “What is truth?”.

Pilate’s choice was one of disbelief, what is your choice?