6/25/15

From Mark Copeland... "FAITH IS THE VICTORY!" In Overcoming Sin


                        "FAITH IS THE VICTORY!"

                           In Overcoming Sin

INTRODUCTION

1. The theme for this series is "Faith Is The Victory!", with the 
   following text as the basis for our study...

   For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the
   victory that has overcome the world; our faith. Who is he who
   overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son
   of God?  (1Jn 5:4-5)

2. In our previous study, we saw that the faith which overcomes the 
   world is...
   a. A strong conviction and trust in Jesus:
      1) As the Christ, the Son of God - cf. Ac 8:37
      2) As the way, the truth, and the life - cf. Jn 14:6-7
      3) Who alone provides the way to God and eternal life - cf. Jn 6:
         68-69
   b. A strong conviction and trust in Jesus that comes by:
      1) The Word of God - Ro 10:17
      2) The evidence provided by the Word of God - Jn 20:30-31

3. The "world" we can overcome by faith in Jesus includes anything that
   can hinder our relationship with God, even such things as...
   a. Anxiety           e. Discontentment 
   b. Boredom           f. Fear
   c. Depression        g. Grief
   d. Despair           h. Loneliness

4. Our purpose in this series is to illustrate how faith in Jesus helps
   us to overcome such things, but it is important that we first talk
   about overcoming SIN...
   a. While sin is not taken too seriously these days, it should be
   b. The problem of sin must be overcome if we are to overcome 
      anything else
      1) In some cases, sin may be the underlying cause of problems we
         face
      2) In any case, unless we overcome sin, we will not have God's 
         help to overcome the problems before us! - cf. Isa 59:1-2; 
         1Pe 3:12

5. In this lesson, I wish to do two things...
   a. Carefully define the problem of sin
   b. Explain how faith in Jesus can overcome the problem of sin

[Let's begin then by considering...]

I. THE PROBLEM OF SIN

   A. THERE IS THE "GUILT" OF SIN...
      1. First, everyone is guilty of sin - Ro 3:23
         a. Even if one has committed just one sin, it as though they
            have committed them all! - cf. Jm 2:10
         b. That is because sin is so terrible, and God is so holy!
      2. There is both "legal" guilt and "emotional" guilt
         a. Legal guilt means you have violated God's law
            1) God has a Law, and if we break it, He holds us 
               accountable - 1Jn 3:4
            2) The price of such guilt is "death", i.e., eternal 
               separation from God - Ro 6:23; Re 21:8
         b. Emotional guilt pertains to one's conscience of sin
            1) When we know we have done wrong, we feel "guilty"
            2) Our conscience becomes burdened by such "guilt" for our sins
      3. Even if we have so hardened our conscience that we feel no 
         "emotional" guilt, the "legal" guilt remains
         a. God still holds us accountable, and will judge us on the 
            last day - Jn 12:48; Ac 17:30-31
         b. Until then, unforgiven sin also prevents God from coming to
            our aid - Isa 59:1-2; 1Pe 3:12
            1) Which means we must bear our burdens alone
            2) Whatever comfort, peace, and strength God might provide,
               is not for one who remains in their sin! - Isa 57:19-21

   B. THERE IS THE "POWER" OF SIN...
      1. The problem of sin is not limited to guilt
         a. As if the guilt of sin weren't bad enough!
         b. Sin also has the power to enslave a person so that they 
            can't do what they really want to do!
      2. Jesus described the power of sin - Jn 8:31-34
         a. In passage often misapplied to talk about truth leading to
            freedom (e.g., political)
         b. The freedom under consideration is freedom from the slavery
            of sin!
         c. When one commits sin, they become a slave of sin!
      3. Paul vividly depicted what his life was like under the bondage
         of sin, from which the Law of Moses could not deliver - Ro 7:
         14-24
         a. He was "sold under sin" - Ro 7:14
         b. He could not do what he wanted, and what he did not wish to
            do, he did - Ro 7:15
         c. He found that "sin dwells in me" - Ro 7:17,20
         d. Though he desired to do good, "how to perform what is good
            I do not find" - Ro 7:18
         e. He found himself brought "into captivity to the law of sin
            which is in my members" - Ro 7:23
         f. It made him "wretched", crying out for deliverance from
            "this body of death" - Ro 7:24

[Sin is a like a powerful drug, to which we become enslaved (addicted).
Until we somehow are set free from the power of sin, the guilt of sin
separates us from God;  any problem we have, therefore, we face alone,
with no assistance from God!

But through faith in Jesus, there can be victory in overcoming sin!  
Let's see how...]

II. HOW FAITH IN JESUS OVERCOMES SIN

   A. BY PROVIDING THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN...
      1. Remission of sins is promised to those who believe in Jesus 
         - Ac 10:43
         a. Made possible by the shedding of His blood - Ep 1:7
         b. Jesus became our "propitiation" (a sacrifice designed to 
            appease) - 1Jn 2:2; 4:9-10
         c. Through His blood we are "justified" (i.e., declared "not 
            guilty"), and therefore spared from the wrath of God to 
            come - Ro 5:9
      2. Such forgiveness is promised to those whose faith in Jesus 
         moves them to repent and be baptized - Ac 2:38; 3:19
         a. Repentance - that "change of mind" in which we turn from 
            sin to serve God
         b. Baptism - that "burial" in which we are united with Christ
            into His death, that we might be crucified with Him and 
            then rise to walk in newness of life - Ro 6:3-7
      3. Forgiveness continues as we repent and confess our sins in 
         prayer - Ac 8:22; 1Jn 1:9
      -- In this way Jesus deals with the "guilt" of sin (legal and 
         emotional - cf. He 9:14)

   B. BY PROVIDING THE POWER OVER SIN...
      1. In Ro 6:6-7, Paul speaks of freedom from sin...
         a. "we should no longer be slaves of sin"
         b. "...has been freed from sin"
      2. Later, in Ro 8:1-2,12-13 he describes where this "power" 
         comes from...
         a. It is "the law (principle) of the Spirit of life in Christ"
            which frees one from "the law of sin and death"
         b. In particular, how the Spirit enables us to "put to death
            the deeds of the body"
         c. With the aid of the Spirit, we now have the help of God to
            overcome sin! - cf. Ep 3:16,20-21; Php 4:13
      3. The promise of the Spirit was given by both Jesus and His 
         apostles
         a. To those who believe in Him - Jn 7:37-39
         b. To those who repent and are baptized - Ac 2:38-39
         c. I.e., to those who obey Him and become "children of God" 
            - cf. Ac 5:32; Ga 3:26-27; 4:6; 5:16
      -- In this way Jesus deals with the "power" of sin

CONCLUSION

1. To the one who is willing to believe in Jesus, with a trust and 
   conviction to do what He says, then "Faith Is The Victory!"

2. There is certainly victory over SIN...
   a. Over the legal and emotion guilt of sin
   b. Over the power of sin which easily enslaves us
   -- This He does through the gift of His blood, and the gift of the 
      Holy Spirit!

With such wonderful gifts, we can now have the kind of relationship 
with God by which we can also overcome whatever else the world might 
throw at us...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

Has Noah's Ark Been Found? by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.







https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1341



Has Noah's Ark Been Found?

by  Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

Q.

Has Noah’s ark been found?

A.

In short, no, the ark has not been found. However, it is worth digging into this question a little deeper, because claims of discovery or sightings are so frequent.
People have reported seeing the ark many times over the last 150 years. They include Turkish soldiers, Russian pilots, Kurdish villagers, and foreign travelers. Most of the sightings and searches have focused on Greater Ararat (17,011 feet above sea level), although the biblical “mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4), where the ark came to rest, probably refers to a much larger geographic area. The mountains are located in a politically troubled part of eastern Turkey, bordering Armenia and Iran. Ararat’s size and location have contributed to a variety of proposed sites, and some colorful adventures.
Most search efforts in the last few decades have attempted to pinpoint the locations given by previous “eyewitness” reports. One such report receiving much attention in the past year came from George Jammal—a Palestinian living in California. In an unsolicited letter to the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and in a taped interview with ICR scientist John Morris, Jammal claimed to have discovered the ark in 1984. He alleged also to have a piece of wood from the ark, although Morris (1994) says he never was able to confirm this or the location of the find. Then in 1992, Sun Pictures began work on a film called The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark. Although Morris had little confidence in the details of Jammal’s story, he referred Jammal to Sun, who used him extensively. During that interview, Jammal produced the mysterious timber.
The two-hour show, which aired on CBS in February 1993, switched between sensational stories about the discovery of the ark, and excellent scenes portraying evidence for a global flood. In either case, the anti-creationists were not happy. They expected CBS to make a public apology, but CBS and Sun maintained that the show was simply entertainment. What really caused a stir, however, was the revelation that Jammal literally cooked up his piece of wood, working in collusion with prominent humanist Gerald LaRue. Critics have had a field day using this incident to discredit the whole Ark show. Yet while the humanists snicker over their prank, we may ask which is worse: that Sun Pictures naively accepted someone’s claims at face value, or that people worked deliberately to lie and defraud? In any case, the film did not present a verifiable discovery of Noah’s ark, and Morris now regrets his involvement with Jammal (1994, p. 3).
Another controversial claim received wide attention in the early 1990s. Various video tapes and articles were in circulation proclaiming that the ark had been found 12-15 miles south of Greater Ararat (e.g., Yocham, 1991). Actually, this story began more than three decades ago. In 1959, a Turkish pilot had noticed a large, boat-shaped object in aerial photographs of the area, and an article in Life magazine the next year brought it to the world’s attention. Despite high expectations, a scientific expedition in 1960 showed that this was neither a boat nor the remains of Noah’s ark. However, one of the expedition’s members, René Noorbergen, published a book in 1974 claiming that this object was indeed the ark (Shea, 1988, p. 8).
The site’s most vigorous promoter is self-styled biblical archaeologist Ron Wyatt. Since his first visit in 1977, Wyatt has convinced various scientists to investigate the site. While many of these scientists believe in the Flood account, their results, plus surveys carried out by Turkish geologists, have shown convincingly that this boat-shaped object is a natural geologic formation. Various claims, such as having mapped the subsurface structure of a boat or having discovered wooden and metallic artifacts, are all false (Snelling, 1992).
No doubt more claims will come to light in the future. We must ask: Who is making these claims, and can the details be verified? Considering that the Ararat region has experienced volcanic and glacial activity, the likelihood of finding recognizable remains of an ancient wooden vessel is extremely remote. Therefore, Christians should treat ark discovery claims with a high degree of skepticism.

REFERENCES

Morris, John (1994), “Noah’s Ark: Setting the Record Straight,” Acts & Facts, pp. 2-3, January.
Shea, William (1988), “Noah’s Ark,” Archaeology and Biblical Research, 1[1]:6-14,35, Winter.
Snelling, Andrew A. (1992), “Amazing ‘Ark’ Exposé,” Creation Ex Nihilo, 14[4]:26-38, September-November.
Yocham, Virgil (1991), Noah’s Ark (Lubbock, TX: Sunset Extension School, VHS tape recorded June 1991).

Divine Design and the Pine Tree by Dave Miller, Ph.D.







https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1557

Divine Design and the Pine Tree

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The naturalistic explanation given by evolutionists for the existence of the created order cannot meet the dictates of logic that characterize the unencumbered, unprejudiced human mind. The more one investigates the intricacies and complexities of the natural realm, the more self-evident it is that a grand and great Designer is responsible for the existence of the Universe. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming and decisive.
Take, for example, the pine tree. Some 120 species and subspecies of the pine tree exist worldwide (“What Are...?,” n.d.). The Ponderosa pine tree (pinus ponderosa) is one of America’s abundant tree species, covering approximately 27 million acres of land (“Ponderosa Pine,” 1995). A young Ponderosa pine has brownish-black bark that changes to a distinctive orange-brown color as the tree grows older. The bark is segmented into large plate-like structures whose appearance has been likened to a jigsaw puzzle. This unusual design has a purpose. If the tree catches fire, these plates pop off as the bark burns. The tree, in effect, sheds its burning bark! This design, along with the great thickness of the bark, allows the tree to be very resistant to low intensity fires (“Ponderosa Pine,” n.d.). Since design demands a designer, who is responsible for this intricate design?
Ponderosa bark
Ponderosa bark
Courtesy sxc.hu and Jesse Adams
Another species of pine tree is the Lodgepole Pine (pinus contorta), so named since Native Americans used Lodgepole pine for the “lodge poles” in their tepees. This amazing pine tree grows cones that are slightly smaller than a golf ball, are tan when fresh, but turn gray with age. These serotinous cones remain closed until the heat of a forest fire causes them to open. After the fire, the cones open and reseed the forest. The species thus regenerates itself—even though the forest fire kills the tree itself (“Lodgepole Pine,” n.d.). Since such design demands a designer, who is responsible for this ingenious design?
Yet another species of pine tree is the Whitebark Pine (pinus albicaulis). This tree possesses a symbiotic relationship with a bird species known as the Clark’s Nutcracker. The tree is dependent on this bird for reproduction, while the seed of the tree is a major source of food for the bird. This mutualistic relationship is further seen in the fact that Whitebark pinecones do not open and cast seed when they are ripe. The cones remain closed until the Nutcracker comes along, pries the cone open with its bill, and stores the seed within a pouch beneath its tongue. The bird then caches the seed to be used later as a food supply. Some of these seed caches are forgotten, or are not needed, thus enabling the tree to reproduce (“Whitebark Pine,” n.d.). Such amazing design—with no Mind behind it? Illogical!
Ponderosa bark
Ponderosa pine tree
Courtesy bigstockphotos.com and Angela McElroy
The interdependent, interconnected, interpenetrating features of God’s Creation are beyond the capability of man to trace out—let alone to “manage” or “assist.” Neither a pine tree nor a pinecone is sentient. They have no thinking capacity or consciousness. They possess no personhood, soul, or spirit. Pine trees did not get together and discuss the threat of forest fires to their future survival, and then decide to produce pinecones that would remain closed during a fire only to open afterwards. The standard explanations by evolutionists for such wonders of creation are incoherent and nonsensical. Elihu reminded Job: “Behold, God is exalted in His power; Who is a teacher like Him? Who has appointed Him His way, and who has said, ‘You have done wrong’? Remember that you should exalt His work, of which men have sung. All men have seen it; man beholds from afar” (Job 36:22-25—NASB).
Indeed, the realm of nature literally shouts forth the reality of the all-powerful Maker Who alone accounts for the intelligent design of the created order. As the psalmist so eloquently affirmed: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork.... There is no speech, nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Indeed, “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Romans 1:20). Only a foolish person would conclude there is no God (Psalm 14:1).

REFERENCES

“Lodgepole Pine” (no date), USDA Forest Service, [On-line], URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/resources/trees/LodgepolePine.shtml.
“Ponderosa Pine” (no date), USDA Forest Service, [On-line], URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/resources/trees/PonderosaPine.shtml.
“Ponderosa Pine” (1995), Western Wood Products Association, [On-line], URL: http://www.wwpa.org/ppine.htm.
“What Are Pine Trees?” (no date), The Lovett Pinetum Charitable Foundation, [On-line], URL: http://www.lovett-pinetum.org/1whatare.htm.
“Whitebark Pine” (no date), USDA Forest Service, [On-line], URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/resources/trees/WhitebarkPine.shtml.

Assumptions and the Age of the Earth by Michael G. Houts, Ph.D.



https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=5126

Assumptions and the Age of the Earth

by  Michael G. Houts, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P. staff scientist Dr. Houts who holds a Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from MIT and serves as the Nuclear Research Manager for NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.]
Scientific advances continue to confirm the Bible in all areas where science can be applied. Advances in life science have shown that even the simplest life is vastly more complicated than anything humans have ever made, and believing life could somehow “make itself” is more absurd than believing a space shuttle could do the same (Miller, 2013). Research related to the human genome has uncovered the incredible complexity of DNA, and the idea that random mutations followed by natural selection could somehow turn a single cell into all of the different forms of life we see around us is being further discredited each day (Sanford, 2008). In these areas (and others) it is obvious that true science is the Christian’s friend, and the enemy of religions that use evolution as their foundation.
Because true science continues to discredit the Theory of Evolution, atheists have been forced to focus discussion on topics where conclusions are drawn primarily based on the assumptions that are made, and not on actual science. If an unsuspecting individual can be convinced to accept atheistic assumptions, they can then often be convinced that atheism may be true or, at least, that portions of the Bible may be false.
One example is the subject of “age.” When one examines the subject, it becomes clear that all dating methods rely on assumptions that may or may not be correct. Because all dating methods ultimately rely on assumptions that cannot be empirically proven, the battle is no longer a scientific one (where the atheist or agnostic would lose), but a battle to convince individuals (and society) to accept atheistic assumptions without question. Within groups already dedicated to finding an atheistic explanation for the Universe and everything in it, the atheist has the upper hand.

Assumptions Related to Carbon Dating

An excellent example of the importance of assumptions is Carbon-14 dating. In a nutshell, if a person assumes the Bible is false, Carbon-14 dating can be used to “show” the Bible is false. If a person assumes the Bible is true, then Carbon-14 dating is shown to be consistent with the biblical account.
More specifically, an atheist will usually assume that the Earth is billions of years old, and that uniformitarianism has generally prevailed. Although minor adjustments are allowed, an atheist would also typically assume that there have been no large scale changes in the atmospheric ratio of Carbon-14 to carbon (14C/C; currently about one part per trillion) for at least the past several hundred thousand years.
From a Christian perspective, the Bible makes it clear that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago. In addition, a global flood occurred within the past 5,000 years. Uncertainties in the distribution and concentration of Carbon-14 at the end of Creation week, coupled with the potential for significant (two orders of magnitude) changes in Carbon-14 concentration caused by removal of carbon from the biosphere during the Flood, make it impossible to estimate Carbon-14 concentrations in the atmosphere much before a few centuries after the Flood. Additional uncertainties are added due to changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, the Sun’s magnetic field, the cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth’s atmosphere, and other factors which can dramatically affect Carbon-14 production rates.
To estimate the age of a carbon containing sample, the standard equation C = Co (e-λt) is used, where C is the currently measured Carbon-14 (14C) concentration; Co is the 14C concentration at the time of an organism’s death (assumed); e is the base of natural logarithms (2.71828); λ is 0.6931 divided by the half-life of 14C; and t is time. Solving the equation for time (given the current 14C half-life of 5,730 years), one obtains t = ln(C/Co)/-0.000121, where “t” is the time in years since the source of the carbon in the sample died.
The importance of the assumptions that are used to date a specimen can be demonstrated as follows. Suppose a carbon containing sample is found with a Carbon-14 concentration 2% that of today. Using the typical atheistic assumptions stated above, the age would be calculated as t = ln(0.02)/-.000121 = 32,330 years. However, if biblically consistent assumptions are made, a significantly different age would be estimated. For example, if a reasonable assumption was made concerning potential effects of the Flood (for instance, that near the time of the Flood Co was 1/30th that of today), then the same measured data would yield an age of t = ln(0.02/0.0333)/-.000121 = 4,210 years.
From the same measured 14C/C ratio, one could either make atheistic assumptions and obtain a biblically inconsistent date, or make biblically consistent assumptions and obtain a biblically consistent date. The same measured data yields a non-biblical date (32,330 years) if the Bible is presupposed to be wrong (i.e., no Flood and no recent Creation) and a biblically consistent date (4,210 years) if potential effects from even a single biblical event are taken into account.
In addition to the Flood, there are numerous other factors that could affect Co in artifacts created near the time of the Flood. For example, the total energy in the Earth’s magnetic field has been measured to be decreasing with time (Humphreys, 1984). The Earth’s magnetic field shields the Earth from cosmic rays that form Carbon-14 in the Earth’s atmosphere. The stronger the magnetic field, the fewer cosmic rays enter the Earth’s atmosphere, and the lower the amount of Carbon-14 produced. The stronger magnetic field of the past could thus cause carbon-dated objects (using atheistic assumptions) to have a calculated age older than reality. It is also impossible to determine how much (if any) Carbon-14 was present in the original Creation, and if Carbon-14 was present, how it was initially distributed.
From a biblical perspective, the Flood was the most recent physical event that would have had a significant effect on the ratio of 14C/C. Consequently, the effect of assumptions on samples created more than a few centuries after the Flood are greatly reduced. Once the 14C/C ratio had time to stabilize following the Flood, both biblical models and atheistic models would use the same assumption for the initial condition, i.e., that the 14C/C ratio was about the same when the sample was formed as it is today.
Biblical and secular written records generally agree, and when there are disagreements, an assumption is made as to which source to believe. For very old objects, some archeological dating methods (including pottery styles, burial layer, etc.) give biblically inconsistent dates. However, most of these methods are ultimately calibrated to Carbon-14 dating. If the Carbon-14 dates are wrong (due to incorrect assumptions applied to the initial 14C/C ratio), then the dating methods calibrated to those dates will also be wrong. Attempts have also been made to use tree ring patterns for calibration, but those are also influenced by assumptions, especially if the potential for sub-annual tree ring growth following the Flood is taken into account (Miller, 2014).

Assumptions Related to other Radiometric Dating Methods

Assumptions dominate other radiometric dating methods as well. For example, secular radiometric dating methods assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. In addition, assumptions are made about the initial concentration of all of the isotopes that are involved in the dating method, and assumptions are made about the addition or removal of isotopes throughout the life of the sample. If any of these assumptions is incorrect, significant errors can be introduced into the estimated age.
Major anomalies associated with radiometric dating methods can be resolved by biblically consistent models. For example, Carbon-14 is found in diamonds and coal purported to be hundreds of millions of years old. However, Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years, meaning ½ of the atoms decay (in this case beta-decay to Nitrogen-14) every 5,730 years. It was noted by the RATE group that the detectable presence of Carbon-14 in any sample indicates that its age is less (possibly much less) than approximately 100,000 years; otherwise, the Carbon-14 would have decayed below detectable levels (DeYoung, 2005, p. 175; NOTE: RATE [Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth] refers to an eight year research project conducted by the Institute for Creation Research). The presence of Carbon-14 in coal and diamonds strongly contradicts evolutionary theory, which claims  that both coal and diamonds formed millions of years ago. The “problem” (from an evolutionist’s standpoint) of Carbon-14 in coal has also been reported by Lowe (1989, 31:117-120), Giem (2001, 51:6-30), and others. Additional information related to Carbon-14 dating and anomalies is given in Batten, 2002.
Attempts to resolve the contradiction between measured Carbon-14 concentration and assumed age include postulating potential contamination of samples, errors with the equipment used to detect Carbon-14, and in-situ production of Carbon-14 from the decay of uranium or thorium mixed with the sample. Contamination and equipment error have been ruled out, and current decay rates are orders of magnitude lower than those required to make in-situ production a viable explanation (Jull, 1985, 20:676). However, if radioactive decay rates were greatly accelerated (by a factor of a billion or more) during Creation week or the Flood, then additional investigation could be warranted to determine if in-situ production of Carbon-14 could be a potential explanation for at least some of the Carbon-14 in coal and diamonds.
Other observations made by the RATE group are also consistent with periods of greatly accelerated radioactive decay during Creation week or the Flood. One of the findings of the RATE group was excess helium retention in zircons. This finding indicates that based on measured helium diffusion rates, the observed radioactive decay in zircons must have occurred within the past several thousand years. If it had taken longer, the helium generated via alpha decay would have diffused out of the zircons. The group’s observation is that significant radioactive decay has occurred, and it has occurred recently (DeYoung, p. 176).
An additional finding of the RATE group is that ages estimated using parent isotopes that undergo beta decay tend to be significantly different (younger) than ages estimated using parent isotopes that undergo alpha decay. This could suggest that whatever mechanism God used to change decay rates during Creation week and around the time of the Flood had a different effect on alpha emitters than it did on beta emitters (DeYoung, p. 121). The RATE group has also performed research related to radiohalos, fission tracks in zircons, and potential mechanisms for alleviating issues (such as high heating rates) introduced by accelerated radioactive decay (pp. 174-183). Among other implications, the observations of the RATE group indicate that assumptions used in radiometric dating may be false, and that ages estimated through use of radiometric dating may be incorrect by several orders of magnitude.
In addition to recent research performed by both Christian and secular scientists alike, other lines of evidence have been known for years that are consistent with a relatively recent Creation (Humphreys, 2000). These include the rate at which galaxies “wind up” (too fast for long ages), the amount of mud on the seafloor (too little), the amount of sodium in the sea (too little), the rate at which the Earth’s magnetic field is decaying (too fast), the number of stone age skeletons (too few), the development of agriculture (too recent), and numerous others. Biblically based theories also exist for interpreting what we observe in the Universe, given a relatively recent Creation (e.g., Humphreys, 1994; Thompson, 2004; Faulkner, 2013). Other biblically consistent interpretations have also been proposed (Williams and Hartnett, 2005, p. 180).

Assumptions Related to the Origin of the Universe

Assumptions related to “age” are not limited to radiometric dating methods. Perhaps some of the most egregious assumptions are associated with the “Big Bang” theory, the current attempt to develop an atheistic explanation for the origin of the Universe.
Serious contradictions between the predictions of the Big Bang theory and actual astronomical observations have been known for decades. By the mid-1970s, the evidence against the theory had become so overwhelming that “explanations” were required. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were contrived, and initially said to make up 50% of the Universe. That number has since grown and, at present, a total of 96% of the Universe needs to be made of dark matter and dark energy in order to preserve the Big Bang theory.
Christians and non-Christians alike readily acknowledge that dark matter and dark energy are merely hypothetical entities that, by definition, cannot be directly observed. For example, former NASA administrator Mike Griffin once asked the value of “discovering that literally 95% of the Universe consists of dark energy or dark matter, terms for things that we as yet know nothing about? But they make up 95% of our Universe” (Griffin, 2007). He went on to write that someday we may learn to harness these “new things.” When asked about dark energy, physicist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago quipped: “The only thing we know about dark energy is its name” (Griffin, 2007).
While dark matter and dark energy have been given specific properties, those properties were specifically chosen to help resolve serious problems with the Big Bang. Additionally, dark matter and dark energy can be distributed throughout the Universe in any fashion desired.  When observations are still contradicted, concepts such as “dark flow” and “dark light” can be invoked. Other contradictions are resolved by concepts such as “inflation,” which in themselves are merely conjectures aimed at resolving other serious problems with the Big Bang.
With this approach, any set of data can be claimed to support any theory desired. All that is required is the judicious use of “fudge factors.” Consider this mathematical analogy: one could predecide that 100 must  be the answer to the question, “what does X + Y equal?” Values for “X” could then be sought, and no matter what values for “X” were found, a value for “Y” could be chosen to obtain the desired answer. In the analogy, “X” is actual astronomical observations, “100” would be the desired answer (support for the Big Bang theory), and “Y” is the fudge factors (dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc.) needed to make the equation true. The actual astronomical observations (“X”) become somewhat irrelevant, because no matter what data is taken, “Y” (the fudge factors) can be chosen to claim the observations support the Big Bang theory.
Circular reasoning is then invoked to pretend the approach is valid. For example, in the case of the Big Bang theory, maps showing the location of dark matter have been developed. In reality, all these maps show is the specific ways dark matter must be invoked to avoid contradictions between actual observations and the Big Bang theory.
Christians are not the only ones who have noticed the non-scientific nature of the Big Bang theory. For example, in the May 22, 2004 issue of New Scientist, an open letter to the scientific community appeared written primarily by secular scientists (cosmologystatement.org). The letter was subsequently signed by hundreds of other scientists and professors at various institutions. Two representative paragraphs from the letter are as follows.
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles (Lisle, 2008, p. 103, emp. added).
Although the signers of the letter were not necessarily endorsing biblically based theories, unlike atheistic theories, biblically based theories are very consistent with astronomical observations (Faulkner, 2013; Humphreys, 1994).

Adherence to Faulty Assumptions Hinders True Science

Tremendous spiritual damage is done by the promotion of atheism through the pretense of atheistic theories being scientific. Ironically, though, the strict adherence to atheistic theories (regardless of countering evidence) also does tremendous damage to the advancement of science.
For example, for a secular theory of cosmology to be considered, it must adhere to atheistic (and non-scientific) tenets such as the “Copernican Principle,” which essentially states that Earth cannot be at a special location within the Universe. That principle drives not only fundamental assumptions behind the Big Bang theory, but the means by which alternative theories can be seriously pursued.
Consider the August 2009 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science and quoted in the popular press, including USA Today (Vergano, 2009):
Mathematicians have come up with an answer Monday for the mystery of “dark energy” tearing the universe apart at an accelerating rate. It ain’t there. Blake Temple and Joel Smoller suggest that “expanding waves” from the Big Bang “are propelling the trillions of galaxies filling the universe apart…. Dark energy is an illusion if their equations are right.” However, “the only problem is that for the equations to work, we must be ‘literally at the center of the universe’...” says physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe. I think this is plausible mathematics, but it doesn’t seem physically relevant.
Science News publicized an analogous article from Physical Review Letters in 2008, stating:
If Earth and its environs are centered in a vast, billion-light-year-long bubble, relatively free of matter, in turn surrounded by a massive, dense shell of material, then gravity’s tug would cause galaxies inside the void to hurtle toward the spherical concentration of mass, say theorists Robert Caldwell of Dartmouth College and Albert Stebbins of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill. That process would mimic the action of dark energy—a local observer would be tricked into thinking that the universe’s expansion is accelerating (Cowen, 2008).
The article further notes: “But that scenario violates the Copernican principle, a notion near and dear to the hearts of physicists and cosmologists, including Caldwell and Stebbins” (Cowen, 2008).
Both models eliminate the need for “Dark Energy,” the fudge factor that accounts for 73% of the Universe according to the traditional Big Bang theory. However, neither model has been seriously pursued because both violate the arbitrary assumption that the Earth cannot be in a special location (i.e., the “Copernican principle”). Many cosmologists feel a special location would imply the existence of God.
But what if the Earth is in a special location? The secular models described in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science and Physical Review Letters actually correspond quite well with the biblically consistent models proposed by Russ Humphreys and others, especially when the potential effects of gravitational time dilation are taken into account (Humphreys, 1994; Thompson, 2004). These models explain how stars that are billions of light years distant can be seen from an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old, all based on a straightforward reading of the Bible.
The assumption that radioactive decay rates have always been constant may also be hindering scientific progress. For example, scientists have discovered that changes in radioactive decay rates can be induced. The June 8, 2009 CERN Courier noted:
It is a common belief that radioactive decay rates are unchanged by external conditions, despite many examples of small shifts (particularly involving external pressure and K-capture decays) being well documented and understood. However, Fabio Cardone of the Institute per lo Studio dei Materiali Nanostrutturati in Rome and colleagues have shown a dramatic increase—by a factor of 10,000—in the decay rate of thorium-228 in water as a result of ultrasonic cavitation. Exactly what the physics is and whether or not this sort of effect can be scaled up into a technology for nuclear waste treatment remain open issues (Reucroft and Swain, 2009).
Recent observations also suggest that radioactive decay rates (typically assumed to be constant) can change due to causes that are not yet fully understood. For example, in August 2010, a team of scientists from Purdue and Stanford universities announced that the decay of radioactive isotopes fluctuates in sync with the rotation of the Sun’s core. The team has published a series of articles in Astroparticle Physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, and Space Science Reviews. Although the measured change in decay rate is small (~0.1%), the fact that change occurs at all is extremely significant. Team member Jere Jenkins noted: “[W]hat we’re suggesting is that something that can’t interact with anything is changing something that can’t be changed” (Gardner, 2010).
When considering the effects of assumptions on the estimated age of the Earth and Universe, it can also be instructive to look at the effects of assumptions in other areas related to the debate between atheism and the Bible. For example, in 2009 Richard Dawkins wrote: “What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists. It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make up a reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene…unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us” (Dawkins, 2009, p. 332). What if scientists had believed Dawkins, and had given up researching “pseudogenes” because those scientists decided to assume pseudogenes were simply useless evolutionary leftovers? Fortunately most scientists did not, and by 2012 extensive evidence had been uncovered that pseudogenes have functions related to encoding proteins and gene expression. There is also sequence conservation in pseudogenes. In 2012, the ongoing ENCODE project (which includes 32 laboratories from around the world) simultaneously published 30 scientific papers detailing new discoveries. Among their conclusions were that “vast parts of the human genome thought to be ‘junk DNA’ are really filled with millions of cellular ‘switches’ helping choreograph the roles genes play in human life and disease,” and that nearly all DNA “has some function in cellular creation and growth” (Roop, 2012). With advancements in true science, the evolutionist’s argument for assuming “junk DNA” is rapidly fading away, much as their assumption of “vestigial organs” did in the late 20th century.
Biblically consistent assumptions have been shown superior in other areas as well. Models based on those assumptions have successfully predicted the strength and behavior of planetary magnetic fields, where secular models have failed (Humphreys, 1984). Models that take into account effects from the global Flood are not only consistent with the geologic record, but do an excellent job predicting the observed extent and effects of the ice age including the ice sheets that remain today (Oard, 2005). The biblical claim that all humans are descendants of one man and one woman, and that “He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26, NASB) is fully supported by modern genetics (Purdom, 2014). The argument that “science” somehow supports racism (directly or indirectly made by Darwin, Haeckl, Hitler, et al.) has been thoroughly rebuffed (Houts, 2007).

Conclusion

It is difficult to imagine how the Bible could make it any clearer that God created the Universe in six literal days a few thousand years ago. While apparently well meaning attempts have been made to devise compromise positions, the technical and theological problems with these attempts are well documented in the literature (e.g., Lyons, 2014; Thompson, 2000; Sarfati, 2004; Miller, 2012; Mortenson, 2005).
First Peter 3:14-15 states: “But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness andreverence” (NASB, emp. added). Christians must not allow themselves to be intimidated by contemporary human wisdom. While on the surface that “wisdom” can appear convincing, closer examination has always supported the Bible.
The Bible also warns us not to distort Scripture in order to accommodate contemporary human wisdom. Second Peter 3:16 states: “as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction” (NASB).
For some it can be hard to understand how the Earth can be a few thousand years old when they have been told “science” says it is a few billion years old. Individuals in that situation must resist the temptation to distort Scripture in order to pretend the Bible is consistent with that prevailing worldview. Although the distortion may be done with the best of intentions, its end can be disastrous. Proverbs 14:12 tells us: “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”
Throughout history, Christianity has been attacked in a variety of ways. While the attack based on “age” is currently en vogue, it is becoming easier to rebut given advances in true science. Romans 3:4 remains as true today as it was in the first century: “[L]et God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, ‘that you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged’” (NASB).

References

Batten, Don (2002), “Does Carbon Dating Disprove the Bible?” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/media/radio/Carbondating.pdf.
Cowen, Ron (2008), “A Special Place,” Science News, 7[173]:18, June.
Dawkins, Richard (2009) The Greatest Show on Earth (New York: Free Press).
DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AZ: Master Books).
Faulkner, D.R. (2013), “A Proposal for a New Solution to the Light Travel Time Problem,” Answers Research Journal, 6:279–284.
Gardner, Elizabeth (2010), “Purdue-Stanford Team Finds Radioactive Decay Rates Vary With the Sun’s Rotation,” Purdue University News Service, http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100830FischbachJenkinsDec.html.
Giem, P. (2001), “Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon,” Origins, 51:6-30.
Griffin, Michael (2007), “Space Exploration: Real Reasons and Acceptable Reasons,” Quasar Award Dinner, Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership, January 19, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168084main_griffin_quasar_award.pdf.
Houts, Michael (2007), “Evolution is Religion, Not Science: Part 1,” Reason & Revelation, 27[11]:81-87, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2299.
Humphreys, D. Russell (1984) “The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields,” CRSQ , 21[3], December.
Humphreys, D. Russell (1994), Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Humphreys, D. Russell (2000), “Evidence for a Young World,” Answers in Genesis, www.answersingenesis.org.
Jull, A.J.T. (1985), “Carbon-14 Abundances in Uranium Ores and Possible Spontaneous Exotic Emission from U-Series Nuclides,” Meteoritics, 20:676.
Lisle, Jason (2008), “Does the Big Bang Fit With the Bible?” in The New Answers Book 2, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Lowe, D.C. (1989), “Problems Associated with the Use of Coal as a Source of 14C Free Background Material,” Radiocarbon, 31:117-120.
Lyons, Eric (2014), “Creation and the Age of the Earth,” Reason & Revelation, 34[7]:86-89,92-95, July, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1169.
Miller, Jeff (2012), “Literal Creationists Holding Their Ground in the Polls,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/4509.
Miller, Jeff (2013), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Miller, Jeff (2014), “Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate Review: Tying Up Really Loose Ends,” Reason & Revelation,  34[4]:38-47,50-59, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4801
Mortenson, Terry (2005), “‘Millions of Years’ and the Downfall of the Christian West,” Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org.
Oard, Michael J. (2005), The Frozen Record (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research).
Purdom, Georgia (2014), The Genetics of Adam and Eve, Answers in Genesis.
Reucroft, Steve and J. Swain (2009), “Ultrasonic Cavitation of Water Speeds Up Thorium Decay,” CERN Courier, June 8, http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/39158.
Roop, Lee (2012), “DNA Research Breakthrough Features Huntsville’s Hudson Alpha Institute,” Huntsville Times, September 5, http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/09/dna_research_breakthrough_feat.html.
Sanford, J.C. (2008), Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications).
Sarfati, J.D. (2004), Refuting Compromise (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Thompson, Bert (2004), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Vergano, Dan (2009), “Mystery Solved: Dark Energy Isn’t There,” USA Today, http://blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2009/08/mystery-solved-dark-energy-isnt-there.html.
Williams, Alex and John Hartnett (2005), Dismantling the Big Bang (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

California’s Continual War Against Biblical Values by Eric Lyons, M.Min.







https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4517

California’s Continual War Against Biblical Values

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In October 2009, California passed a law that designated every May 22 as gay day, which public schools (K-12) are expected to celebrate. [The day is officially called “Harvey Milk Day” in honor of Mr. Milk, a 1970s homosexual activist (Tran, 2009).] On July 14, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill into law that “require[s] public schools in the state [of California—EL] to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans” (“California Governor…,” 2011, emp. added). What else do California lawmakers have in store for their state?
Earlier this year (2012), California State Senator Ted Lieu authored a bill (SB 1172) that would ban “gay cure” therapy. According to Examiner.com, “The California State Legislature appears to be on the brink of sending Governor Jerry Brown a bill which would impose sanctions for providing professional help intent upon redirecting children’s behavior with regards to sexuality” (Wimer, 2012). This would be “a first-of-its-kind state law that would restrict parents from trying to ‘cure’ their minor children’s same-sex attractions” by taking them to Christian therapists (Crogan, 2012). According to Senator Lieu, “We (the government) intervene all the time to restrict the rights of individuals and parents regarding health issues” (e.g., laws prohibiting minors from purchasing tobacco products and alcohol), so why not step in to stop something that he and others deem unnecessary and damaging (Crogan)?
The bill to ban homosexual therapy in California is simply the latest example of how far the homosexual community (and those who represent them) will go to silence the opposition. One cannot help but wonder what the next step will be? If a Christian therapist in California can no longer counsel a teenager about the sinfulness of homosexual actions and ways to overcome homosexual feelings (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11), how much longer will preachers be able to preach on the sinfulness of it without being prosecuted? How long will it be before DHS knocks on the door of a Christian family and threatens to take away the children if the parents do not discontinue spreading so-called “hate speech” in their home? Where will the intrusion on Christian families who believe in the all-authoritative Word of God end (cf. Romans 1:26-27)?
If SB 1172 is signed into law in California, one also wonders if parents will legally be able to get professional help from Christian counselors regarding the sinfulness of pornography, fornication, pedophilia, bestiality, or some other sexual sin. Again, where will the slippery slope end?
Senator Lieu stated that at least part of his motivation for sponsoring the bill was because he “wanted parents to understand that this therapy is,” according to him, “crazy” (Wimer, 2012). In actuality, what is “crazy” (spiritually speaking) is rejecting God’s will about the sinfulness of all sexual relationships outside of a scriptural marriage between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:1-10). What is foolish is calling “vile,” “shameful…lust” (Romans 1:26-27; cf. Miller and Harrub, 2004) normal and incapable of being controlled.
Two thousand years ago, Peter and John were commanded by Jewish officials “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:18). Their response needs to be echoed from roof tops across America as various governing bodies continue to encroach on our religious freedoms. “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20, emp. added).
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites…will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

REFERENCES

“California Governor Signs Bill Requiring Schools to Teach Gay History” (2011), CNN, http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-14/us/california.LGBT.education_1_california-governor-signs-bill-gay-history-state-textbooks?_s=PM:US.
Crogan, Jim (2012), “California Law Barring Parents from ‘Curing’ Gay Children Moves Through Legislature,” Fox News, August 18, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/18/california-law-barring-parents-from-curing-gay-children-moves-through/.
Miller, Dave and Brad Harrub (2004), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=557.
Tran, Mark (2009), “Arnold Schwarzenegger Signs Law Establishing Harvey Milk Day,” October 13, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/schwarzenneger-law-harvey-milk-day.
Wimer, Keith (2012), “California Senate Bill 1172 Outlaws Counseling for Homosexual Minors,” August 19, http://www.examiner.com/article/california-senate-bill-1172-outlaws-counseling-for-homosexual-minors.

From Gary... Outside the box


Is the glass half empty or half full? I have heard that question seemingly countless times over the years. The question is a good one because your answer indicates whether you are an optimist or a pessimist. Reality teaches us that the glass is always full because in addition to the liquid in it there is also air!!!  This picture brings out yet another aspect of this ancient question - THE GLASS IS REFILLABLE!  How's that for thinking "Outside the box"????  Today, consider the following CHAPTER in light of how someone's thinking about Jesus can CHANGE and then take the simple test at the end.

John, Chapter 9 (WEB)
 1 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth.  2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 

  3  Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in him.   4  I must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day. The night is coming, when no one can work.   5  While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”   6 When he had said this, he spat on the ground, made mud with the saliva, anointed the blind man’s eyes with the mud,  7 and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means “Sent”). So he went away, washed, and came back seeing.  8 The neighbors therefore, and those who saw that he was blind before, said, “Isn’t this he who sat and begged?”  9 Others were saying, “It is he.” Still others were saying, “He looks like him.” 

He said, “I am he.”  10 They therefore were asking him, “How were your eyes opened?” 

  11  He answered, “A man called Jesus made mud, anointed my eyes, and said to me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash.’ So I went away and washed, and I received sight.” 

  12  Then they asked him, “Where is he?” 

He said, “I don’t know.” 

  13  They brought him who had been blind to the Pharisees.  14 It was a Sabbath when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes.  15 Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received his sight. He said to them, “He put mud on my eyes, I washed, and I see.” 

  16  Some therefore of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, because he doesn’t keep the Sabbath.” Others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” There was division among them. 17 Therefore they asked the blind man again, “What do you say about him, because he opened your eyes?” 

He said, “He is a prophet.” 

  18  The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight,  19 and asked them, “Is this your son, whom you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” 

  20  His parents answered them, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind;  21 but how he now sees, we don’t know; or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. He is of age. Ask him. He will speak for himself.”  22 His parents said these things because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if any man would confess him as Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue. 23 Therefore his parents said, “He is of age. Ask him.” 

  24  So they called the man who was blind a second time, and said to him, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.” 

  25  He therefore answered, “I don’t know if he is a sinner. One thing I do know: that though I was blind, now I see.” 

  26  They said to him again, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 

  27  He answered them, “I told you already, and you didn’t listen. Why do you want to hear it again? You don’t also want to become his disciples, do you?” 

  28  They insulted him and said, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.  29 We know that God has spoken to Moses. But as for this man, we don’t know where he comes from.” 

  30  The man answered them, “How amazing! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes.  31 We know that God doesn’t listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God, and does his will, he listens to him.*x1  32 Since the world began it has never been heard of that anyone opened the eyes of someone born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” 

  34  They answered him, “You were altogether born in sins, and do you teach us?” They threw him out. 

  35  Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and finding him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of God?” 

  36  He answered, “Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?” 

  37  Jesus said to him, “You have both seen him, and it is he who speaks with you.” 

  38  He said, “Lord, I believe!” and he worshiped him. 

  39  Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment, that those who don’t see may see; and that those who see may become blind.” 

  40  Those of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” 

  41  Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.

I know this is a long reading, but it is worth it!  Why? Because we as human beings make up our mind about something and often will not change it, no matter what!  But, there are some of us who will change, who will look at a situation and begin to think in a new way.

Over time, the blind man saw Jesus for who he was. Not just with a restored sight, but a realization that he was the Son of God. The Pharisees rejected Jesus because he did not fit in with their preconceived ideas and remained spiritually blind.

This chapter is a test, one that we all face; simply put, will you examine the evidence and acknowledge Jesus for who he really is, or remain blinded by what the unbelieving world has taught you?

God has given a light to guide you; will you see it??? Hint: verse 5, above.