"THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS" The Mystery Of The Resurrection (15:50-53) by Mark Copeland


               The Mystery Of The Resurrection (15:50-53)


1. In his epistle to the Corinthians, Paul argued strongly for the
   resurrection of the dead...
   a. He wondered how some could say there is no resurrection of the
      dead - 1Co 15:12
   b. Indeed, if there is no resurrection, then even Christ is not
      risen! - 1Co 15:13

2. Paul proceeded to reveal much about the resurrection of the dead...
   a. When and how it would happen
   b. What kind of resurrected body there would be

3. Toward the end of his discourse on the resurrection (1Co 15:50-53),
   he called it a "mystery"...
   a. Not that it was hidden or unintelligible
   b. But that what was revealed was previously unknown
   c. Which is how the term "mystery" is often used in the NT 
      - cf. Ro 16:25-26; Ep 3:3-4

[What is "The Mystery Of The Resurrection"?  What has been revealed by
Christ and His apostles about the resurrection, though it may have been
hidden in times past?  They certainly asserted...]


      1. In which both those good and evil will come forth from the
         grave - Jn 5:28-29
      2. Jesus promised that those who believe in Him will be raised
         - Jn 6:39-40,44,54

      1. Peter and John "preached in Jesus the resurrection from the
         dead" - Ac 4:1-2
      2. Paul confessed his hope in the resurrection - Ac 23:6; 24:15
      3. Paul asserted the necessity of the resurrection - 1Co 15:12-23
      4. He taught the doctrine of the resurrection as a source of
         comfort - 1Th 4:16-18

[While there was a hope for the resurrection among the Jews (cf. Ac
23:8), that hope was made stronger by the teaching of Christ and His
apostles.  They also made clear...]


      1. As He reminded the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection 
         - Mt 22:29
      2. For of course, "with God nothing will be impossible" 
          - cf. Lk 1:37

      1. The same power that raised Jesus from the dead - 1Co 6:14
      2. He who raised Jesus from the dead can certainly raise us up
         - 2Co 4:14

[It may be difficult for us to comprehend how the dead can be raised,
but it is not difficult for God to do it (unless your God is too
small!).  Also taught by Christ and his apostles is...]


      1. "All who are in the graves will...come forth" - Jn 5:28-29
      2. Both "those who have done good" and "those who have done evil"
         - ibid.
         a. One to experience "a resurrection of life"
         b. The other "a resurrection of condemnation"

      1. "both of the just and the unjust" - Ac 24:15
      2. "for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made
         alive" - 1Co 15:21-22

[The fact, agent, and universality of the resurrection had been taught
in some measure by prophets of God prior to Christ and His apostles (cf.
Job 19:25-26; Dan 12:1-3).  But what had been a mystery and now more
clearly revealed included...]


      1. Jesus spoke again and again of raising the dead at "the last
         day" - Jn 6:39-40,44,54
      2. Paul wrote of it occurring when Jesus comes again, to deliver
         the kingdom to the Father, having destroyed the last enemy,
         death itself - 1Co 15:22-26
      3. He later says that it will occur at "the last trumpet" 
         - 1Co 15:52

      1. Premillennialists (and perhaps others) teach there will be more
         than just one resurrection
         a. All premillennialists teach at least two resurrections:
            1) The resurrection of believers at the beginning of the
            2) The resurrection of unbelievers at the end of the
         b. Dispensational premillennialists add two more:
            1) The resurrection of tribulation saints at the end of the
               seven-year tribulation
            2) The resurrection of millennial saints at the end of the
      2. Yet the doctrine of several resurrections is found wanting for
         several reasons
         a. The Bible presents the resurrection of believers and
            unbelievers as occurring together - Dan 12:2; Jn 5:28-29;
            Ac 24:14-15; Re 20:11-15
         b. The Bible teaches that believers will be raised at "the last
            day", not several times (and therefore several days, years,
            or a millennium) before the last day! - Jn 6:39-40,44,54
         c. Passages offered in support of several resurrections do not
            necessarily teach what premillennialists say they do
            1) E.g., 1Th 4:13-16 concerns itself with the resurrection
               of the righteous, but that does not demand that the
               wicked are not being raised at the same time
            2) E.g., Re 20:4-6 describes a resurrection of souls, not
               bodies, and the reigning with Christ is likely occurring
               in heaven, not on earth - cf. Re 2:26-27; 3:21

[Finally, what was truly a mystery concerning the resurrection but made
clearer by Paul in our text is...]


      1. Our physical body will serve as the "kernel" from which comes
         an incorruptible and immortal body in which to house the soul
         - 1Co 15:35-37
      2. Our physical body...
         a. Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption! - 1Co 15:42
         b. Sown in dishonor, raised in glory! - 1Co 15:43a
         c. Sown in weakness, raised in power! - 1Co 15:43b
         d. Sown as a natural body, raised as a spiritual body! 
            - 1Co 15:44-49
      3. Those alive at Christ's coming will undergo this change
         a. For flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God 
            - 1Co 15:50
         b. So a change will take place in one instantaneous moment
            - 1Co 15:51-52
         c. In which that which is corruptible and mortal will put on
            incorruption and immortality - 1Co 15:53-54

      1. That which is lowly (the body) will be transformed - Php 3:20-21
      2. It (the body) will be conformed to His glorious body (His
         resurrected body) - ibid.
      3. How is possible?
         a. "according to the working by which He is able even to subdue
            all things to Himself"
         b. In other words, by the power of God! - cf. Mt 22:29


1. There is probably much more about the resurrection that we would like
   to know...

2. But enough of "The Mystery Of The Resurrection" has been revealed...
   a. To take away the sting of death, and the victory of Hades
   b. To give us a victorious hope for the future
   c. To motivate us to serve the Lord until He comes at the last day

   "'O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?'
   The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.
   But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord
   Jesus Christ." - 1Co 15:55-57

   "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always
   abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not
   in vain in the Lord." - 1Co 15:58

Are you making it your aim to be ready for the glorious resurrection to

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker 

The Da Vinci Code and the Dead Sea Scrolls by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


The Da Vinci Code and the Dead Sea Scrolls

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The Schøyen Collection MS 1655/1
In 1947, a number of ancient documents were found (by accident) in a cave on the northwest side of the Dead Sea. This collection of documents, which has become known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, was comprised of old leather and papyrus scrolls and fragments that had been rolled up in earthen jars for centuries. From 1949 to 1956, hundreds of Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts and a few Greek fragments were found in surrounding caves, and are believed by scholars to have been written between 200 B.C. and the first half of the first century A.D. Some of the manuscripts were of Jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings (e.g., 1 Enoch, Tobit, and Jubilees); others are often grouped together as “ascetic” writings (miscellaneous books of rules, poetry, commentary, etc.). The most notable group of documents found in the caves of Qumran near the Dead Sea is the collection of Old Testament books. Every book from the Hebrew Bible was accounted for among the scrolls, except the book of Esther.
The Dead Sea Scrolls make up one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of all times. Jews and Christians often point to these scrolls as evidence for the integrity of the Old Testament text. Prior to 1947, the earliest known Old Testament manuscripts only went back to about A.D. 1000. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Bible scholars have been able to compare the present day text with the text from more than 2,000 years ago. What they have found are copies of Old Testament books separated in time by more than a millennium that are amazingly similar. Indeed, the Old Testament text had been transmitted faithfully through the centuries. As Rene Paché concluded: “Since it can be demonstrated that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transmitted for the last 2,000 years, one may reasonably suppose that it had been so transmitted from the beginning” (1971, p. 191).
So what does all of this have to do with The Da Vinci Code? According to Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code, “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate” (2003a, p. 1, emp. added). Yet notice how Brown uses one of his main fictional characters (Leigh Teabing) in the book. In an attempt to disparage the New Testament documents, Teabing alleged the following about them and their relationship to the Dead Sea Scrolls:
“[S]ome of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert” (Brown, 2003a, p. 234).
“These are photocopies of the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls, which I mentioned earlier,” Teabing said. “The earliest Christian records. Troublingly, they do not match up with the gospels in the Bible” (p. 244).
Although Brown asserted on the very first page of his book that “[a]ll descriptions of...documents...in this novel are accurate” (emp. added), and even though he claimed “absolutely all” of his book is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred (see Brown, 2003b), among the many inaccurate statements he made in his book are those quoted above regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Simply put, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not in any way “Christian records;” they are Jewish writings from a Jewish religious sect, most of which predate the time of Christ (and thus Christianity) by several decades, and in some cases one or two centuries. These scrolls contain no “gospels.” In fact, Jesus of Nazareth is never even mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Such a reckless use of one of the greatest biblical archaeological discoveries ever should cause readers to see The Da Vinci Code for what it really is—a fictional novel bent on raising unnecessary suspicion about the trustworthiness of the Bible. Interestingly, the “documents” Brown used in hopes of casting doubt on Christianity, are, in actuality, some of the greatest pieces of evidence for the reliability of the Old Testament. What’s more, the Old Testament was “the Bible” of the early church. It is from these “Scriptures” that first-century Christians gleaned a greater understanding about Jesus, Who, as taught in the Old Testament, was the Christ, the prophesied Messiah (Acts 8:32-35; 17:10-11; 2 Timothy 3:15-17). In that sense, the Hebrew Scriptures contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls collection marvelously “match up with the gospels in the Bible.”


Brown, Dan (2003a), The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday).
Brown, Dan (2003b), “Today,” NBC, Interview with Matt Lauer, June 9.
Paché, Rene (1971), The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Blind, Biased Failure to See God by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Blind, Biased Failure to See God

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The flagellum that propels bacteria has long been recognized as a marvel of engineering. Scientists know that this rotating wonder, and the assembly to which it is attached, is a tiny but powerful molecular engine. One of nature’s smallest, and yet most powerful, motors rotates at over 200 revolutions per second, driven by incredible torque. Researchers have also long been puzzled by what enables the flagellum to come to a stop, and even reverse its rotation. In recent years they have discovered that it does so using a “clutch.” The bacterium can disconnect from the flagellum by releasing a protein that disengages the clutch (“‘Clutch’ Stops...,” 2008).

In the presence of such sophistication and intelligent design, one would think that researchers would recognize divine design when they see it. Sadly, however, the massive propaganda campaign that has inundated the science departments of American schools for a half century has blinded its victims to glaring evidence. Consider the lead researcher’s analysis of the clutch discovery: “We think it’s pretty cool that evolving bacteria and human engineers arrived at a similar solution to the same problem” (“‘Clutch’ Stops...”). Really? Nonsentient, uncoordinated, chance forces of nature somehow designed and created a technologically advanced device long before sentient, intelligent human engineers designed their own version? The same researcher also observed:
“This makes a lot of sense as far as the cell is concerned.... The flagellum is a giant, very expensive structure. Often when a cell no longer needs something, it might destroy it and recycle the parts. But here, because the flagellum is so big and complex, doing that is not very cost-effective. We think the clutch prevents the flagellum from rotating when constrained by the sticky matrix of the biofilm” (“‘Clutch’ Stops...”).
Wait a minute. “Makes a lot of sense”? “Very expensive”? “Big and complex”? The verbal gymnastics that evolutionists engage in would be humorous if not so sadly serious. These are terms that demand intelligence and sentience. The evolutionists constantly allow themselves the luxury of speaking as if the myriad organisms that display incredible design and purpose somehow created themselves and then consciously tweaked themselves over millions of years to become more efficient. They regularly cut themselves slack by speaking as if a mind—a conscious, intelligent being—were orchestrating the endless stream of biological marvels that grace the planet.

So blinded by irrational commitment to an outlandish theory, evolutionists are unable to hear the evidence screaming in their ears and flashing before their eyes, and come to the only logical conclusion: such intricate, complex design demands an intelligent, superior Designer. To deny it is bias of the first order.

“Thus says the LORD.... ‘I am the LORD, who makes all things…Who turns wise men backward, and makes their knowledge foolishness” (Isaiah 44:24-25).


“‘Clutch’ Stops Flagella” (2008), Photonics Media, June 23, http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=34236.

The Mayan Calendar and the End of the World by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


The Mayan Calendar and the End of the World

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

You’ve no doubt heard the hubbub: Supposedly, the ancient Mayans predicted that the world will end on December 21, 2012 at 11 p.m. A recent poll found that “nearly 10% of people believe that the year 2012 on the Mayan calendar signifies an apocalyptic collapse” (“New Mayan…,” 2012). What is one to make of such claims? How concerned ought we to be?
In reality, the only reliable source of information concerning end-time events is the Bible. It is, in fact, the only book on the planet of divine origin (cf. Butt, 2007). All other books that claim to be from the one true God do not bear up under objective scrutiny. Only the Bible possesses the attributes of inspiration. Only the Bible can provide humans with accurate insight into the future. That being the case, one would hardly expect a pagan, idolatrous civilization to serve as a legitimate source for ascertaining the truth regarding the end of the world.
So what does the Bible say on the matter? Throughout the thousands of years of human history, bona fide representatives of the one true God frequently predicted future events with complete accuracy. The Old Testament is filled with prophecy and prediction concerning a host of historical occurrences—all of which came true as predicted (cf. Thompson, 2003). In stark contrast, however, the Bible goes out of its way to avoid setting a date for the end of the world. In fact, Jesus stated unequivocally the truth on the matter: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only” (Matthew 24:36, emp. added).
But why? Since the Bible contains hundreds of prophecies of future events, why would God refrain from giving signs, indicators, and predictions concerning the end of the world? For one thing, it would be unfair to do so, because it would give people living long before the end the advantage of knowing Jesus would not come in their day. It would be contrary to God’s nature since it would imply that He is partial.
Speaking in A.D. 30, Jesus stressed very firmly that, while there would be clear signs heralding the destruction of Jerusalem 40 years later in A.D. 70 by the Romans (Matthew 24:1-35), He was equally adamant that no such signs would mark the end of the world and His second coming (Matthew 24:36-25:46). In stark contrast, the return of Jesus and the end of the world will be comparable to Noah’s day:
But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be (Matthew 24:37-39, emp. added).
The return is also compared to the arrival of a thief: “[I]f the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect” (Matthew 24:43-44, emp. added; cf. 2 Peter 3:10—“[T]he day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night.”). Jesus further declared: “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming” (Matthew 25:13). [NOTE: The quibble that suggests that Jesus merely meant that you cannot know the hour or day, but that you can know the year or the general time, sidesteps the force of these verses and evades the very point that Jesus was making, i.e., the time of the end is unpredictable and unknown to humans.]


So what are the specific details surrounding the Mayan calendar? One must turn to the experts—the scholars who have spent their lives studying Mayan civilization. The fact is that they speak with one accord. The 2012 hype comes—not from the studied authorities of Mayan civilization—but, as noted by Susan Gillespie, University of Florida anthropologist, “from media and from other people making use of the Maya past to fulfill agendas that are really their own” (MacDonald, 2007). Maya archaeoastronomer and curator of the Florida Museum of Natural History, Susan Milbrath, explained: “It would be impossible [that] the Maya themselves would have known that” (MacDonald). What’s more, she says, “we have no record or knowledge that they would think the world would come to an end at that point” (emp. added).
The facts of the matter are that December 21, 2012 on the Mayan Long Count calendar is simply the day that the calendar will go to what scholars call the next “b’ak’tun” or cycle. Sandra Noble, executive director of the Mesoamerican research organization FAMSI, noted that “for the ancient Maya, it was a huge celebration to make it to the end of a whole cycle” (“The Long…,” n.d.). Hence, she considers the alleged December 2012 hoopla to be “a complete fabrication and a chance for a lot of people to cash in” (“The Long…”). The Mayan calendar simply shows the ancient Mayans’ fascination with ongoing “cycles of time”—with no indication that they even entertained the notion of the end of the world (Vance, 2012). Further, scholars have just recently discovered wall writings in Guatemala show Mayan calendars that go well beyond 2012 (Vergano, 2012; Potter, 2012).


Indeed, such sensational allegations are not new. Legion are the instances over the last 2,000 years in which individuals and groups have set “firm” dates for the end of the world. Consider a few. [NOTE: The following is taken from “Library of Date Setters…,” n.d.] Events leading up to the year A.D. 1000 were viewed by many as harbingers of the end. These included a solar eclipse in 968 that created panic in the German army of Emperor Otto I and Hailey’s Comet in 989. The decade preceding January 1, 1000 saw people giving their worldly goods to the poor, pilgrims massing in Jerusalem to meet Jesus, buildings left in disrepair, fields unplanted, and even criminals released from jails. Thirty years later, the approach of A.D. 1033 was believed by many to be the onset of the millennium, since they thought it marked 1,000 years since the crucifixion of Christ. A terrible famine struck France in 1030, together with an eclipse and a massive earthquake the same year, convincing many of an imminent end, eliciting penitential processions, including a mass pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
To Londoners in 1666, the end of the world must have seemed self-evident. In addition to the bubonic plague, which killed some 100,000 people, the Great Fire of London swept the city the same year. Since 1666 was a millennium (1,000 years) coupled with the mark of the beast (666), many were firmly convinced the end was near. In 1843, William Miller attracted much attention and many followers when he announced the return of Christ between 1843 and 1844. Though a spectacular meteor shower in 1833 was seen as a harbinger, the predicted date of March 21, 1843 passed without incident. In 1910, the return of Hailey’s Comet was again seen by some to be an indication of the end. Impetus was gained when the Earth actually passed through the comet’s gaseous tail. Charles Taze Russell, along with the establishment of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, commenced an end-times movement that has repeatedly set the time of the end, the first in 1914—with many to follow. With each failure, recalculations are made and theology is adjusted accordingly.
Circumstances surrounding the formal establishment of the modern state of Israel in May of 1948 unleashed a flood of endless predictions, speculations, and allegations that continue to this day—all claiming the end is near. These include Hal Lindsey (Late Great Planet Earth, 1970); Ron Reese (“In the Twinkling of an Eye”); Moses David (The Children of God); the True Light Church; Walter Simmons (The Day of the Lord, 1978, The Final Warning Sign); Bill Maupin (Lighthouse Gospel Tract Foundation); Edgar Whisenant (“Rapture in Rosh Hashanna”); David Koresh and the Branch Davidians; John Hinkle (Christ’s Church, Los Angeles); and Harold Camping (Are You Ready?). And of course, Y2K unleashed a whole new round of doomsday conmen who proposed everything from massive natural disasters (e.g., Jack Van Impe), to WWIII, and worldwide shutdown of computer systems.
While most of these would-be prophets have claimed affiliation with Christianity, the non-Christian community has had its own share of prognosticators—including the Harmonic Convergence predicted by New Age proponents in 1987; California psychic Sheldon Nidle, who predicted 16 million space ships would converge on Earth in 1996; the International Association of Psychics in 1997, who claimed that 92% of their 120,000 members had the same end-time vision; a Russian scientist who, relying on Nostradamus prophecies, predicted the end in 1997 in the form of a shifting of the Earth’s axis, causing massive flooding and the arrival of aliens; the Sacerdotal Knights of National Security who predicted an alien invasion November 11, 1997; psychic Edgar Cayce who alleged the end in 1998 with massive disruption to the Earth; psychic Charles Criswell King who predicted the end in 1999; and many, many others. In fact, the present hype surrounding the Mayan calendar comes largely from New Age writers misinterpreting the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar (cf. Lawrence Joseph’s Apocalypse 2012: A Scientific Investigation Into Civilization’s End; spiritual healer Andrew Smith’s The Revolution of 2012: Vol. 1, The Preparation; and Daniel Pinchbeck’s 2012; see “The Truth About…,” n.d.).
Gamaliel rightly warned his contemporaries concerning those who would lead people astray 2,000 years ago:
For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed (Acts 5:36-37).
Even regarding the signs that Jesus said would precede the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, He warned: “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it” (Matthew 24:23, emp. added). Why? Jesus said, “For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be” (Matthew 24:27). Similarly, when God brings about the end of time, no one will need any input from any other human to know of its occurrence; the end will be so cataclysmic that it will be evident to all (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10).
While the world may well end this month—it will not be due to the Mayan calendar or any other would-be prophet knowing it. But do not take the scholars word for the truth about the Mayan calendar. Just wait until 11:00 p.m. December 21 to see for yourself. When the alleged end fails to materialize, rather than breathe a sigh of relief and go on your merry way, you would do well to turn to the Bible for the unchanging truth and solid rock of God’s Word. We are again reminded of the unerring words of the Savior of the world in His assessment of His return:
Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect (Matthew 24:42-44, emp. added).
Are you ready?


Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
“Library of Date Setters for End of the World” (no date), http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm.
“The Long and Short Count ‘Mayan Calendar,’” Spanish Institute of Merida, http://www.simerida.com/courses/longandshortcalendar.php.
MacDonald, G. Jeffrey (2007), “Does Maya Calendar Predict 2012 Apocalypse?” USA Today, March 27, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-03-27-maya-2012_n.htm.
“New Mayan Calendar Artifacts Discovered” (2012), June 29, FoxNews.com, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/06/29/new-mayan-calendar-artifacts-discovered/#ixzz22WYnFYg8.
Potter, Ned (2012), “Oldest Known Maya Calendar Found; No Signs of 2012 Doomsday,” ABC News, May 11, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/05/oldest-known-maya-calendar-found-no-signs-of-2012-doomsday/.
Thompson, Bert (2003), In Defense of the Bible’s Inspiration, http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/idobi.pdf.
“The Truth About the ‘Mayan Calendar,’” Spanish Institute of Merida, http://www.simerida.com/courses/mayancalendar.php.
Vance, Erik (2012), “Mayan Calendar: World Will Not End In December 2012, Expert Says,” Scientific American, July 8, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/08/mayan-calendar-world-will_n_1655135.html.
Vergano, Dan (2012), “Newly Discovered Mayan Calendar Goes Way Past 2012,” USA Todayhttp://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/story/2012-05-08/maya-apocalypse-calendar-2012/54879760/1.

Jesus Christ—The Same Yesterday, Today, and Forever by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


Jesus Christ—The Same Yesterday, Today, and Forever

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The inspired penman of Hebrews reminds us repeatedly throughout his epistle of the preeminence of Christ. The Lord Jesus is greater than angels; He is superior to Moses; He is higher than the Jewish high priesthood. His sacrifice is better; His everlasting covenant is better; His ministry is better. The eternal Savior (not expired Judaism) reigns supreme.
Jesus is preeminent for countless reasons. He is Divine and thus worthy of worship (Hebrews 1:5-9). He is the creator and sustainer of the Universe (1:2-3). His reign is “forever and ever” (1:12,8). He is without blemish (4:15; 9:14). He defeated death (13:20). He alone is the “author of eternal salvation” (5:9).
Jesus’ excellency is further established in Hebrews by appealing to the Lord’s amazing immutability. Near the end of the epistle, after an exhortation to remember one’s spiritual leaders (13:7), and prior to giving a warning against “strange doctrines” (13:9), the Hebrews writer reminds his readers of the precious, faith-building truth that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8).


Society benefits greatly from the dependable and consistent character of its citizens. The steady marriage of a faithful husband and wife will only strengthen the foundation of civilization. The stable, strong, and reliable father gives his family a backbone upon which to lean that will not easily degenerate in difficult times. Faithful, spiritual leaders help keep churches grounded in the Truth, rather than led astray by false doctrine. But such dependable leadership is only found among those who genuinely strive to imitate the consistency of Christ (Hebrews 13:7-9).
By the very fact that Jesus is Divine, He is changeless. God said, “I am the Lord, I do not change” (Malachi 3:6). With the Father of lights, “there is no variation or shadow of turning” (James 1:17). Though the material universe will grow old and be changed, God said to Jesus, “You are the same, and Your years will not fail” (Hebrews 1:10-12; Psalm 102:25-27).
Christians should rejoice in the fact that, though “time is filled with swift transition,” our High Priest is perpetually dependable. Our Savior is endlessly steadfast. Christ revealed Himself as the perfectly consistent One. Though He “was in all points tempted as we are,” He was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). Jesus never once broke the old law, nor was His purpose to destroy it. He came to fulfill it perfectly and completely (Matthew 5:17-19), and through His unblemished sacrifice He established the new covenant (Hebrews 9:14-15).
Even the most difficult of circumstances never caused Jesus’ perfect character to change. Neither 40 days of fasting nor a face-to-face confrontation with the deceitful devil broke His resolve to live consistently with the Will of God. He did not use hunger, homelessness, or weariness as an excuse to become bitter and fickle. Jesus is the perfect foundation of the church because nothing could break His will to build her. Not torture or tears, not the betrayal of friends or the shadow of death, could shake Jesus’ resolve to offer salvation to a fallen world in desperate need of a steadfast Savior.


Jesus’ preeminence is further seen in His perfectly reliable instruction. Unlike the father of lies in whom “there is no truth” (John 8:44), Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6). Unlike the contradictory and “strange doctrines” of false teachers, Jesus’ teachings are beautifully and powerfully dependable. His witness is true. His judgments are true. His counsel is perfectly consistent.
Though the Herodians and the disciples of the Pharisees came to Jesus with phony flattery in hopes of entangling Him in His talk, truer words could actually never be spoken of Jesus: “Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men” (Matthew 22:16). Proof of Christ’s genuineness and consistency on this occasion is seen in the fact that He immediately called out their hypocrisy before briefly and powerfully answering their question (22:18-22).
Jesus preached a consistent message that was so often about the importance of being consistent. The Sermon on the Mount is a discourse on authentic righteousness in which Jesus gets to the heart of the matter. Praying, fasting, making judgments, doing charitable deeds, etc. are important, but without the proper attitudes and motivations behind these actions—without being righteous on the inside—they profit us nothing (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3). Jesus would later rebuke the scribes and Pharisees as “hypocrites,” saying, “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you…, ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me” (Matthew 15:7-8). Outwardly many of the scribes and Pharisees appeared righteous, yet inwardly they were “full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matthew 23:28). Jesus refused to overlook the inconsistency among the religious leaders of His day. His unchanging nature and consistent message were then, and are today, the greatest tools to fight the “various and strange doctrines” that so often carry men away from the Truth (Hebrews 13:9).


Meditating upon the magnificence of the Messiah is faith building and inspiring. In the book of Hebrews, the Holy Spirit has given us a gold mine of motivation to lift up and serve Jesus as the Son of God. He reigns supreme, and His unwavering, unchangeable nature and message are to be loved and lauded. Praise God that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever!”

*Originally published in Gospel Advocate, December 2014, 156[12]:17-19.

7 Reasons the Multiverse Is Not a Valid Alternative to God [Part 1] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


7 Reasons the Multiverse Is Not a Valid Alternative to God [Part 1]

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

If the laws of thermodynamics indicate that the Universe could not have created itself or existed forever,1 where did the Universe come from? If the laws themselves cannot write themselves into existence,2 where did they come from? A growing number of naturalists are, ironically, recognizing that there has to be something outside of nature to explain the existence of the Universe. As we have shown elsewhere, there really is no such thing as a naturalist.3 Unnatural events—things which have not been shown to be able to occur in nature—must have occurred in the past in order to explain the natural realm (e.g., abiogenesis, laws of science writing themselves, matter/energy spontaneously generating, non-designed design, etc., had to occur).
In order to avoid admitting that a supernatural Being exists, the theory being invoked by a growing number of naturalists is that a supernatural (though apparently God-less) realm exists called the multiverse. This multiverse is thought to explain where matter, energy, the laws of physics, and even the “mysterious” examples of “fine-tuning” we see in the Universe came from, all without resorting to the existence of God as the explanation. In the words of cosmologist Bernard Carr of Queen Mary University of London, “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”4 So, what is the multiverse? Is there evidence for the existence of such a place?


The multiverse is the idea that the Universe is not the only Universe that exists: other Universes exist (10500, according to string theory5) outside our own, and those Universes can collide, creating Big Bangs of their own.6 Cosmologist and Professor of Physics at California Institute of Technology Sean Carroll explained: “If conditions are just right…[parts of one Universe—JM] can undergo inflation and pinch off to form a separate universe all its own—a baby universe. Our universe may be the offspring of some other universe.”7
Though the multiverse is not demanded by string theory, some cosmologists attempt to find support for it through string theory. Cosmologist and distinguished emeritus Professor of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa George Ellis, and Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University Joseph Silk said, “Fundamentally, the multiverse explanation relies on string theory.”8 So before responding to the multiverse theory, what is string theory?
Modern physics is comprised of two branches: general relativity—physics that governs the “large” realm that we can generally see (e.g., astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology), and a distinctly different physics that governs the “tiny” realm—namely, at the level of particles, atoms, and what makes up matter (i.e., quantum mechanics). The problem is that the physics of these two separate branches do not work together when joined. They apply only to their separate domains—not to the domain of the other. “This [realization—JM] set the stage for more than a half-century of despair as physicists valiantly struggled, but repeatedly failed, to meld general relativity and quantum mechanics, the laws of the large and small, into a single all-encompassing description”9—the so-called “theory of everything.”
While the concept of “string theory” has been around for several decades, persistent problems with the theory made it unpopular as a candidate for the “theory of everything.” Then in 1984, John Schwarz and Michael Green made discoveries that re-energized hope that string theory could bridge the divide between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Writing in Discover magazine, Steve Nadis explained, “[T]his theory attempted to unify all the known forces into a single, elegant package. Some physicists hailed string theory as the long-sought ‘theory of everything.’”10 Before string theory, the smallest, most fundamental “stuff” that were thought to make up matter (e.g., electrons, protons, neutrons, and photons) were infinitesimal, dimensionless particles—tiny dots that, unlike everything else, could not be broken down or divided into anything else and without any “internal machinery” of their own. In string theory, however, a change in the composition of the fundamental particles is hypothesized. Instead, the particles that make up matter are thought to be tiny, one dimensional, vibrating strings. How those strings vibrate determines what kind of particle something is (its mass, electric charge, nuclear properties, etc.). That might not necessarily sound far-fetched, but the fact that string theory requires the existence of six or seven unobserved dimensions—dimensions beyond those that we can perceive (i.e., length, width, height, and time)—in order for it to work,11 definitely causes some physicists to scratch their heads in concern. Regardless, according to cosmologists and physicists Paul Steinhardt,12 Justin Khoury,13 Burt Ovrut,14 and Neil Turok,15 the “inspiration” for their belief in the multiverse
came from string theory, the most widespread approach to get Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which best describes space and time, to play nicely with quantum mechanics, which best describes everything else. String theory proposes that the various particles that make up matter and transmit forces are vibrations of tiny quantum-mechanical strings, including one that produces a “graviton,” an as-yet-undetected particle that transmits gravity. It also predicts the existence of extra dimensions beyond the four [i.e., length, width, height, and time—JM] of space and time we see.16
According to Ellis, “If we had proof that string theory is correct, its theoretical predictions could be a legitimate, experimentally based argument for a multiverse.”17


Is the multiverse theory true? Is it even science? Does it have any supporting evidence? Does it solve the naturalist’s problem of explaining the Universe without God?

Problem #1: String Theory

Recall that, while string theory does not necessarily imply that the multiverse is true, the multiverse “relies on string theory.”18 The first problem, then, with the multiverse hypothesis is that string theory, upon which the multiverse relies, still has no tangible evidence to substantiate it. Many physicists since Green’s and Schwarz’s discoveries
hailed string theory as the long-sought “theory of everything.” Harvard University physicist Andrew Strominger, a leader in string theory for decades…[knew] that such assertions were overblown. And, sure enough, skepticism has seeped in over the years. No one has yet conceived of an experiment that could definitively verify or refute string theory. The backlash may have peaked in 2006, when several high-profile books and articles attacked the theory.19
Regarding string theory as it relates to the multiverse, George Ellis said, “String theory has moved from being a theory that explains everything to a theory where almost anything is possible…. But string theory is not a tried-and-tested theory; it is not even a complete theory.”20 Theoretical physicist and cosmologist of Arizona State University Lawrence Krauss admitted, “[W]e have, as of yet, no well-defined quantum theory of gravity—that is, a theory that describes gravity using the rules governing the behavior of matter and energy at the tiniest scales. String theory is perhaps the best attempt so far, but there is no evidence that it is correct or that it can consistently resolve all the problems that a complete quantum theory of gravity must address.”21 Astrophysicist Eric Chaison of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said, “Although the theory of superstrings is now causing great excitement in the physics community, there is to date not a shred of experimental or observational evidence to support it.”22 Tim Folger, writing in Discover magazine, admitted that “[a]lthough experimental evidence for string theory is still lacking, many physicists believe it to be their best candidate for a theory of everything.”23 Stuart Clark and Richard Webb, writing in New Scientist, acknowledged that “string theory has yet to make a single testable prediction.”24
So in spite of the lack of evidence for string theory, many physicists are still holding on to hope. Notice Strominger’s optimism: “String theory may not be the fabled theory of everything..., ‘but it is definitely a theory of something.’”25 But Silk and Ellis went further, acknowledging that string theory is “as yet unverified…. It is not, in our opinion, robust, let alone testable.”26 Notice that according to Silk and Ellis, not only is string theory unverified, it is not even testable. If it is not testable, how can it be scientific? And if other dimensions exist according to string theory, and we cannot even observe them, how can string theory qualify as a legitimate scientific theory? To ask is to answer.
Such problems have not gone unnoticed by some physicists. In 2014 in Nature, Ellis and Silk wrote an article titled “Defend the Integrity of Physics,” in which they rebuked theoretical physicists for the direction they have turned in their scientific endeavors regarding string theory. The need for tangible evidence before accepting a theory is becoming a thing of the past:
This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue—explicitly—that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific. Chief among the “elegance will suffice” advocates are some string theorists [who rely on unobservable entities to validate their theories—JM]…. These unprovable hypotheses [i.e., string theory and the multiverse—JM] are quite different from those that related directly to the real world and that are testable through observations…. As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man’s land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any. The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. String theory and multiverse theory have been criticized in popular books and articles.27
So, string theorists are moving away from the long-standing definition of what constitutes “science.” Davide Castelvecchi, writing in Nature in 2015, said:
String theory is at the heart of a debate over the integrity of the scientific method itself. Is string theory science? Physicists and cosmologists have been debating the question for the past decade…. For a scientific theory to be considered valid, scientists often require that there be an experiment that could, in principle, rule the theory out—or “falsify” it, as the philosopher of science Karl Popper put it in the 1930s….28
According to Castelvecchi, string theory is the “principal example” of theoretical physicists straying “from this guiding principle—even arguing for it to be relaxed…. The strings are too tiny to detect using today’s technology—but some argue that string theory is worth pursuing whether or not experiments will ever be able to measure its effects, simply because it seems to be the ‘right’ solution to many quandaries.”29
String theory is not science. It is evidence-less speculation and conjecture. And some physicists recognize that the problem is even worse than a lack of evidence for string theory:
Joe Polchinski at the University of California at Santa Barbara and Raphael Bousso at the University of California at Berkeley calculated that the basic equations of string theory have an astronomical number of different possible solutions, perhaps as many as 101,000. Each solution represents a unique way to describe the universe. This meant that almost any experimental result would be consistent with string theory; the theory could never be proved right or wrong. Some critics say this realization dooms string theory as a scientific enterprise…. String theory is still very much a work in progress.30
Notice that scientists have correctly relied heavily on the ability to test, observe, and falsify scientific theories. Sadly, many scientists have moved to the extreme in their interpretation of that principle, claiming that since the supernatural realm cannot be empirically tested or observed, the existence of God or the Creation model should not be considered on the table of scientific discussion: it is essentially false by scientific definition, and pure naturalism is defined as true. The above scientists, however, are highlighting the fact that with regard to string theory, many scientists are now openly contradicting that long-held belief. But if supernatural options are now allowed in the discussion, why will these same scientists not allow the biblical explanation to be considered in the discussion, considering that the Bible has supernatural attributes and therefore provides positive evidence of the existence of the supernatural realm and its Ruler?31
To be clear, some physicists draw a marked distinction between string theory and the multiverse, arguing that string theory is “testable ‘in principle’ and thus perfectly scientific, because the strings are potentially detectable.”32 It may be that string theory will one day be verified, but the point is that, until it is verified, those who wish to point to the multiverse as “evidence” that God need not exist have absolutely no scientific foundation upon which to launch a campaign for the existence of the multiverse. Proponents of the multiverse hold to a belief in it without evidence—their faith is blind. Further, keep in mind, once again, even if string theory were true, it still would not mean that the multiverse is true. If string theory is not true, however, then the small shred of hope some naturalists have that string theory could provide a starting point based in fact for proving the existence of a multiverse disappears.

Problem #2: Inflation

According to cosmologist and Professor of Physics at Stanford University Andrei Linde, and cosmologist, physicist, and director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University Alex Vilenkin, during Big Bang inflation33 (which they believe is still on-going) “different regions of the cosmos are budding off, undergoing inflation, and evolving into essentially separate universes. The same process will occur in each of those new universes in turn.”34 The multiverse theory is tied to inflation, as is Big Bang Theory, but as we have shown elsewhere, inflation has no evidence to support it.35 Writing in Nature in 2014, Paul Steinhardt, “who helped develop inflationary theory but is now a scathing critic of it,”36 wrote a stinging critique of inflation. His article was in response to the lack of evidence for Big Bang inflation after the then newly discovered alleged evidence for it (the discovery of Big Bang gravitational waves) was found to be false.37 In the article, titled “Big Bang Blunder Bursts the Multiverse Bubble,” he argued that “[p]remature hype over gravitational waves highlights gaping holes in models for the origins and evolution of the Universe.”38 He noted that the “progeny” of inflation is the multiverse, but said,
The BICEP2 incident [i.e., the erroneously hailed discovery of Big Bang inflation gravitational waves—JM] has also revealed a truth about inflationary theory. The common view is that it is a highly predictive theory. If that was the case and the detection of gravitational waves was the “smoking gun” proof of inflation, one would think that non-detection means that the theory fails. Such is the nature of normal science. Yet some proponents of inflation who celebrated the BICEP2 announcement already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected. How is this possible? The answer given by proponents is alarming: the inflationary paradigm is so flexible that it is immune to experimental and observational tests…. [I]nflation does not end with a universe with uniform properties, but almost inevitably leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the cosmic and physical properties vary from bubble to bubble [i.e., inflation implies a multiverse—the two stand or fall together—JM]. Scanning over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, everything that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation [and subsequently, the multiverse—JM] is unfalsifiable…. [I]t is clear that the inflationary paradigm is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless.39
Problem #2 for the multiverse, therefore, is that even if string theory were true, there is no evidence for Big Bang inflation—another necessary puzzle piece in multiverse theory.

Problem #3: No Evidence for the Multiverse

Even if string theory and inflation had evidence to substantiate their veracity, neither theory demands that the multiverse is a reality. The multiverse needs evidence of its own to substantiate it, and it has none. That means that, by definition, belief in the multiverse (like Big Bang inflation) is irrational, according to the Law of Rationality,40 and another example of naturalists’ blind “faith” in naturalism.
Ellis acknowledged concerning the multiverse: “We just do not know what actually happens, for we have no information about these regionsand never will…. All in all, the case for the multiverse is inconclusive. The basic reason is the extreme flexibility of the proposal: it is more a concept than a well-defined theory…. The key step in justifying a multiverse is extrapolation from the known to the unknown, from the testable to the untestable.”41 Ellis and Silk noted that “[f]undamentally, the multiverse explanation relies on string theory, which is as yet unverified, and on speculative mechanisms for realizing different physics in different sister universes.”42
Hugh Everett is credited with first proposing the popular “Many-Worlds Interpretation” of quantum physics: “a quantum ‘multiverse’ in which all possible outcomes are realized in a vast array of parallel worlds.” But after over 50 years since his proposal, according to theoretical physicist and professor at Columbia University Brian Greene, “we still do not know if his approach is right.”43 Evidence is still lacking. Michael Finkel, writing in National Geographic, said,
In recent years it’s become increasingly accepted among theoretical physicists that our universe is not all there is. We live, rather, in what’s known as the multiverse—a vast collection of universes, each a separate bubble in the Swiss cheese of reality. This is all highly speculative, but it’s possible that to give birth to a new universe you first need to take a bunch of matter from an existing universe, crunch it down, and seal it off.44
Theoretical physicist and cosmologist of the University of Cambridge Stephen Hawking has advanced the multiverse idea as well, but admits that it is “still just a theory. It’s yet to be confirmed by any evidence.”45 Astrophysicst Gregory Benford of the University of California at Irvine wrote in his book, What We Believe but Cannot Prove, “This ‘multiverse’ view represents the failure of our grand agenda and seems to me contrary to the prescribed simplicity of Occam’s Razor, solving our lack of understanding by multiplyingunseen entities into infinity.”46 Physicist Mark Buchanan, writing in New Scientist, authored an article titled “When Does Multiverse Speculation Cross into Fantasy?” Responding to Max Tegmark’s claims about the multiverse in Our Mathematical Universe, Buchanan said,
Tegmark tries hard to make the seemingly outlandish sound almost obvious and unavoidable, and offers taxonomy to help organize a zoo of imagined parallel universes…. These other domains—or “universes”—could well exist, although we currently have no observational evidence for them…. [T]here does seem to be something a little questionable with this vast multiplication of multiverses…. Multiverse champions seem quite happy, even eager, to invoke infinite numbers of other universes as mechanisms for explaining things we see in our own universe. In a sense, multiverse enthusiasts take a “leap of faith” every bit as big as the leap to believing in a creator, as physicist Paul Davies put it in an article in The New York Times.47
Philosopher Richard Dawid of Ludwig Maximillian University notes concerning the multiverse that “physicists have begun to use purely theoretical factors, such as the internal consistency of a theory or the absence of credible alternatives, to update estimates, instead of basing those revisions on actual data.”48 It is bewildering why scientists would not see Creation as a “credible alternative,” considering that it is based on evidence.49 Instead, they choose to throw out reason and make up imaginary realms without evidence. Is it possible that there is widespread bias against God in the scientific community?
There is no evidence for the multiverse, but that’s not the worst of it. Not only is there no evidence, but apparently, there can be no evidence. Theoretical physicist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, David Gross makes a distinction between string theory and the multiverse and sees multiverse theory as much more troubling than string theory, “because the other universes that it postulates probably cannot be observed from our own,even in principle.”50 Stephen Battersby, writing in New Scientist, stated in despair concerning the multiverse,
Our standard cosmology also says that space was stretched into shape just a split second after the big bang by a third dark and unknown entity called the inflation field. That might imply the existence of a multiverse of countless other universes hidden from our view, most of them unimaginably alien—just to make models of our own universe work. Are these weighty phantoms too great a burden for our observationsto bear—a wholesale return of conjecture out of a trifling investment of fact, as Mark Twain put it?51
Notice: the other Universes of the multiverse are “hidden from our view”—unobservable “phantoms”—and yet the multiverse is needed “just to make models of our own universe work.” In other words, the existence of a supernatural realm—an unobservable reality beyond our Universe—is demanded in order to make sense of the Universe (more on that subject later).
Ellis explained:
The notion of parallel universes leapt out of the pages of fiction into scientific journals in the 1990s. Many scientists claim that megamillions of other universes, each with its own laws of physics, lie out there, beyond our visual horizon. They are collectively known as the multiverse. The trouble is that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature [e.g., why does anything exist?—JM] unexplained…. All the parallel universes lie outside our horizon and remain beyond our capacity to see, now or ever, no matter how technology evolves. In fact, they are too far away to have had any influence on our universe whatsoever. That is why none of the claims made by multiverse enthusiasts can be directly substantiated.52
Notice: according to Ellis, the multiverse is beyond our ability to see “now or ever, no matter how technology evolves.” “[N]one of the claims made by multiverse enthusiasts can be directly substantiated.” Recall that Ellis and Silk called the multiverse (and string theory) “imperceptible domains” and “unprovable hypotheses.”53 In the multiverse, they say, “Billions of universes—and of galaxies and copies of each of us—accumulate with no possibility of communication between them or of testing their reality.”54 Folger said, “For many physicists, the multiverse remains a desperate measureruled out by the impossibility of confirmation.”55 One would think such admissions would give more scientists pause, but those bent on blindly rejecting God seem to be, literally, beyond reason on the matter.
Joshua Sokol, writing in New Scientist, said concerning “neighbouring universe[s] leaking into ours,” “Sadly, if they do exist, other bubbles are nigh on impossible to learn about.”56 Amanda Gefter, also writing in New Scientist, discussed making predictions and testing them through observations in the Universe.“That’s not possible in an infinite multiverse: there are no definite predictions, only probabilities.”57 Clark and Webb discuss various difficulties with the idea that there are many Universes: “The second is how you get convincing evidence for the existence of any of them.”58 Lawson Parker, writing in National Geographic, explained that “[i]nflation theory says our universe exploded from…[a quantum energy] fluctuation—a random event that, odds are, had happened many times before. Our cosmos may be one in a sea of others just like ours—or nothing like ours. These other cosmos will very likely remain forever inaccessible to observation, their possibilities limited only by our imagination.”59 How convenient for naturalists to be able to propose a theory to explain away God, and that theory be immune to falsification since it is known from the start to be “forever inaccessible to observation.”


1 Jeff Miller (2013a), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2786&topic=57.
2 Jeff Miller (2012), “The Laws of Science—by God,” Reason & Revelation, 32[12]:137-140, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1103&article=2072.
3 Jeff Miller (2014), “There’s No Such Thing as a Naturalist,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=5050.
4 As quoted in Tim Folger (2008), “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory,” DiscoverMagazine.com, November 10, http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator.
5 Amanda Gefter (2009), “Multiplying Universes: How Many is the Multiverse?” NewScientist.com, October 31, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427323-700-multiplying-universes-how-many-is-the-multiverse/.
6 Michio Kaku (n.d.), “Michio Kaku Explains String Theory,” YouTube.comhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYAdwS5MFjQ.
7 Sean M. Carroll (2008), “The Cosmic Origins of Time’s Arrow,” Scientific American, 298[6]:56, June.
8 George Ellis and Joe Silk (2014), “Defend the Integrity of Physics,” Nature, 516[7531]:322, December, emp. added.
9 Brian Greene (2015), “Why String Theory Still Offers Hope We Can Unify Physics,” Smithsonian Magazine, January, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637/?no-ist.
10 Steve Nadis (2016), “The Fall and Rise of String Theory,” Discover, 37[5]:18, June.
11 Nadis, p. 19.
12 Theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and Professor of Physics at Princeton University.
13 Particle physicist, cosmologist, and Associate Professor and Chair of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Pennsylvania.
14 High energy particle physicist, cosmologist, and Professor of Physics at the University of Pennsylvania.
15 Cosmologist, physicist, and Director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.
16 As noted in Amanda Gefter (2012), “Bang Goes the Theory,” New Scientist, 214[2871]:35, June 30, emp. added.
17 George F.R. Ellis (2011), “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?” Scientific American, 305[2]:42.
18 Ellis and Silk, p. 322.
19 Nadis, p. 18, emp. added.
20 Ellis, p. 42, emp. added.
21 Lawrence M. Krauss (2014), “A Beacon from the Big Bang,” Scientific American, 311[4]:67, emp. added.
22 Eric J. Chaison (2001), Cosmic Evolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), p. 246, emp. added.
23 Folger, emp. added.
24 Stuart Clark and Richard Webb (2016), “Six Principles/Six Problems/Six Solutions,” New Scientist, 231[3092]:28-35, p. 35, emp. added.
25 As quoted in Nadis, p. 18.
26 Ellis and Silk, p. 322, emp. added.
27 Ellis and Silk, p. 321, emp. added.
28 Davide Castelvecchi (2015), “Feuding Physicists Turn to Philosophy,” Nature, 528[7583]:446, December 24, emp. added.
29 Ibid.
30 Tim Folger (2008), “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory,” DiscoverMagazine.com, November 10, emp. added.
31 Kyle Butt (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/ Behold%20the%20Word%20of%20God.pdf.
32 Castelvecchi, p. 447.
33 Inflation is generally understood to be the brief period of time at the beginning of the alleged Big Bang where the Universe is thought to have expanded faster than the speed of light.
34 As noted in Folger.
35 Jeff Miller (2015a), “Big Bang Inflation Officially Bites the Dust,” Reason & Revelation, 35[6]:62-65.
36 Michael Slezak (2014), “The Rise and Fall of Cosmic Inflation,” New Scientist, 224[2989]:8, October 4.
37 Miller, 2015a.
38 Paul Steinhardt (2014), “Big Bang Blunder Bursts the Multiverse Bubble,” Nature on-line, 510[7503]:9, June 5, http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346.
39 Ibid., emp. added.
40 Lionel Ruby (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott), pp. 130-131.
41 Ellis, pp. 41-43, emp. added.
42 Ellis and Silk, p. 322, emp. added.
43 Brian Greene (2013), “Roots of Reality,” New Scientist, 217[2906]:39, March 2.
44 Michael Finkel (2014), “Our Star, The Sun, Will Die A Quiet Death,” National Geographic, 225[3]:102, March, emp. added.
45 As quoted in David Shukman (2010), “Professor Stephen Hawking Says No God Created Universe,” BBC News, September 2, emp. added, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11172158.
46 Gregory Benford (2006), What We Believe But Cannot Prove, ed. John Brockman (New York: Harper Perennial), p. 226, emp. added.
47 Mark Buchanan (2014), “When Does Multiverse Speculation Cross into Fantasy?” New Scientist, 221[2952]:46-47, January 18, emp. added, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129 520-900-when-does-multiverse-speculation-cross-into-fantasy/.
48 As quoted in Castelvecchi, p. 447, emp. added.
49 Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2014), “7 Reasons to Believe in God,” Reason & Revelation, 34[10]:110-119, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1175; Jeff Miller (2015b), “How Can a Person Know Which God Exists?” Reason & Revelation, 35[5]:52-53, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1189&article=2506.
50 As noted in Castelvecchi, p. 447, emp. added.
51 Stephen Battersby (2013), “The Dark Side,” New Scientist, 217[2906]:41, March 2, emp. added.
52 Ellis, pp. 39-41, emp. added.
53 Ellis and Silk, p. 321.
54 Ibid., p. 322.
55 Folger.
56 Joshua Sokol (2015), “A Brush with a Universe Next Door,” New Scientist, 228[3045]:8, October 31, emp. added.
57 Gefter, 2012, p. 34, emp. added.
58 Clark and Webb, p. 35, emp. added.
59 Lawson Parker (2014), “Cosmic Questions,” , 225[4], April, center tearout, emp. added.

Suggested Resources