1/27/21

Evolutionists Have a Blind Faith by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=5485

Evolutionists Have a Blind Faith

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Everyone believes in something. Blind faith, however, is believing in something without evidence. Every person on the planet has faith, but having blind faith, by definition, is irrational: drawing conclusions without enough proof.1 The faith/trust I have in the laws of science is not blind; it is based on a mound of evidence that has been formed over many years of faith-building behavior on their part. Christianity is not built on blind faith, but on faith that has been substantiated by evidence, and God demands that Christian faith be such.2 Naturalists, however, have a blind faith in several events that would be necessary if evolution is true.

As just one example, consider: if one is a naturalist, he must believe that at some point(s) in the past, life arose from non-living substances (that is, the spontaneous generation of life occurred). Many scientific experiments have been conducted over the centuries testing the hypothesis that spontaneous generation could occur, and every one of them has resulted in the same conclusion: in nature, life only comes from life. No matter what scientists have tried to do in a laboratory to make non-living material come to life, it still remains non-living.3 If one is rational and follows the evidence to its logical conclusion, he will conclude that in the Universe (in nature), life cannot come about from non-life. If, however, he cannot stomach the evidence, and chooses instead to irrationally believe that life can come from non-life in spite of the evidence, he is holding to a blind faith in so doing. There is not one example from nature in which life has been shown to come from non-life.

If life only comes from previously existing life in the Universe, then whence came the original life? It must have originated from a supernatural Source—Someone outside of the Universe. Indeed, it is God Who “gives to all life, breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25).4

Endnotes

1 Lionel Ruby (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott), pp. 130-131.

2 Cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11; John 8:32; John 10:37; Dave Miller (2003),  “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=444.

3 Jeff Miller (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-5,9-11.

4 For more information, see Jeff Miller (2013), “Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith,” Reason & Revelation, 33[7]:76-83.

Suggested Resources

Evolution Can’t Explain “Smart” Plants by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3762

Evolution Can’t Explain “Smart” Plants

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Lisa Krieger recently wrote an article titled, “How Do Flowers Know to Bloom in Spring? Now Humans Know, Too.” She reported about research on flower blooming that is being done by plant molecular geneticist Jose Luis Riechmann from the California Institute of Technology, published in Science magazine. Riechmann’s research centers on the ability of flowers to know when to bloom to take advantage of the proper weather conditions to reproduce. It turns out that for plants to survive, timing is everything. As plant biologist Jorge Dubcovsky of UC Davis stated: “Flowering time is one of the most important traits in breeding because it affects the yield of crops. Too early and you are killed by frost; too late and you are killed by heat” (as quoted in Krieger, 2010).

Reichmann believes he has identified the tiny protein that is responsible for setting blooming in motion. The protein is named APETALA1, or AP1. This tiny wonder “regulates more than 1,000 genes” and “serves as the door that opens the way to flowering” (2010). Without this amazing protein, the plant world as we know it would not exist. The importance of this single protein becomes clear, when we realize that “almost everything we eat is a plant, or something that just ate a plant” (2010).

This petite protein poses a powerful problem for the theory of evolution. According to the theory, all plants and animals evolved over billions of years by chance, random processes that were not directed by any intelligence. Although evolution has been repeatedly shown to be false (see Butt and Lyons, 2009), research like Reichmann’s continues to add more weight to the fact that evolution is scientifically impossible.

First, it should be noted that no research ever done has shown us how random processes can produce a protein like AP1. Second, even if random processes produced AP1, which they cannot, how many times of trial and error would we need to grant the evolutionary process to allow it to finally strike upon the perfectly timed sequence to bloom? If the plants that were supposedly evolving bloomed at the wrong time, they would die or fail to reproduce. While that would be bad for those individual plants, it would also be devastating for the alleged evolutionary process, since evolution would have to start over trying to randomly assemble protein AP1 after every failure. Since all evolutionary scenarios are imaginary, and not backed by real scientific evidence, it is easy to propound a scenario by which natural selection somehow “chose” the plants that happened to bloom at the right time and have the proper protein sequence. But in reality, the first wrong turn would have sent plant evolution (although there really is no such thing) back to the drawing board, as would each additional wrongly timed blooming.

In truth, there never have been millions of years of gradual, chance mutations and natural selections that produced the “intelligent” flowering plants that we see today. The intricate design of plants, as manifested by tiny proteins like AP1, testifies to the fact that an intelligent Designer created flowering plants. Plants “know” exactly when to bloom simply because, when God created them, He endowed them with the ability to perpetuate their kind. As Genesis 1:11 states: “Then God said, ‘Let all the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth’; and it was so” (emp. added).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2009), “Darwin in Light of 150 Years of Error,” Reason & Revelation, 29[2]:9-15, February, [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/240057.

Krieger, Lisa (2010), “How Do Flowers Know to Bloom in Spring? Now Humans Know, Too,” [On-line], URL: http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_14803818?source=rss.

Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2786

Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

“[T]he principles of thermodynamics have been in existence since the creation of the universe” (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 2, emp. added). So states a prominent textbook used in schools of engineering across America. Indeed, these principles prove themselves to be absolutely critical in today’s science world. Much of the engineering technology available today is based on the foundational truths embodied in the Laws of Thermodynamics. As the writers of one engineering thermodynamics textbook stated: “Energy is a fundamental concept of thermodynamics and one of the most significant aspects of engineering analysis” (Moran and Shapiro, 2000, p. 35). Do these laws have application to the creation/evolution debate as creationists suggest? What do they actually say and mean?

The word “thermodynamics” originally was used in a publication by Lord Kelvin (formerly William Thomson), the man often called the Father of Thermodynamics because of his articulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in 1849 (Cengel and Boles, p. 2). The term comes from two Greek words: therme, meaning “heat,” and dunamis, meaning “force” or “power” (American Heritage..., 2000, pp. 558,1795). Thermodynamics can be summarized essentially as the science of energy—including heat, work (defined as the energy required to move a force a certain distance), potential energy, internal energy, and kinetic energy. The basic principles and laws of thermodynamics are understood thoroughly today by the scientific community. Thus, the majority of the work with the principles of thermodynamics is done by engineers who simply utilize the already understood principles in their designs. A thorough understanding of the principles of thermodynamics which govern our Universe can help an engineer to learn effectively to control the impact of heat in his/her designs.

THE FIRST AND SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

Though there are many important thermodynamic principles that govern the behavior of energy, perhaps the most critical principles of significance in the creation/evolution controversy are the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. What are these laws that, not only are vital to the work of an engineer, but central to this debate?

The First Law

The First Law of Thermodynamics was formulated originally by Robert Mayer (1814-1878). He stated: “I therefore hope that I may reckon on the reader’s assent when I lay down as an axiomatic truth that, just as in the case of matter, so also in the case of force [the term used at that time for energy—JM], only a transformation but never a creation takes place” (as quoted in King, 1962, p. 5). That is, given a certain amount of energy in a closed system, that energy will remain constant, though it will change form (see Figure 1). As evolutionist Willard Young says in defining the First Law, “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to another” (1985, p. 8).

Figure 1

This principle, also known as the “conservation of energy principle” (Cengel and Boles, p. 2), can be demonstrated by the burning of a piece of wood. When the wood is burned, it is transformed into a different state. The original amount of energy present before the burning is still present. However, much of that energy was transformed into a different state, namely, heat. No energy disappeared from the Universe, and no energy was brought into the Universe through burning the wood. Concerning the First Law, Young further explains that

the principle of the conservation of energy is considered to be the single most important and fundamental ‘law of nature’ presently known to science, and is one of the most firmly established. Endless studies and experiments have confirmed its validity over and over again under a multitude of different conditions (p. 165, emp. added).

This principle is known to be a fact about nature—without exception. One thermodynamics textbook, Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, says:

The basis of every law of nature is experimental evidence, and this is true also of the first law of thermodynamics. Many different experiments have been conducted on the first law, and every one thus far has verified it either directly or indirectly. The first law has never been disproved (Borgnakke and Sonntag, 2009, p. 116, emp. added).

That is why the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines a scientific law as “a regularity which applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena” (2003, p. 1182, emp. added). Famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, concurred:

But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe. Unlike laws made by humans, the laws of nature cannot ever be broken. That’s why they are so powerful…. [T]he laws of nature are fixed (“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” 2011, emp. added).

The Second Law

In the nineteenth century, Lord Kelvin and Rudolph Clausius (1822-1888) separately made findings that became known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Suplee, 2000, p. 156). The Second Law builds on the First, stating that though there is a constant amount of energy in a given system that is merely transforming into different states, that energy is becoming less usable. Extending our wood burning illustration above, after the wood is burned, the total amount of energy is still the same, but transformed into other energy states. Those energy states (e.g., ash and dissipated heat to the environment) are less retrievable and less accessible (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Well-known atheist, physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State University, Paul Davies, explained it this way:

[T]he celebrated second law of thermodynamics…says, roughly speaking, that in any change the Universe becomes a slightly more disorderly place; the entropy goes up, the information content goes down. This natural tendency towards disintegration and chaos is evident all around us (1978, 80[1129]:506).

This process is irreversible. Lord Kelvin stated that energy is “irrecoverably lost to man and therefore ‘wasted,’ although not annihilated” (Thomson, 1882, p. 189, ital. in orig.). This principle is known as entropy. Simply put, entropy states that nature is tending towards disorder and chaos. Will the paint job on your house maintain its fresh appearance over time? Will your son’s room actually become cleaner on its own, or will it tend toward disorder? Even without your son’s assistance, dust and decay take their toll. Although work can slow the entropy, it cannot stop it. Renowned evolutionary science writer Isaac Asimov explained:

Another way of stating the Second Law then is “The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!” Viewed that way we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the Second Law is all about (1970, p. 6).

Entropy is simply a fact of nature. Entropy can be minimized in this Universe, but it cannot be eradicated. That is where engineers come in. Engineers work to discover ways of minimizing energy loss and maximizing useful energy before it is forever lost. Thousands of engineering jobs are dedicated to addressing this fundamental fact of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Your energy bill is affected directly by it. If the Second Law was not fixed—unchanging—engineers could not develop the technology necessary to maximize usable energy, thereby lowering your energy costs.

Some engineers devote their entire careers to minimizing entropy in the generation of power from energy. All this effort is based on the principles established by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These principles are established as fact in the scientific community. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “law” as “a statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met” (2000, p. 993, emp. added). Since laws are invariable, i.e., unchanging and constant, they have no exceptions. Otherwise, they would not be classified as laws. Tracy Walters, a mechanical engineer working in thermal engineering, observed:

It has been my experience that many people do not appreciate how uncompromising the Laws of Thermodynamics actually are. It is felt, perhaps, that the Laws are merely general tendencies or possibly only theoretical considerations. In reality, though, the Laws of Thermodynamics are hard as nails, and...the more one works with these Laws, the deeper respect one gains for them (1986, 9[2]:8, emp. added).

Evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin stated that “the Entropy Law will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that it is the premier law of all science; Sir Arthur Eddington referred to it as the ‘supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe’” (1980, p. 6). Borgnakke and Sonntag, in Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, explain:

[W]e can say that the second law of thermodynamics (like every other law of nature) rests on experimental evidence. Every relevant experiment that has been conducted, either directly or indirectly, verifies the second law, and no experiment has ever been conducted that contradicts the second law. The basis of the second law is therefore experimental evidence (2009, p. 220, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).

Another thermal science textbook says, concerning the Second Law of Thermodynamics, “To date, no experiment has been conducted that contradicts the second law, and this should be taken as sufficient proof of its validity” (Cengel, Turner, and Cimbala, 2008, p. 266, emp. added).

IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAWS

When understood properly, the Laws of Thermodynamics apply directly to the creation/evolution controversy in precisely the same way they apply in the engineering world today (cf. Miller, 2007). In fact, these foundational truths, utilized daily by the engineering world, have eternally significant, spiritual implications in that they prove that God exists. How so?

If there is no God, the existence of the Universe must be explained without Him. The Big Bang theory claims that all matter in the Universe initially was condensed in a sphere smaller than the size of a period at the end of this sentence. That sphere exploded and helps to explain why the Universe, according to many cosmologists, appears to be expanding or inflating (see Thompson, et al., 2003, 23[5]:32-34,36-47). Even if the Big Bang were true (and it is not, cf. Thompson, et al.), this theory offers no explanation for the origin of that sphere. Evolutionist Alan Guth, a cosmologist and physics professor at M.I.T., admitted that “[i]nflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very small universe came from” (as quoted in Heeren, 1995, p. 148). He further stated, “[A] proposal that the universe was created from empty space is no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber. It might be true, but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from” (Guth, 1997, p. 273). So where could the “rubber” have come from?

The only logical possibilities for the origin of the matter and energy comprising the Universe are that they are responsible for their own existence (i.e., they popped into existence out of nothing—spontaneous generation or they always existed—eternality) or Someone is responsible for their existence (i.e., they were placed here by something outside of the Universe—Creation) (see Figure 3).

Figure 3

As the well-known philosopher and evolutionist from the 19th century, Herbert Spencer said, “Respecting the origin of the Universe three verbally intelligible suppositions may be made. We may assert that it is self-existent [i.e., eternal—JM]; or that it is self-created [i.e., spontaneously generated—JM]; or that it is created by an external agency” (1882, p. 30).

Possibility 1: Spontaneous Generation of the Universe

Consider the entire physical Universe as a system consisting of all mass, matter, and energy that exists in the Universe. If one believes in the Big Bang model, the system’s boundary would be outside of the blast radius of the Big Bang, or outside of the original cosmic dot that exploded. Without God (i.e., something outside of the bounds of the Universe—something supernatural), this Universe would have to be a closed system. Since our system encompasses the entire Universe, there is no more mass that can cross into our system from the outside, which necessitates our system being closed. If mass, matter, and energy could enter and/or exit the system, the system would be an open system[NOTE: The creationist contends that the Universe is an open system, since there is Someone outside of the natural Universe Who can cross the boundary and put matter and energy into the system. However, without God, the entire physical Universe as a system logically would have to be a closed system. Atheists must so believe in order to explain the Universe without God.].

Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger, in his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis, said:

Conservation of energy [i.e., the First Law—JM] and other basic laws hold true in the most distant observed galaxy and in the cosmic microwave background, implying that these laws have been valid for over thirteen billion years. Surely any observation of their violation during the puny human life span would be reasonably termed a miracle…. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang (2007, pp. 115-116, emp. added).

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system, the amount of energy present in that system is constant, though it transforms into other forms of energy. So, if the Universe as a whole initially contained no mass, matter, or energy, and then all of the mass, matter, and energy in the Universe spontaneously generated, the First Law would be violated. Without intervention from an outside force, the amount of mass, matter, and energy in the Universe would have remained constant (unchanged) at nothing. According to the scientific evidence, matter/energy could not have originally spontaneously generated. Thus, according to Stenger, the creation hypothesis is confirmed based on the scientific evidence. The initial creation of energy from nothing amounted to a miracle.

As was mentioned earlier, there are no exceptions to laws, or else they would not be laws. The First Law of Thermodynamics has no known exceptions. The Law is accepted as fact by all scientists in general and utilized by engineers in particular. Therefore, the Universe, composed of all mass, matter, and energy, could not have spontaneously generated (popped into existence on its own) without violating the exceptionless and highly respected First Law of Thermodynamics. The energy level of the Universe would not have been constant. Spontaneous generation would amount to the creation of energy from nothing (see Figure 4). The Universe could not have come into existence without the presence and intervention of a Force outside of the closed system of the entire physical Universe. The Universe therefore must be an open system that was created by a non-physical Force (i.e., a Force not composed of mass, matter, and energy) outside of the physical boundary of this Universe (above nature, or supernatural) with the capability of bringing it into existence out of nothing. That Force can be none other than a supernatural God. To develop a theory that requires the violation of that principle would be against the scientific evidence. It would be unscientific. The evidence from science indicates that matter could not and cannot spontaneously generate.

Figure 4

Unfortunately, though this truth is so glaringly obvious to many, there has been a recent surge of sentiment in the impossible notion that this Universe could have created itself—that something could come from nothing. British evolutionist Anthony Kenny (1980), physics professor from City University in New York, Edward Tryon (1984), and physicists Alan Guth from M.I.T. and Paul Steinhardt of Princeton (1984) are just a few who are open proponents of this notion. Stephen Hawking said, “Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can…. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” (2010, p. 180). However, the truth still stands. Until the First Law of Thermodynamics ceases to be a fundamental law explaining this Universe, the spontaneous generation of this Universe from nothing is impossible.

No wonder Victor Stenger, a proponent of the idea of spontaneous generation, said, “I must admit that there are yet no empirical or observational tests that can be used to test the idea of an accidental origin” (1987, 7[3]:30). According to Stenger, the idea is “speculative” (p. 30). No solid evidence. Just speculation. Famous evolutionary astronomer, Robert Jastrow, the founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, said:

But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact (1977, p. 32).

Science studies what occurs in nature, not super-nature. In nature, matter and energy can be neither created or destroyed, but “must remain unchanged forever.” This is a “firmly established fact.” Nothing comes from nothing. If a molecule will not pop into existence from nothing, a sphere containing all of the matter and energy of the entire Universe will certainly not pop into existence.

Possibility 2: Eternal Existence of the Universe

Again, considering the entire Universe as a system necessitates that it be a closed system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that though energy in a closed system is constant (First Law of Thermodynamics), that energy is transforming into less usable forms of energy (i.e., the Universe is “running down”). This process is irreversible. There is a finite amount of usable energy in the Universe (which explains the widespread interest in conserving energy). In the Big Bang model, that energy was originally in the cosmic egg that exploded, and now would be found within the blast radius of the original explosion. That usable energy is depleting according to the Second Law. Engineers strive to slow this inevitable depletion of energy, but it cannot be stopped.

If the Universe has always existed (i.e., it is eternal), but there is a finite amount of usable energy, then all usable energy already should be expended (see Figure 5). Yet, usable energy still exists. So, the Universe cannot have existed forever. It had to have a beginning. The eternality of matter would be the equivalent of a system with an energy input and 100% usable energy output (see Figure 6). It would be the equivalent of describing the Universe as a perpetual motion machine—a design that attempts to violate either the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics by, for instance, running forever without an energy input. No such machine has ever been designed, since such a machine would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Philip Yam, writing in Scientific American said, “Claims for perpetual-motion machines and other free-energy devices still persist, of course, even though they inevitably turn out to violate at least one law of thermodynamics” (1997, 277[6]:82).

Figure 5

 

Figure 6

No wonder evolutionists, themselves, have long conceded this truth. In his book, Until the Sun Dies, renowned evolutionary astronomer Robert Jastrow stated:

The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth, but the impact is the same: modern science denies an eternal existence of the Universe, either in the past or in the future (1977, p. 30, emp. added).

In his book, God and the Astronomers, Jastrow reiterated this truth:

And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up…. Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning (1978, pp. 48-49, 111).

Evolutionist Kitty Ferguson, award-winning science writer, agreed. She said, “It’s also common knowledge that the universe isn’t eternal but had a beginning” (1994, p. 89). Any person who develops a theory that claims that the Universe could be a perpetual motion machine, is guilty of contradicting the solid evidence from science. They are being unscientific, and their unscientific mindset has resulted in an unscientific theory.

Possibility 3: The Inevitable Implication

What does the scientific evidence actually say about the matter of origins? Forget speculation, conjecture, hypothesis, and theory—wishful, hopeful thinking that there might be some way to avoid a supernatural explanation and the restrictions that Being might have on our desires. What does the evidence say?

To repeat, logically, there are only three possible explanations for the existence of matter in the Universe. Either it spontaneously generated, it is eternal, or it was created by a non-physical Being outside of the boundaries of the Universe. Atheists use the theory of evolution in an attempt to explain the existence and state of the Universe today. In order for the theory of evolution to be true, thereby accounting for the existence of mankind, either all of the mass, matter, and energy of the Universe spontaneously generated (i.e., it popped into existence out of nothing), or it has always existed (i.e., it is eternal.). Without an outside force (a transcendent, omnipotent, eternal, superior Being), no other options for the existence of the Universe are available. However, as the Laws of Thermodynamics prove, the spontaneous generation and the eternality of matter are logically and scientifically impossible. One and only one possible option remains: the Universe was created by the Creator. The scientific evidence points to the existence of God. Bottom line: God designed the laws of thermodynamics. Creationists believe them. Engineers use them. Atheists cannot harmonize them with their beloved theory.

CONCLUSION

Evolutionists claim that science and the idea of God are irreconcilable. “Only one of them can be true,” they say, “and you cannot prove there is a God.” Not all theistic models for the origin of the Universe are in keeping with science. For instance, according to Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation account, the polytheistic Babylonians believed that matter is eternal (Pfeiffer, 1972, p. 226). This has been shown to be false. However, although not all Creation models are in harmony with the scientific evidence, one would expect the true Creation model to be in keeping with the evidence. The Laws of Thermodynamics, which science itself recognizes in its explanations of the phenomena in the Universe, were written by the Chief Engineer (cf. Miller, 2012). As expected, they prove to be in complete harmony with His existence, contrary to the claims of evolutionists. God, Himself, articulated these laws centuries ago in the Bible.

At the very beginning of the Bible, the First Law of Thermodynamics was expressed when Moses penned, “Thus the heavens and the Earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day, God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done” (Genesis 2:1-2, emp. added). In Exodus 20:11, Moses wrote, “For in six days, the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested (i.e., ceased) the seventh day.” Everything in the Universe was made in six days, and then the Lord stopped creating. Nothing else is coming into existence naturally. After the six days of Creation, the mass, matter, and energy creation process was terminated. As evolutionist Willard Young said regarding the First Law: “Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to another.” The thrust of the First Law of Thermodynamics was expressed in the Bible thousands of years ago, although it was not discovered and formally articulated by scientists until the 19th century.

Through the hand of the psalmist, God also stated centuries ago what scientists call the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “Of old You laid the foundation of the Earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; yes, they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end” (102:25-27, emp. added). The Universe is wearing out—decaying, like an old shirt: the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Once again, the Creation model is in perfect harmony with science. The evolutionary model fails its thermodynamics test.

The inspired writer wrote in Hebrews 11:3, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Paul declared in Acts 14:17, “Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” The psalmist affirmed, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1). Paul assured the Romans, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (1:20, emp. added). The scientific evidence points to God. There will be no excuse in the end for those who deny it.

In closing, we return to Lord Kelvin, the Father of Thermodynamics, for fitting final thoughts. In a short public speech in 1903, reported by The Times and followed up by an amending letter to the paper by Kelvin, Kelvin said:

I do not say that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative Power…. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being [Acts 17:28—JM], but in the creating and directive Power which science compels us to accept as an article of belief.... There is nothing between absolute scientific belief in a Creative Power, and the acceptance of the theory of a fortuitous concourse of atoms.... Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking somewhere in the country if he believed that the grass and flowers that we saw around us grew by mere chemical forces. He answered, “No, no more than I could believe that a book of botany describing them grew by mere chemical forces”.... Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all Religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to Religion (as quoted in Thompson, 1910, pp. 1097-1100, emp. added).

According to the Father of Thermodynamics, evolutionists are failing to “think strongly enough.” No wonder the psalmist asserted: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (14:1).

REFERENCES

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

Asimov, Isaac (1970), “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian Institute Journal, pp. 4-10, June.

Borgnakke, Claus and Richard E. Sonntag (2009), Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (Asia: John Wiley and Sons), seventh edition.

Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.

Cengel, Yunus A., Robert H. Turner, and John M. Cimbala (2008), Thermal-Fluid Sciences (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill).

“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.

Davies, Paul (1978), “Chance or Choice: Is the Universe an Accident?” New Scientist, 80[1129]:506-508, November.

Ferguson, Kitty (1994), The Fire in the Equations: Science, Religion, and the Search for God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Guth, Alan (1997), The Inflationary Universe (New York: Perseus Books).

Guth, Alan and Paul Steinhardt (1984), “The Inflationary Universe,” Scientific American, 250:116-128, May.

Hawking, Stephen (2010), The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam Books).

Heeren, Fred (1995), Show Me God (Wheeling, IL: Searchlight Publications).

Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

Jastrow, Robert (1978), God and the Astro­nomers (New York: W.W. Norton).

Kenny, Anthony (1980), The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of God’s Existence (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press).

King, A.L. (1962), Thermophysics (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman).

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “‘The Laws of Science’-by God,” Reason & Revelation, 32[12]:137-140, December, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1103&article=2072.

Moran, Michael J. and Howard N. Shapiro (2000), Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons), fourth edition.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. (1972), The Biblical World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).

Rifkin, Jeremy (1980), Entropy: A New World View (New York: Viking).

Spencer, Herbert (1882), First Principles: A System of Synthetic Philosophy (New York: D. Appleton and Company), fourth edition.

Stenger, Victor J. (1987), “Was the Universe Created?,” Free Inquiry, 7[3]:26-30, Summer.

Stenger, Victor J. (2007), God: The Failed Hypothesis (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).

Suplee, Curt (2000), Milestones of Science (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society).

Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:32-34,36-47.

Thompson, Silvanus P. (1910), The Life of William Thomson Baron Kelvin of Largs, Vol. 2, (London: MacMillan and Co.).

Thomson, William (1882), Mathematical and Physical Papers (Cambridge University Press).

Tryon, Edward P. (1984), “What Made the World?,” New Scientist, 101:14-16, March 8.

Walters, Tracy (1986), “A Reply to John Patterson’s Arguments,” Origins Research, 9[2]:8-9, Fall/Winter.

Yam, Philip (1997), “Exploiting Zero-Point Energy,” Scientific American, 277[6]82-85.

Young, Willard (1985), Fallacies of Creationism (Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Detselig Enterprises).


"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" A Gentile Blessed For Her Faith (7:24-30) by Mark Copeland

 







"THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

A Gentile Blessed For Her Faith (7:24-30)

INTRODUCTION

1. Many Christians today take their faith and its privileges for granted...
   a. Perhaps it is the old adage, "familiarity breeds contempt"
   b. But Gentile Christians in particular should never lose sight of the grace shown them

2. I refer to privileges that were long bestowed on the Israelites...
   a. Such as a covenant relationship with God
   b. With all the blessings that accompany such a relationship
   c. Which are now available to all who come to God with faith in Christ

[An incident in the life of Christ reminds me of "the way we were".  It
involves a Gentile woman who was blessed for her faith.  In Mk 7:24, we
begin as we pick up with...]

I. THE NARRATIVE

   A. THE SEARCH FOR PRIVACY...
      1. Jesus had travelled about 40 miles from Capernaum
      2. He came to the region of Tyre and Sidon, also known as Syro-Phoenecia - Mk 7:24
      3. He sought privacy, probably needing rest - cf. Mk 6:31-32

   B. THE REQUEST FOR A MIRACLE..
      1. A woman with a daughter possessed by an unclean spirit came to Him - Mk 7:25
      2. She was a Greek (Gentile), a Syro-Phoenician by birth - Mk 7:26
      3. She "kept asking" Jesus to cast out the demon - Mk 7:26
      4. She even acknowledged Jesus as "O Lord, Son of David!" - cf. Mt 15:22
      5. Matthew reveals that initially Jesus did not speak to her - cf. Mt 15:23
      6. That she began pestering His disciples - cf. Mt 15:23

   C. THE REFUSAL TO HEAL...
      1. Matthew's account explains Jesus' thinking - cf. Mt 15:24
         a. "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
         b. Compare His charge regarding the "Limited Commission" - cf. Mt 10:5-6
         c. His mission was to fulfill prophecy concerning Israel's Messiah
         d. He would later expand His ministry to the world - cf. Mt 28:19; Mk 16:15
      2. Jesus' response to her suggested as much - Mk 7:27
         a. "Let the children be filled first..."
         b. There were promises to Israel that needed to be filled before those to the Gentiles

   D. THE RESPONSE TO FAITH...
      1. The woman's response to Jesus shows her faith - Mk 7:28
         a. "Yes, Lord..." - she acknowledge the right for Him to refuse her request
         b. "...yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the
            children's crumbs.." - she would be happy with "crumbs" left
            over from His ministry to the Jews
      2. Jesus admired her faith and healed her daughter - Mk 7:29-30
         a. Matthew adds that Jesus said, "O woman, great is your faith!" - cf. Mt 15:28
         b. And that her daughter "was healed instantly" - cf. Mt 15:28

[Thus this Gentile woman was blessed for her faith.  With this incident fresh on our mind...]

II. SOME OBSERVATIONS

   A. OTHER GENTILES BLESSED BY FAITH...
      1. The centurion at Capernaum - Mt 8:5-13
      2. Cornelius, the first Gentile convert to the gospel - Ac 10:1-6
      -- The first centurion ate "crumbs", the latter the first to "sit at the table"

   B. GENTILES ARE NOW BLESSED BY FAITH...
      1. We are no longer:
         a. Without Christ
         b. Aliens from the commonwealth of Israel
         c. Strangers from the covenants of promise
         d. Having no hope and without God in the world  - Ep 2:11-12
      2. We are now:
         a. Brought near by the blood of Christ - Ep 2:13
         b. Reconciled as one body in Christ - Ep 2:14-17
         c. With access by one Spirit to the Father - Ep 2:18
         d. Fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God - Ep 2:19-22
      -- True to Jesus' promise (Mt 8:11-12), Gentiles can now sit at the table!

   C. ARE WE MAKING GOOD USE OF OUR BLESSINGS...?
      1. Not if we refuse to come to the table
         a. By not obeying the gospel
         b. Jesus now invites everyone - Mk 16:15-16
      2. Not if we refuse to eat at the table
         a. Through disobedience and neglect
         b. This was the mistake of many of the Jews - cf. Mt 8:11-12; 21:43
      3. Not if we eat only the crumbs
         a. Through apathy and neglect
         b. This was the problem with Sardis and Laodicea - cf. Re 3:1-2,14-19
      -- If the "sons" will be cast out, how much more ungrateful "dogs"? - cf. Ro 11:21-22

CONCLUSION

1. This incident, "A Gentile Blessed For Her Faith", should remind us of...
   a. The way we were before Christ
   b. The blessings we now enjoy in Christ

2. Do we have her kind of faith...?
   a. Persisting even when first rebuffed?
   b. Willing to accept even the smallest of blessings?

For those who do, a spiritual feast awaits...! - cf. Ep 1:3  
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Bachelorette on show’s sexual relations: ‘I can do whatever, I sin daily and Jesus still loves me’ by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2019/06/21/bachelorette-on-shows-sexual-relations-i-can-do-whatever-i-sin-daily-and-jesus-still-loves-me/

Bachelorette on show’s sexual relations: ‘I can do whatever, I sin daily and Jesus still loves me’

In a new promotional video for the so-called reality show “The Bachelorette” Hannah Brown is talking with contestant Luke Parker, who is telling her what he thinks about sex.

“Let’s talk about sex and how the marriage bed should be kept pure,” Luke told Hannah.

“Let’s say you have had sex with one or multiple of these guys, I would be wanting to go home,” Luke admitted.

Apparently, Hannah, who professes to be a Christian and was shown praying before meeting the bachelors, was offended by Luke’s comments and confessed she had “physical relations” with some of the other contestants but said “Jesus stills loves her.”

“Regardless of anything that I’ve done, I can do whatever, I sin daily and Jesus still loves me. It’s all washed and if the Lord doesn’t judge me and it’s all forgiven, then no other man, woman … anything can judge me,” Hannah told Entertainment Weekly after the promo aired.

“Nobody’s gonna judge me, I won’t stand for it,” she continued.

According to the promotional clip, however, Hannah seemingly sends Luke home after their “sex” chat and even flips him off as he is leaving.

“My faith that is a big, huge part of me and a lot of times people get Christianity and religion messed up,” Hannah told ET. “Your faith should be something personal and a relationship and it’s not to judge others.”

Now for the record, The Preacherman does not watch “The Bachelorette.” In fact, I never saw the promotional video. My source is from an article in The Christian Post by Charity Gibson.

Hannah’s attitude is characteristic of many people who harbor misconceptions, about sin, grace, religion, and judging.

(1) God’s grace is not a blank check to sin.

Hannah’s retort minds me of the apostle Paul’s anticipated response from his readers when he wrote, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?”

The answer. “By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it.”

While all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23), the frailty of the flesh is not an excuse to willfully and wantonly engage in sinful practices. Planned, persistent, and deliberate sins puts us at odds with the plea of the Bible to “abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11).

(2) The Bible teaches that fornication is a sin.

Our culture accepts sexual relationships apart from marriage as being normal, expected and even healthy. But the majority opinion is wrong.

Furthermore, God’s love, grace, and mercy do not excuse sexual relationships outside of marriage. Hebrews 13:4 affirms that “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”

Paul admonished us to “flee sexual immorality” and says that it is a sin that can keep one from “the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11,18).

(3) God’s love does not ignore our transgressions.

Yes, God loves us. He sent Christ to die for sins. And He is longsuffering. (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8; 2 Pet. 3:9). But this not does mean that God turns a blind eye to our sins. He earnestly desires for us to repent. To change. To be transformed from the deeds, desires, and deceitfulness of this world (Rom. 12:1-2).

(4) Religion and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

Hannah’s pejorative comment about religion is one that we often hear. Many folks labor under the false notion that they can hold to some personal faith apart from Biblical instruction and be pleasing to God.

God’s Word, however, says something about religion that applies to this issue. “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (Jas 1:27).

The religion of Christ involves both principles and practices that one professing faith ought to believe and embrace.

(5) Not all judging is a sin.

Accusing others of judging is a frequent dodge to deflect the condemnation of our sins. Jesus commanded, “Judge righteous judgment”(Jn. 7:24). Discerning good from evil requires judgment (Heb 5:14). And to obey the exhortation “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them” (Eph 5:11) demands judging based on God’s Word.

Let us not excuse our sins or become slaves of sin. Rather may we be servants of Christ. Forgiven and free from the bondage of sin.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman


JESUS DIED FOR ALL MEN BY STEVE FINNELL

 

https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/

JESUS DIED FOR ALL MEN   BY STEVE FINNELL


Jesus died for all men, however, all men will not be saved. God loves everyone, but salvation is conditional.

JESUS DIED FOR ALL MEN

1 Timothy 2:5-6.....the man Jesus Christ, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Jesus paid the price of salvation for all men, not just for a selected few.

Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Him who was made a little lower than the angels, namely Jesus , because of the suffering death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

Jesus tasted death for everyone. Jesus did not die for a preselected few.

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

Jesus did not send the disciples to preach to only those that had been hand picked by God for salvation. The disciples were to preach to all the world. Jesus died for every person in the world  then and now.

THERE WILL BE ONLY A FEW WHO WILL BE SAVED.

Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Heaven will not be crowded.

SALVATION IS AVAILABLE FOR ALL, BUT IT IS CONDITIONAL.

Romans 1;16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Salvation is available to all who believe. Salvation is conditional.

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen."

All men who have heard the gospel have been called. The chosen are the ones who believe. It is a personal choice. Men have free will.

CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD.

Romans 10:13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

How do men call on the name of the Lord? They call on His name by FAITH-REPENTANCE-CONFESSION-and WATER BAPTISM.

FAITH: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Mark 16:16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

REPENTANCE: Acts 3:19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 17 30-31 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring that all people everywhere should repent, 31......

All people who want to be saved need to repent of their unbelief and make the commitment to turn from their sinful lifestyle and turn toward God.

CONFESSION: Matthew 10:32 "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. Romans 10:9-10 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10.......Acts 37[And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may, And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]

WATER BAPTISM: Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 1 Peter 3:20-21 ....safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you---not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience---through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Mark 16:16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

JESUS DIED FOR ALL MEN, HOWEVER, ALL MEN WILL NOT BE SAVED BECAUSE SALVATION IS CONDITIONAL! 
SALVATION IS A CHOICE. MEN HAVE THE FREE-WILL TO MAKE THAT CHOICE.

MEN CAN BE SAVED IN TWO HOURS MORE OR LESS. MEN JUST HAVE TO MEET GOD'S TERMS FOR PARDON.

(All Scripture from : NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE)

Abiding in Him by Richard Mansel

 

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

Abiding in Him

How will we be found when the Lord returns? The time of the Lord's return is a mystery. "Of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only" (Matthew 24:36). So, how should we be conducting ourselves?

John writes, "And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming. If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him" (1 John 2:28-29).

Since Christ came and died for us and gave of Himself so freely (Galatians 2:20) we ought to spend ourselves for His kingdom. We should prepare ourselves and conduct our lives so we will not be ashamed when we stand before Him.

To be ashamed, as John writes, means to "grow pale, to change color from shame." We certainly do not want to be the ones ashamed on the Day of Judgment. Instead, sinners and 'Christians' who have scoffed at Christianity, justified drinking, fornication, false teachings, blasphemy and the like, will lose color and will strangle their laughs when they realize Christ is real and has come with a sword of vengeance (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; Romans 1:28-32).

John writes that we must know God is righteous. He has all truth and has supplied us with sacred truths in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

John also writes that we must be born of Him. Only in Him will we find salvation (John 3:3-5). Otherwise, we will be found with the sinners and will be lost forever (Matthew 25).

Finally, John writes that we should practice righteousness. We live for Him every day of our lives. Then because we are faithful to His cause we become filled with boldness. Proverbs 28:1 says, "The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion."

Boldness here involves speaking freely. People speak out concerning matters they are passionate about whether it be politics, hobbies or gossip. Since we have boldness and confidence, we can be busy in the practice of righteousness. A 'practicing attorney' is someone who is active in this profession. What are we doing to practice righteousness? Is it obvious to those among whom we circulate daily? If not, how can we be "lights to the world?" (Matthew 5:16).

Richard Mansel

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


Bible Reading for January 27 and 28 by Gary Rose

 

Bible Reading for January 27 and 28

World  English  Bible


Jan. 27

Genesis 27

Gen 27:1 It happened, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his elder son, and said to him, "My son?" He said to him, "Here I am."

Gen 27:2 He said, "See now, I am old. I don't know the day of my death.

Gen 27:3 Now therefore, please take your weapons, your quiver and your bow, and go out to the field, and take me venison.

Gen 27:4 Make me savory food, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat, and that my soul may bless you before I die."

Gen 27:5 Rebekah heard when Isaac spoke to Esau his son. Esau went to the field to hunt for venison, and to bring it.

Gen 27:6 Rebekah spoke to Jacob her son, saying, "Behold, I heard your father speak to Esau your brother, saying,

Gen 27:7 'Bring me venison, and make me savory food, that I may eat, and bless you before Yahweh before my death.'

Gen 27:8 Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command you.

Gen 27:9 Go now to the flock, and get me from there two good kids of the goats. I will make them savory food for your father, such as he loves.

Gen 27:10 You shall bring it to your father, that he may eat, so that he may bless you before his death."

Gen 27:11 Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, "Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man.

Gen 27:12 What if my father touches me? I will seem to him as a deceiver, and I would bring a curse on myself, and not a blessing."

Gen 27:13 His mother said to him, "Let your curse be on me, my son. Only obey my voice, and go get them for me."

Gen 27:14 He went, and got them, and brought them to his mother. His mother made savory food, such as his father loved.

Gen 27:15 Rebekah took the good clothes of Esau, her elder son, which were with her in the house, and put them on Jacob, her younger son.

Gen 27:16 She put the skins of the kids of the goats on his hands, and on the smooth of his neck.

Gen 27:17 She gave the savory food and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob.

Gen 27:18 He came to his father, and said, "My father?" He said, "Here I am. Who are you, my son?"

Gen 27:19 Jacob said to his father, "I am Esau your firstborn. I have done what you asked me to do. Please arise, sit and eat of my venison, that your soul may bless me."

Gen 27:20 Isaac said to his son, "How is it that you have found it so quickly, my son?" He said, "Because Yahweh your God gave me success."

Gen 27:21 Isaac said to Jacob, "Please come near, that I may feel you, my son, whether you are really my son Esau or not."

Gen 27:22 Jacob went near to Isaac his father. He felt him, and said, "The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau."

Gen 27:23 He didn't recognize him, because his hands were hairy, like his brother, Esau's hands. So he blessed him.

Gen 27:24 He said, "Are you really my son Esau?" He said, "I am."

Gen 27:25 He said, "Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son's venison, that my soul may bless you." He brought it near to him, and he ate. He brought him wine, and he drank.

Gen 27:26 His father Isaac said to him, "Come near now, and kiss me, my son."

Gen 27:27 He came near, and kissed him. He smelled the smell of his clothing, and blessed him, and said, "Behold, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which Yahweh has blessed.

Gen 27:28 God give you of the dew of the sky, of the fatness of the earth, and plenty of grain and new wine.

Gen 27:29 Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers. Let your mother's sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone who curses you. Blessed be everyone who blesses you."

Gen 27:30 It happened, as soon as Isaac had made an end of blessing Jacob, and Jacob had just gone out from the presence of Isaac his father, that Esau his brother came in from his hunting.

Gen 27:31 He also made savory food, and brought it to his father. He said to his father, "Let my father arise, and eat of his son's venison, that your soul may bless me."

Gen 27:32 Isaac his father said to him, "Who are you?" He said, "I am your son, your firstborn, Esau."

Gen 27:33 Isaac trembled violently, and said, "Who, then, is he who has taken venison, and brought it me, and I have eaten of all before you came, and have blessed him? Yes, he will be blessed."

Gen 27:34 When Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with an exceeding great and bitter cry, and said to his father, "Bless me, even me also, my father."

Gen 27:35 He said, "Your brother came with deceit, and has taken away your blessing."

Gen 27:36 He said, "Isn't he rightly named Jacob? For he has supplanted me these two times. He took away my birthright. See, now he has taken away my blessing." He said, "Haven't you reserved a blessing for me?"

Gen 27:37 Isaac answered Esau, "Behold, I have made him your lord, and all his brothers have I given to him for servants. With grain and new wine have I sustained him. What then will I do for you, my son?"

Gen 27:38 Esau said to his father, "Have you but one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, my father." Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.

Gen 27:39 Isaac his father answered him, "Behold, of the fatness of the earth will be your dwelling, and of the dew of the sky from above.

Gen 27:40 By your sword will you live, and you will serve your brother. It will happen, when you will break loose, that you shall shake his yoke from off your neck."

Gen 27:41 Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father blessed him. Esau said in his heart, "The days of mourning for my father are at hand. Then I will kill my brother Jacob."

Gen 27:42 The words of Esau, her elder son, were told to Rebekah. She sent and called Jacob, her younger son, and said to him, "Behold, your brother Esau comforts himself about you by planning to kill you.

Gen 27:43 Now therefore, my son, obey my voice. Arise, flee to Laban, my brother, in Haran.

Gen 27:44 Stay with him a few days, until your brother's fury turns away;

Gen 27:45 until your brother's anger turn away from you, and he forgets what you have done to him. Then I will send, and get you from there. Why should I be bereaved of you both in one day?"

Gen 27:46 Rebekah said to Isaac, "I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth. If Jacob takes a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these, of the daughters of the land, what good will my life do me?"

 

Jan. 28

Genesis 28

Gen 28:1 Isaac called Jacob, blessed him, and commanded him, "You shall not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.

Gen 28:2 Arise, go to Paddan Aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother's father. Take a wife from there from the daughters of Laban, your mother's brother.

Gen 28:3 May God Almighty bless you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, that you may be a company of peoples,

Gen 28:4 and give you the blessing of Abraham, to you, and to your seed with you, that you may inherit the land where you travel, which God gave to Abraham."

Gen 28:5 Isaac sent Jacob away. He went to Paddan Aram to Laban, son of Bethuel the Syrian, Rebekah's brother, Jacob's and Esau's mother.

Gen 28:6 Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him away to Paddan Aram, to take him a wife from there, and that as he blessed him he gave him a command, saying, "You shall not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan,"

Gen 28:7 and that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Paddan Aram.

Gen 28:8 Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan didn't please Isaac, his father.

Gen 28:9 Esau went to Ishmael, and took, besides the wives that he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham's son, the sister of Nebaioth, to be his wife.

Gen 28:10 Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran.

Gen 28:11 He came to a certain place, and stayed there all night, because the sun had set. He took one of the stones of the place, and put it under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep.

Gen 28:12 He dreamed. Behold, a stairway set upon the earth, and its top reached to heaven. Behold, the angels of God ascending and descending on it.

Gen 28:13 Behold, Yahweh stood above it, and said, "I am Yahweh, the God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac. The land whereon you lie, to you will I give it, and to your seed.

Gen 28:14 Your seed will be as the dust of the earth, and you will spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south. In you and in your seed will all the families of the earth be blessed.

Gen 28:15 Behold, I am with you, and will keep you, wherever you go, and will bring you again into this land. For I will not leave you, until I have done that which I have spoken of to you."

Gen 28:16 Jacob awakened out of his sleep, and he said, "Surely Yahweh is in this place, and I didn't know it."

Gen 28:17 He was afraid, and said, "How dreadful is this place! This is none other than God's house, and this is the gate of heaven."

Gen 28:18 Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put under his head, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil on its top.

Gen 28:19 He called the name of that place Bethel, but the name of the city was Luz at the first.

Gen 28:20 Jacob vowed a vow, saying, "If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and clothing to put on,

Gen 28:21 so that I come again to my father's house in peace, and Yahweh will be my God,

Gen 28:22 then this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, will be God's house. Of all that you will give me I will surely give the tenth to you." 

 

Jan. 27, 28

Matthew 14

Mat 14:1 At that time, Herod the tetrarch heard the report concerning Jesus,

Mat 14:2 and said to his servants, "This is John the Baptizer. He is risen from the dead. That is why these powers work in him."

Mat 14:3 For Herod had laid hold of John, and bound him, and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife.

Mat 14:4 For John said to him, "It is not lawful for you to have her."

Mat 14:5 When he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet.

Mat 14:6 But when Herod's birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced among them and pleased Herod.

Mat 14:7 Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatever she should ask.

Mat 14:8 She, being prompted by her mother, said, "Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptizer."

Mat 14:9 The king was grieved, but for the sake of his oaths, and of those who sat at the table with him, he commanded it to be given,

Mat 14:10 and he sent and beheaded John in the prison.

Mat 14:11 His head was brought on a platter, and given to the young lady: and she brought it to her mother.

Mat 14:12 His disciples came, and took the body, and buried it; and they went and told Jesus.

Mat 14:13 Now when Jesus heard this, he withdrew from there in a boat, to a deserted place apart. When the multitudes heard it, they followed him on foot from the cities.

Mat 14:14 Jesus went out, and he saw a great multitude. He had compassion on them, and healed their sick.

Mat 14:15 When evening had come, his disciples came to him, saying, "This place is deserted, and the hour is already late. Send the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves food."

Mat 14:16 But Jesus said to them, "They don't need to go away. You give them something to eat."

Mat 14:17 They told him, "We only have here five loaves and two fish."

Mat 14:18 He said, "Bring them here to me."

Mat 14:19 He commanded the multitudes to sit down on the grass; and he took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave to the multitudes.

Mat 14:20 They all ate, and were filled. They took up twelve baskets full of that which remained left over from the broken pieces.

Mat 14:21 Those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children.

Mat 14:22 Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat, and to go ahead of him to the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.

Mat 14:23 After he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into the mountain by himself to pray. When evening had come, he was there alone.

Mat 14:24 But the boat was now in the middle of the sea, distressed by the waves, for the wind was contrary.

Mat 14:25 In the fourth watch of the night, Jesus came to them, walking on the sea.

Mat 14:26 When the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, "It's a ghost!" and they cried out for fear.

Mat 14:27 But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying "Cheer up! It is I! Don't be afraid."

Mat 14:28 Peter answered him and said, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the waters."

Mat 14:29 He said, "Come!" Peter stepped down from the boat, and walked on the waters to come to Jesus.

Mat 14:30 But when he saw that the wind was strong, he was afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"

Mat 14:31 Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand, took hold of him, and said to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?"

Mat 14:32 When they got up into the boat, the wind ceased.

Mat 14:33 Those who were in the boat came and worshiped him, saying, "You are truly the Son of God!"

Mat 14:34 When they had crossed over, they came to the land of Gennesaret.

Mat 14:35 When the people of that place recognized him, they sent into all that surrounding region, and brought to him all who were sick,

Mat 14:36 and they begged him that they might just touch the fringe of his garment. As many as touched it were made whole.