6/11/21

Science, Common Sense, and Genesis 1:1 by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3758

Science, Common Sense, and Genesis 1:1

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The most fundamental question that a person can (and should) ask is: “Where did the Universe and everything in it (including myself) come from?” Before a person seeks answers to questions such as, “Why am I here?” or “Where am I going?” he first needs to know from whence he came? It is fitting that the only God-inspired book in the world—the Bible—answers this very question in its opening statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, emp. added). In the subsequent verses, man is informed that not only did God create the heavens and the earth, but He made everything in the heavens and on the Earth (Genesis 1:2-31; cf. Exodus 20:11). According to Scripture, everything that exists in the physical Universe ultimately came from an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite Creator (Genesis 17:1; 18:14; Psalm 139; 90:2).

The theory that atheistic evolutionists have advanced for several decades now, which supposedly best explains our existence from a purely naturalistic perspective, is known as the Big Bang. It has circulated via science textbooks all over the world. One of the leading publishers of science curricula for many years has been Prentice Hall. In their 1992 General Science textbook, titled A Voyage of Discovery, they included the following section on “The Birth and Death of the Universe”:

How was the universe born and how will it end? Most astronomers believe that about 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded. This explosion is called the big bang. One result of the big bang was the formation of galaxies, all racing away from one another (Hurd, et al., p. 61, emp. in orig.).

Since 1992 the “birth of the Universe” has been shaved substantially (from 18 to 20 billion years ago to 12 to 15 billion years ago—see Biggs, et al., 2003, p. 159), but the theory is more or less the same. Ask an atheist how the Universe came to be and you likely will hear that “it all started with a big bang.”

So which is it? Did everything in the physical Universe come into existence via the supernatural or the natural? Was it caused by a purely naturalistic Big Bang or an infinite Mighty God? How did Earth get here? How did the other seven planets in our Solar System come into being? Whence came the Milky Way and the billions of other galaxies in the Universe? How did the multiplied quadrillions of stars (some of which are hundreds of times bigger than the Sun) come into existence? Although atheistic, evolutionary scientists are fond of ridiculing Genesis 1:1 as being unreasonable and unscientific, the fact is, Scripture’s explanation for ultimate origins is both sensible and scientific.

First, a study of the material Universe reveals that all physical effects must have adequate causes that precede the effects (a truism known as the Law of Cause and Effect). One drop of rain does not flood an entire city, a paper airplane cannot carry an astronaut to the Moon, nor can a fire extinguisher cool the Sun. But what about the effect of the Universe itself? What was its cause? Was the gargantuan Universe caused by an explosion of a minute ball of matter or by an omnipotent Creator? Just as easily as one can know that a paper airplane is unable to transport an astronaut to the Moon, he can know that naturalistic explanations (e.g., Big Bang theory) are not adequate causes for the Universe. But God is.

Second, from what we observe in nature, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. Scientists refer to this fact as the First Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists allege that the Universe began with the explosion of a ball of matter several billion years ago, yet they never have provided a reasonable explanation for the cause of the “original” ball of matter. An attempt was made a few years ago in the April 28, 2007 issue of New Scientist magazine titled “The Beginning: What Triggered the Big Bang?” Notice the last line of the featured article: “[T]he quest to understand the origin of the universe seems destined to continue until we can answer a deeper question: why is there anything at all instead of nothing?” (194[2601]:33, emp. added). The fact is, a logical, naturalistic explanation for the origin of the “original” ball of matter that supposedly led to the Universe does not exist. It cannot exist so long as the First Law of Thermodynamics is true (i.e., in nature matter/energy cannot create itself).

Third, since the physical Universe exists, and yet it could not have created itself, then the Universe is either eternal or something/someone outside of the Universe must have created it. Relatively few scientists propose that the Universe is eternal. In fact, there would be no point in attempting to explain the “beginning” of the Universe if atheists believed it always existed. What’s more, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy become less usable over time, has led most scientists to conclude that the Universe has not always existed (else we would be out of usable energy; see Miller, 2007). But, if matter is not eternal, and it cannot create itself, then the only logical conclusion is that something/someone outside of nature (i.e., supernatural) caused the Universe and everything in it. Christians call this Someone, “the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 40:28).

Finally, not only do the scientific Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Cause and Effect support the truth of Genesis 1:1, so also does the fact that design demands a designer. Just as sure as a painting demands a painter and a law a law-giver, the orderly, law-abiding, picturesque heavens and Earth demand, not a random, mindless, unexplained explosion (when have explosions ever caused order and design?), but an intelligent Designer. As the psalmist wrote: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1). What’s more, “the whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3). Indeed, both the heavens and the Earth testify day after day and night after night to anyone and everyone who will listen (Psalm 19:2-4) that “He who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).

Naturalistic explanations for the Universe and its laws leave an explanatory void that only a supernatural Being (i.e., God) can fill. If man will only open his eyes and ears, he will discover what both Heaven and Earth reveal: that “the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” (Hebrews 11:3). Rather, “God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, emp. added).
 

REFERENCES


Biggs, Alton, et al. (2003), Science (New York: McGraw-Hill).

Hurd, Dean, George Mathias, and Susan Johnson, eds. (1992), General Science: A Voyage of Discovery (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

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

“The Universe Before Ours” (2007), New Scientist, 194[2601]:28-33, April 28.

Science as a Tool of Evangelism by Michael G. Houts, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=5478

Science as a Tool of Evangelism

by  Michael G. Houts, Ph.D.

Romans 1:20 states: “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.” Acts 17:16-34 gives the account of Paul speaking to the men of Athens about “God, who made the world and everything in it.” The fact is, mankind’s general understanding of Creation can be used as a very effective tool for evangelism. Advances in science continue to confirm the Bible and refute philosophies that are opposed to the Bible.

Regardless of the specific approach, evangelistic efforts must focus on encouraging people to study the Bible, obey the Gospel, and remain faithful.  Colossians 3:2 tells us: “Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.” Mark 8:36 states: “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?” Acts 2:38 reads: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Topics that are easy to understand can often be effective in encouraging people to consider the Bible with an open mind. For example, most individuals will agree that they can make choices. The most important choice we will ever make is discussed in Joshua 24:15, which states:

[C]hoose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

But how could we make even the simplest of choices if God had not given us a spirit? The answer is, we could not.  From science we know that chemical and physical reactions follow the natural laws that God established. If humans were nothing more than a collection of several thousand trillion trillion (octillion) atoms undergoing a sophisticated chemical reaction (as atheists allege), then we could have no free will whatsoever. Acknowledgment that we can make choices is an acknowledgement of God, which can be an excellent first step in our efforts to evangelize. Once a person acknowledges God, we can then focus on helping them realize that the Bible is God’s inerrant Word, and that we need to live our lives accordingly.1

From science we know that life cannot make itself from non-living material.2 The fallacy of “spontaneous generation” can be discussed at any technical level desired. Perhaps the simplest way to initiate a conversation would be to point out that hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent in the field of biotechnology, with extremely sophisticated laboratories, and highly intelligent researchers. Yet, no one has ever come close to making life from non-living material.  Even attempts to make simple, self-replicating molecules in highly contrived environments continue to fail. Given a few billion dollars, mankind was able to create the space shuttle. Does that somehow add credence to the idea that space shuttles can create themselves? Obviously not. Claiming life (which humans cannot make) could somehow create itself is vastly less scientific than claiming cell phones, cars, airplanes, or rockets (all of which humans can make) could make themselves.

Science has also shown us that information is being lost from the genome—not gained3—further refuting religions based on Darwin’s theory of evolution. Organs and structures once thought to be “vestigial” have been shown to have useful functions,4 and the whole concept of vestigial organs and structures is now viewed as nothing more than an example of scientific ignorance that was overcome by advances in real science. Homologous and analogous physical structures are exactly what Christians would expect given that God created all life.  As the Bible states, it is the spiritual difference between humans and animals that make humans completely unique (Genesis 1:26-27). Ideas that contradict the Bible in areas related to the age of the Earth or the origin of the Universe have also been shown to be seriously flawed and based on arbitrary assumptions.5 In short, there are numerous areas of science that Christians can simply and effectively use in evangelism.

But what about topics that are difficult to discuss with individuals who are skeptical about everything? Many agnostics are committed to the idea that nothing can be known for certain. While our primary concern should be the effect that idea has on the agnostic’s willingness to study the Bible and obey the Gospel, the idea that “nothing can be known” can also affect secular conversations that we may have. Those conversations can, in turn, affect our ability to establish the trust necessary for effective evangelism.

Two contemporary examples include the idea of a “flat Earth” and the idea that the U.S. never landed astronauts on the Moon. While a person’s views on those subjects are unimportant compared to their view of Christ, useful conversations can still be had. Calm, logical discussions on secular topics can often lead to calm, logical discussions on spiritual topics.

Moon Landing

Interesting parallels can be drawn between the methods that are used in attempts to convince people that the U.S. did not land on the Moon and the methods that are used in attempts to convince people that the Bible is not God’s inerrant Word. For example, one argument used against the Moon landing is that there is a “geographical dependence” on whether or not a person believes we landed on the Moon. A Gallup Poll taken in 2001 showed that 5% of Americans believed the Moon landing was faked, and 6% did not know. At the same time 28% of Russians believed the landings were faked, and up to 75% of people in Cuba and in countries that were heavily influenced by Cuban teachers believed the landings were faked. If a person grew up near Cape Canaveral, knew people who worked on the Apollo program, witnessed Saturn V launches firsthand, and believed the U.S. landed on the Moon, his belief could be dismissed as a “geographical dependence.” The observation is made that if that same person had grown up in Cuba, he likely would not have believed in the Moon landing.  But even if that suggestion were true, does it have any bearing at all on whether or not the U.S. actually landed on the Moon? Obviously not. Likewise, atheists will often observe that if a person grows up in an area where knowledge of the Bible is strong they are much more likely to become a Christian than a person who grows up in an area where there is no knowledge of the Bible, and where becoming a Christian is punishable by death. But does that “geographical dependence” have any bearing at all on whether or not the Bible is true? Again, obviously not.

Moon-landing skeptics and agnostics often ask that if we were able to land on the Moon, why have we not returned to the Moon? One answer could be that the initial goal was achieved (land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth) and that additional goals (such as establishing a lunar outpost) will be achieved in the future. In the same vein, people often ask, “If Christ came to Earth once, why has He not returned?” The Bible gives very clear answers, such as 2 Peter 3:9 which states: “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

Skeptics and agnostics also point out that the Moon landings seemed too perfect. The U.S. first landed on the Moon with only six months to spare (to meet the stated objective), and the final Moon landing occurred just before the Soviet Union allegedly deployed technology that could prove the landings were fake. (The Soviet Union actually had adequate technology throughout the program.) All of the landings also occurred under the Nixon administration. 

Similar accusations are also made against the Bible. Christ perfectly fulfilled all Old Testament prophecies, and the Bible (written by 40 different authors over a period of 1,600 years) is perfectly consistent. The obvious answer for this perfection is given in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Numerous other methods are used to instill doubt concerning the U.S. Moon landing, but perhaps the most popular is “with all of the inconsistencies with the Moon landing claim, how can anyone still believe we landed on the Moon?”  Numerous examples are then typically presented, including cross hatches in front of photographed objects, odd looking (non-parallel) shadows, a flag that appears to be “waving,” no blast craters from landers, no visible flame from ascent stages, high radiation levels in the Van Allen belts (how could the astronauts survive?), no stars visible in photographs, footprints in Moon dust are too well preserved, etc.6 Direct evidence of fraud is also mentioned.  For example, in 2009 the Moon rock at the Rijkmuseum in Amsterdam was examined and found to be petrified wood. There is missing data (Apollo 11 telemetry), and a woman in Perth, Australia even claims to have seen a soft drink bottle in the frame while watching the Moon landing.

In an analogous fashion, the “numerous inconsistencies” approach is often used against the Bible.7 Questions include: “How could a loving God allow pain and suffering?” “How can God simultaneously be omniscient and give us free will?” “How can the Earth be less than 10,000 years old and the Universe appear the way it does?” “How could a virgin give birth?” “How could Jesus be resurrected from the dead?” In both cases, a good approach is to ask the skeptic which alleged inconsistency troubles him the most, and then spend whatever time is necessary fully addressing his concern. Logically sound explanations exist for all alleged contradictions with the Moon landing, just as logically sound explanations exist for all alleged contradictions within the Bible. In two extensive volumes, Eric Lyons examines and refutes many of the most popular allegations against the Bible.8

From the standpoint of positive evidence, there are also many analogies between belief in the Moon landing and belief in the Bible. Developing and launching a 7.8-million-pound thrust, 363-foot-tall rocket (the Saturn V) was a key aspect of the Moon landing, and millions of people saw the Saturn V launch with their own eyes. Likewise, Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection are a key aspect of Christianity, and hundreds of people saw the risen Christ with their own eyes (1 Corinthians 15:6). Hundreds (likely thousands) of people both inside and outside of the U.S. were involved in the preparations where they could have easily shown the Moon landing to be a hoax (if the landings had been), but no one did. Likewise hundreds (if not thousands) of people were in a position where they could have refuted Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection had it not occurred, but they did not. In fact, those closest to Jesus (and those who would have needed to be involved in any type of fraud) were willing to die for their knowledge that Jesus is the Son of God.

One final analogy can be made relative to discussions about Moon landings. Just as the Moon landings will be reconfirmed when mankind returns to the Moon, the Bible will be reconfirmed when Christ returns to the Earth (Philippians 2:9-11).

Flat Earth

A similar subject of interest is the recent surge in belief in a flat Earth, seemingly led by a handful of professional athletes and others. As with discussions related to the Moon landing, it is important to keep our minds set on things above. While Romans 14:15 speaks specifically about food, the same sentiment applies to other subjects as well. We should not risk destroying “one for whom Christ died” over a disagreement related to a secular idea.

Two recent articles provide numerous facts and observations related to refuting the idea of a flat Earth—biblically and scientifically.9 If an agnostic or skeptic is committed to a belief, though, a “rescue mechanism” can almost always be devised to claim that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, their belief is true. Ironically, the same techniques used to garner support for a flat Earth have been used to gain acceptance for the Big Bang, an equally false but more widely accepted cosmology. Observations that contradict either the flat Earth or the Big Bang theory are typically explained away through the use of sophisticated fudge factors, or by framing the theories in a way that any observation or piece of experimental evidence can be accommodated.10

First Corinthians 9:22 states “I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” Along those lines, it is important that we be able to discuss virtually any subject in a non-confrontational manner. Three ideas related to flat Earth discussions can involve contacting a friend, purchasing (or borrowing) a telescope, and working with a local university.

For instance, the mobility of 21st-century society and the ability to affordably travel and communicate over long distances have allowed many people to develop friendships around the world.  If a person has a friend living a few time zones away (i.e., a few thousand miles east or west of him) and at roughly the same latitude, then a simple text or phone call can provide good evidence for a spherical Earth. For example, a call could be made near sunset, and the friend could be asked about the Sun’s position in the sky at his location. The spherical Earth model would exactly predict the response, which would be either “the Sun set a few hours ago” (if the friend lived to the east) or “the Sun won’t be setting for a few hours” (if the friend lived to the west). While there might be a set of “fudge factors” that could be applied to certain flat Earth models to allow for the same response, the use of those factors would show the models to be highly contrived at the very least. A friend living at very high latitudes (e.g., Fairbanks, Alaska; Iceland; Greenland; etc.) could also add to the discussion based on the extreme differences in solar position between winter and summer. A friend living in the opposite hemisphere (e.g. New Zealand, Tasmania, etc. for people living in the U.S.) could be used to obtain other useful data. All of the observations and discussions would show the consistency of a spherical Earth model, and present extreme difficulties for a flat Earth model.

Buying or borrowing a telescope can also be useful in many ways.  Not only do telescopes allow detailed observation of God’s creation from Earth, but they also allow us more fully to appreciate Psalm 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God.” 

From the standpoint of a flat Earth discussion, a telescope can (given clear skies) allow us to view objects on the horizon where the lower portion of the object is blocked because of the curvature of the Earth. A classic example is a ship traveling out to sea. As the ship gets further away, a greater portion of the ship “disappears” below the horizon. This effect is again exactly what is expected on a spherical Earth, and very difficult to explain in a flat Earth model.

Universities are often involved with the launch of high altitude balloons. While the curvature of the Earth is much more obvious from orbit, it can still be discerned from altitudes that can be attained by balloons. If a skeptic or agnostic feels that all international space programs are somehow “covering up” evidence for a flat Earth, perhaps more personal involvement with a local university would encourage them to think otherwise. Some universities have also begun launching experiments on sub-orbital and even orbital flights, which could provide even more opportunity for first-hand observations that the Earth is spherical.

Although beliefs—such as the U.S. never having landed on the Moon or the Earth being flat—are typically attributed to agnostics and skeptics, it is important to remember that both non-Christians and Christians alike can have inaccurate beliefs on secular topics. When discussing any secular topic, we need to remember to keep our mind set on things above. We should focus on spiritual issues and not worry too much about correcting false secular beliefs that have little bearing on eternity. However, it is also important to note that vigorously promoting a false secular belief can have a negative influence on our ability to evangelize. Christians should be very careful about accidentally losing influence by endorsing a secular fad that, while popular in certain circles, is ultimately incorrect.

Another observation concerning both belief in a faked Moon landing and belief in a flat Earth—no matter what the evidence—people can still choose to believe what they want to believe. Likewise, regardless of the evidence, an atheist or agnostic can, ironically, still choose to believe they have no free will, choose to believe that life somehow made itself, choose to believe that all of the information in the genome somehow created itself, and choose to believe the many other falsehoods required to deny God. 

While science is an excellent tool for evangelism, we also know that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17). We need to stay focused on encouraging people to read God’s Word, obey the Gospel, and remain faithful. Our ultimate commission is summarized in Matthew 28:19-20—

Go thereforeand make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

ENDNOTES

1 Additional discussion concerning “free will” is given in Kyle Butt (2016), “Atheism and Free Will,” Reason and Revelation, 36[10]:110-118, October, http://apologeticspress.org.

2 Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), second edition.

3 J.C. Sanford (2014), Genetic Entropy (FMS Publications).

4 Jerry Bergman and George Howe (1990), “Vestigial Organs” are Fully Functional (Creation Research Society).

5 Alex Williams and John Hartnett (2006), Dismantling the Big Bang (Master Books); Don DeYoung (2005), Thousands… Not Billions (Master Books).

6 “Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories” (2017), Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories.

7 Kyle Butt (2013), A Christian’s Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

8 Eric Lyons (2003/2005), The Anvil Rings: Volumes 1 & 2 (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

9 Branyon May and Alana May (2017), “Flat or Spherical Earth?  Evaluating Astronomical Observations,” Reason and Revelation, 37[8]:86-95, August, http://apologeticspress.org; Justin Rogers (2017), “Does the Bible Teach a Flat Earth,” Reason and Revelation, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5428&topic=24#.

10 Additional discussion in Mike Houts (2015), “Assumptions and the Age of the Earth,” Reason and Revelation, 35[3]:26-34, March, http://apologeticspress.org.


Saturn: A Ringed World by Alana May, M.S.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=5474

Saturn: A Ringed World

by  Alana May, M.S.

[Editor’s Note: Alana holds a Master’s degree in Astrophysics from the University of Alabama.]

Saturn

Saturn is probably the most recognizable planet in our Solar System with large, bright rings encircling it. It is the sixth planet from the Sun, the second largest Gas Giant planet, and about twice as far from the Sun as Jupiter. Saturn is an intriguing planet—from its size, to its wide rings, to its diverse moons.

The Creation account in Genesis tells us that all heavenly bodies were created on the fourth day of Creation (Genesis 1:14-19). When the Bible says that God created the stars on the fourth day, this description includes all the other objects in space that we can observe, including the planets. The term “light” (vs. 14) simply means “luminous body or luminary.” To the ancient astronomers, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn were known as “wandering stars.” Since they appeared as lights in the sky, they were called stars, and since their relative motions differed from the majority of other objects, they were described as wandering. Actually, the Greek term translated “wandering” is where we get our English word “planet.”

The Migration Problem

Saturn, the ringed beauty, attests to God’s greatness and splendor, but it also speaks loudly against evolution. In studying distant objects, astronomers often create computer simulations to test their theories. They must take into account the physical properties of the system in question and apply the physical laws of the Universe to predict how the objects might behave.

One of these models that astronomers use is how a solar system might form. A simplified view of the evolutionary planetary theory goes something like this: Gas and dust particles surrounding a star are gravitationally bound in a protoplanetary disk. Over millions of years, these particles coalesce into planetesimals, which continue to acquire more particles over millions of years, and eventually form into full planets.1

However, when trying to explain the formation of the solar system from an evolutionary standpoint, the models fail to explain why a gas giant like Saturn has not merged or migrated into its host star before the planet had time to form. Evolutionary astronomers call this the “migration problem,” which basically states that the gravitational interaction between the protoplanetary disk and the massive gas giant cores would cause them to move rapidly toward and merge into the central star.2

The Rings of Saturn

In October of 1997, the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft was launched on its mission to Saturn. It was loaded with a multitude of equipment, cameras, and other scientific instruments that astronomers hoped would help us learn more about Saturn and its moons. By July of 2004, Cassini-Huygens had made the 890 million-mile journey to Saturn. The Cassini mission allowed astronomers to get an amazing, up close look at Saturn, its rings, and moons. In April of 2017, Cassini started its “Grand Finale” mission, making weekly passes of Saturn’s rings, and diving through a 1,200 mile space between the planet and rings, until it made its final descent into Saturn’s atmosphere on September 15, 2017.3

While all of the Gas Giants have a ring system, Saturn’s is by far the most prominent. Saturn’s rings are not solid, uniform structures, but are made of billions of particles. Looking at Saturn’s rings face-on reveals gaps within the rings. These divisions have been classified among the ring groups and labeled alphabetically in the order they were discovered. Each ring grouping orbits Saturn at a different speed.

The width of Saturn’s rings varies. At the thickest point, the main rings are just over a half mile thick, where the thinnest point can be just 30 feet. Saturn’s rings extend outward away from the planet a distance of approximately 175,000 miles, which is equal to three-fourths of the distance between Earth and the Moon.4

The ring material also varies greatly in size. The smallest particles can be tiny clumps of ice, while the largest can be bigger than an automobile. While the ring structure of Saturn is amazing to behold, the origins of the structure have continually stumped the modern scientific community. Based on their evolutionary timetables and long periods of time, evolutionary astronomers have not been able to satisfactorily answer the question of where the rings came from and cannot reconcile the rings’ “youthful” appearance and reflectivity.5 Based on their evolutionary models and constraints, the ring structure should have dissipated long ago, and the rings should be much darker than they are due to dust and particles settling on the icy chunks that make up the rings.

God’s Design

Everything God created is meant to reflect His glory. Saturn is an excellent example, as we see magnificent beauty in this Gas Giant planet and order in the structure of its rings. Evolution cannot explain the origin of the majestic planet. The only reasonable answer is that God, the Grand Designer, created this stunning planet. “Come and see the works of God; He is awesome in His doing toward the sons of men” (Psalm 66:5).

ENDNOTES

1 “Discovering Planets Beyond” (no date), Hubblesite (Baltimore, MD: Space Telescope Science Institute), http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form.

2 "The Locked Migration of Giant Protoplanets" (2006), Journal Astronomy and Astrophysics, March 21, https://phys.org/news/2006-03-migration-giant-protoplanets.html.

3 “The Grand Finale Toolkit” (no date), Cassini Science Communications Team,
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/grand-finale/overview/.

4 Bill Dunford (no date), “Saturn: Rings,” NASA, http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Saturn&Display=Rings.

5 Sébastien Charnoz, et al. (2009), The Origin and Evolution of Saturn’s Rings,” in Saturn After Cassini-Huygens, ed. M.K. Dougherty, L.W. Esposito, S.M. Krimigis, pp. 537-535, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3017.pdf; https://www.universetoday.com/107353/where-did-saturns-rings-come-from/.

"THE GOSPEL OF JOHN" Receiving The Light (1:9-13) by Mark Copeland

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"THE GOSPEL OF JOHN"

Receiving The Light (1:9-13)
 

INTRODUCTION

1. In the prologue to his gospel, John introduces Jesus as "the light"...
   a. That shines in darkness - Jn 1:5
   b. To whom John bore witness - Jn 1:6-8
   c. Who gives light to every man - Jn 1:9

2. Yet John declares what becomes evident later in his gospel...
   a. Not everyone was willing to receive the light, i.e., Jesus
   b. Even His own people as a whole rejected Him
   c. But for those who did receive Him, they were truly blessed!

3. The same remains true today...
   a. Many people do not receive Jesus
   b. Missing out on the wonderful blessings He offers!

[Why do people not receive Christ?  How can we be sure to receive Him,
and the blessings He offers as "The Light"?  Let's take a closer look at
the text for our study...]

I. MANY DID NOT RECEIVE THE LIGHT

   A. WHO DID NOT RECEIVE THE LIGHT...
      1. The world in general - Jn 1:9-10
         a. Even though He gives light to every man! - cf. Jn 1:4; 8:12;12:46
         b. Even though the world was made through Him! - cf. Jn 1:3
      2. His own people in particular - Jn 1:11
         a. He had come into His own land, Palestine - cf. Jer 2:7
         b. He had come to His own people, Israel - cf. Deut 7:6

   B. WHY THEY DID NOT RECEIVE THE LIGHT...
      1. They did not know Him - Jn 1:10
         a. Even His own brothers at first, though they did after His
            resurrection - Jn 7:5; Ac 1:14
         b. Familiarity often breeds contempt:  "A prophet has no honor
            in his own country..." - Jn 4:44
      2. Other reasons provided by John in his gospel
         a. Some loved darkness more than light - Jn 3:19-20; 5:42-43
         b. Some were afraid of what others thought - Jn 7:13; 9:22
         c. Some were misinformed of the facts - Jn 7:40-43
         d. Some were hardened by their traditions  - Jn 9:13-16
         e. Some loved the praise of men - Jn 12:42-43

[For similar reasons today, many people do not receive Jesus.  Yet some
did...]

II. SOME RECEIVED THE LIGHT

   A. THE BENEFITS OF RECEIVING THE LIGHT...
      1. The right to become children of God - Jn 1:12
         a. The word "right" signifies both authority and ability (JFB)
         b. Receiving Christ gives us the authority and ability to become sons of God
         c. Which is wonderful manifestation of God's love - cf. 1Jn 3:1
         d. Making us heirs of God and joints heirs with Christ - cf. Ro 8:14-17
      2. The privilege of being born of God - Jn 1:13
         a. Not of blood - i.e., by virtue of physical descent
         b. Not of flesh - i.e., by virtue of the lusts of the flesh
         c. Not of the will of man - i.e., by virtue of power in a man's will alone
         d. But of God - i.e., a rebirth possible only by the Spirit of
            God - cf. Jn 3:5; Tit 3:5
   
   B. THE MEANS FOR RECEIVING THE LIGHT...
      1. To receive Christ, we must believe in His name - Jn 1:12b
         a. Which is to say we must believe in Him
         b. The name of a person is often put for the person himself (Barnes) - Jn 2:23
      2. Believing in Him gives us power "to become" a child of God
         a. Faith in Jesus alone does not "make" one a child of God
         b. Many believed in Jesus, but did not become His disciples
            1) Only by abiding in His doctrine did they become His disciples - Jn 8:30-32
            2) Some believed, but were unwilling to confess Him - Jn 12:42-43
      3. When faith moves us to obey Christ, then we become children of God
         a. Faith makes us children of God when we put Christ on in baptism Ga 3:26-27
            1) We become children of God through faith, yes - but how?
            2) By putting Christ on when we are baptized into Christ!
         b. Jesus becomes the author of our salvation when we obey Him- He 5:9
            1) Such as obeying His command to be baptized - Mk 16:16
            2) Thereby born again of both water and the Spirit - Jn 3:5; Tit 3:5
      4. Sadly, many misapply John's words in Jn 1:12
         a. Teaching that one becomes a child of God simply by receiving
            Christ in faith
            1) By saying "the sinner's prayer" (which is nowhere taught in the Scriptures)
            2) Often appealing to Re 3:20-21 (which is addressed to erring Christians, 
                not lost sinners)
         b. Yet receiving Christ in faith gives one "power to become",
            not "makes one become"
            1) We must appropriate that power through the obedience of faith
            2) Such as confessing our faith, repenting of our sins 
                 Ro 10:9,10; Ac 17:31
            3) Culminating our obedience by putting on (receiving)
               Christ in baptism - Ga 3:27

CONCLUSION

1. Jesus is the "True Light" who gives light to every man...
   a. Bringing grace and truth to those in sin and error
   a. Providing the way of salvation through His blood

2. How sad that there are many in the world...
   a. Who do not know Him
   b. Who have not received Him
   -- Who spend their lives stumbling in the darkness

3. But if you are willing to believe in His name...
   a. You have the right to become a child of God!
   b. You can be born of God!
   -- Provided your faith is an obedient faith, willing to abide in the doctrine of Christ

Let the Word of God, and in particular John's gospel (cf. Jn 20:30-31),
point you in the direction of the Light, that you might be saved and
have life in His name!       
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker

Some Reflections on Getting Older by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2013/03/14/some-reflections-on-getting-older/#more-3616

Some Reflections on Getting Older

Older Couple Sitting Together at BeachYesterday was my birthday.   And this annual event has occupied my thinking a little more than in past years.

I have fluctuated between competing emotions.  For instance I have felt a little like the baseball great Ty Cobb, who played in a different era.  He retired in 1928 at the age of 41 with a lifetime .367 batting average.  When he was 70 a reporter asked, “What do you think you’d hit if you were playing today?” 

Cobb replied, “Oh, about .290.  Maybe .300.”

The reporter responded, “I guess that’s because of increased travel?  Night games?  Artificial Turf?  And new pitches like the slider? Right?

Cobb calmly glared at the reporter and said, “No.  It because I’m 70!

I kinda felt that way last month at the Florida College alumni basketball game. “Hey,” I thought, “I should have suited up.  I could still do that!”  After all, age is only a number!  Right?

Of course, we all look at others our own age and are guilty of thinking, “I’m glad I don’t look that old!”

It reminds me of the story of a man waiting for his first appointment with a new dentist.  He noticed the certificate in the exam room which gave his full name.  He thought I went to school with that guy 40 years ago!

However, when the dentist entered the room, he realized that it couldn’t be the same person.  This guy was a balding, graying old man.  Much too old to have been his classmate.

Finally, at the end of the exam, he asked the dentist if he had attended the local high school.  “Yes, he replied.

“When did you graduate?” the patient asked.

“1957.” Answered the dentist.

“Wow!  You were in my class! He exclaimed.

Then the dentist looked closely at him and seriously asked, “What did you teach?”

Ouch!

There are a variety of factors that influence our attitude about aging.

If we’re honest, there is a certain point where getting older frightens us a little bit.  Like Jonathan swift once said, “Every man desires to live long, but no man wants to be old!”

We live in a youth oriented culture.  Youth is glorified.  Beauty is worshiped. Physical fitness is admired.  On the other hand old age is something to be covered up.  Denied. Or even ignored.

The Old Testament teaches respect for the “gray headed” and honor for the “old man” (Lev 19:32).  The New Testament exhorts the older women to teach the younger women.  And the older men to serve as an example to the younger men (Tit. 2:1-4).  In a culture where no one wants to admit being “older” and where youth is exalted and old age disdained, this command is too often neglected.

Maybe we all need reminding that “The silver-haired head is a crown of glory, If it is found in the way of righteousness” (Prov 16:31).  Just as the young need to “remember their Creator in the days of their youth,” so do those who’re older.

Hopefully through the years we profit from experience, gain knowledge and grow in wisdom.  It has been said that “the man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.”  Indeed, “The glory of the young is their strength; the gray hair of experience is the splendor of the old (Prov 20:2).

We may share the concern of David when he prayed, “Do not cast me off in the time of old age;  Do not forsake me when my strength fails” (Ps. 71:9).  But we can be assured of God’s love, care and protection. God values and uses both young and old to accomplish His purpose.

Whether young or old, let’s keep age in its proper perspective.  After all it’s not the years we’ve lived in our lives that’s so important.  But the life that we have lived in our years.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

FAITH ONLY PROOF-TEXTING BY STEVE FINNELL

 

https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2016/11/faith-only-proof-texting-by-steve.html

FAITH ONLY PROOF-TEXTING BY STEVE FINNELL


The proposition that Christians are saved by faith only is  supported by proof-texting. Using a select verse of Scripture to validate a doctrinal position without using all Biblical accounts is proof-texting.

EXAMPLES OF FAITH-ONLY SALVATION, PROOF-TEXTING.

1. PROOF-TEXT: Romans 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

a. Abraham was not a Christian.
b. Abraham was not saved under the New Covenant.
c. Abraham was also justified by works. (James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?)
d. Abraham did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. (John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.") If you can be saved like Abraham, then you can be saved without believing Jesus was the Son of God.

Was Abraham saved? Yes. Can men living under the New Covenant be saved like Abraham? No, they cannot.

2. PROOF-TEXT: Luke 23:39-43.....43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

a. The thief on the cross was not saved under the New Covenant.
b. If you can be saved like the thief, then you can be saved without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. (John 7:39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.)
c.If you can be saved like the thief, then you can be saved without believing in the resurrection of Jesus. (Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.) The thief did not believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus was still alive when the thief was saved.
d. If you can be saved like the thief, then you can be saved without being baptized in water for the forgiveness of your sins.(Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16)

Was the thief saved? Yes. Can men living under the New Covenant be saved like the thief? No, they cannot.

3. PROOF-TEXT: John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

a. If by believing only you could be saved, then the demons could be saved.(Matthew 8:28-31 .....And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?".....31....the demons......) The demons believed that Jesus was the Son of God. Faith only did not save them.
b. If believing only could save, then men would not have to confess Jesus before men to be saved. (John 12:42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue;) (Matthew 10:32-33 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father in heaven. 33 "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My father who is in heaven.)

Believing only cannot save anyone.

SAVE BY FAITH ONLY IS A DOCTRINE OF MEN, IT IS NOT GOD'S DOCTRINE.

Men are justified by faith.(Romans 5:1) But not by faith only.
Men are justified by grace. (Titus 3:7) But not by grace only.
Men are justified by the blood of Christ. (Romans 5:9) But not by blood only.
Men are saved by water baptism.(1 Peter 3-21) But not by baptism only.
Men are save by confessing Jesus and believing in His resurrection. (Matthew 10:32-33, Romans 10:9-10) But not by confession only nor by believing only.
Men are saved by repentance. (Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19) But but not by repentance only.

Men living today need to be saved by the terms of the New Covenant. FAITH-John 3:16 REPENTANCE- Acts 2:38 CONFESSION Romans 10:9-10 WATER BAPTISM 1 Peter 3:21

Men can be save in two hours more or less---NO WORKS OF THE LAW OF MOSES NOR GOOD DEEDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SAVED.


Peter Was Grieved by T. Pierce Brown

 

https://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Brown/T/Pierce/1923/grieved.html

Peter Was Grieved

In John 21:17 we read, "He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep."

Many years ago I wrote an article entitled, "I Love You, but I Don't Like You." At that time I had never seen an article that dealt with the difference in the words translated "love" in this passage. I feel sure that most of my readers now know that Jesus asked, "Lovest thou me (agapas me) more than these?" Peter answered, "Thou knowest that I love thee (philo se)." So Peter did not answer the question Jesus asked. To phrase the question and answer in a reasonably fair English rendition, it would be, "Peter, do you love me in a way that would allow you to give of all that you are and have for my welfare or pleasure?" Peter replied, "Lord, you know that I have a great deal of affection for you."

There are some scholars who take the position that the words "agapao" and "phileo" are synonyms, for they sometimes are apparently used interchangeably, but they are not synonyms. I may say to my wife, "I love (agapao) you" or "I like (phileo) you and have a tender affection for you" and one may assume that because I may use one or both expressions about or to the same person, or in the same context that they are therefore synonyms, but that is not the case.

But my point in this article is to raise a question about why Peter was grieved? Most of my early life when I knew less about either English or Greek than I do now, I assumed he was grieved because Jesus asked him the same question three times. That is not the case, although in English it may seem to be. In John 21:17, quoted above, it says, "He said unto him the third time," so it might seem that he asked him the same question three times. However, "the third time" simply refers to the third time he asked a question, not the third time he asked the same specific question.

My conclusion is that Peter was not grieved simply because Jesus asked him something three times. My opinion is that he was grieved because when Jesus asked him the third time, it was as if he was saying, "Peter, I have asked you twice if you had a sacrificial love for me, and you refused to answer, saying that you had a real affection for me. Do you really have the proper feeling of affection for me? If so, why did you not answer my question?" Peter had previously avowed his sacrificial love for Christ in Mt. 26:35, and demonstrated it when he drew his sword and struck off the ear of a man. He had then failed to demonstrate it when he denied that he even knew Christ. So he seemed unwilling to "go out on the limb" again and affirm his "agape," but was willing to affirm his "philos." However, Jesus questioned that in John 21:17, and that grieved Peter.

Part of my point in this article is to emphasize that Jesus on no occasion told his disciples that they should have "philos" toward him or toward God. We may have a great feeling of affection for persons, but not be willing to sacrifice of what we are and have for their will, or lay down our lives for them. This is what God demands, and we have too few preachers who are emphasizing that. We often make it sound as if about all you need to do is come to the front, confess something and be baptized. The real reason we are not retaining more of our "converts" is that they were never properly motivated to love (agape) the Lord with all the heart, soul, strength and mind. They were motivated to "obey the gospel" or go through the steps of what we call the conversion process in order to get their sins removed and have some hope of eternal life. But we have miserably failed in many cases to so present Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2) that those who heard were constrained by his love for us to love him and surrender their lives to him as Lord. Paul said in 2 Cor. 5:14, "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead." If you will examine much of the preaching you have done or heard, you will discover that it dealt primarily with what was wrong with some doctrine or person, or even how to worship God properly. We need to know that, but one of the first things an alien sinner needs to know is that Christ loves him and died for him, and only as he responds in love to that love can he be saved by grace, through faith. Until and unless we focus on that, we will continue to have many who come to hear a sermon (or at least to occupy a pew), and who refuse to stay for Bible study or come back Sunday night or Wednesday night. Fussing at them and criticizing them for their lack of faith will solve very little. If they are not somehow motivated to love Christ with an agape-love, they will never function adequately as Christians. Also, if they never find out the difference in a mere feeling of affection for Christ, and the kind of love that Christ wanted from Peter, they will never be what they should be. It may never have occurred to you, but one of the fatal mistakes of the denominational world (and many connected to the Lord's church) is that they can get all stirred up emotionally and feel good about Christ without loving him enough to live or die for him. To take him as Lord is more than feeling an affection for him. He died for you? Will you live for him?

T. Pierce Brown

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

How much proof would it take to really believe in Jesus?

 

 

Frankly, I do not remember where I obtained this picture, but I am glad that I found it, for it depicts several of Jesus’ disciples ( the two Mary’s and Salome… see Mark 16:1, below ) coming to the tomb where Jesus was laid after being executed by the Romans.


Can you imagine being there and seeing this event with your own eyes? What would you remember as important? In fact, would you believe what you had seen, or would you doubt what was right before you? The Bible says of this scene…


Mark 16 ( World English Bible )

1 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. Matt 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1;

2 Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.

3 They were saying among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?”

4 for it was very big. Looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back.

5 Entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were amazed. Matt 28:2; John 20:12;

6 He said to them, “Don’t be amazed. You seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen. He is not here. Behold, the place where they laid him! Matt 28:5; Luke 24:5;

7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he said to you.’” Matt 26:32; Matt 28:10; Mark 14:28; Acts 1:3; Acts 13:31; 1Cor 15:5;

8 They went out, and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had come on them. They said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid. Matt 28:8; Luke 24:9; John 20:18;


Today, I included the cross-references from my computer program ( theWord [ and yes, that is spelled correctly ] ), that you might study its references. Why? Well, since the resurrection of Jesus is the most important event in human history, its worth the time to study both this and all the other accounts of the resurrection as well.


I wonder, how many accounts of this event and how many witnesses would you have to hear ( or in our case, read in the Bible ) before you believed them to be true? In thinking about this, I remembered this passage from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians…


1 Corinthians 15 ( WEB )

1 Now I declare to you, brothers, the Good News which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand, Gal 1:11;

2 by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. Rom 1:16; 1Cor 1:21;

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, Isa 53:7; Dan 9:24; Dan 9:26; 1Cor 5:7; 1Pet 2:24;

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, Ps 16:10; Isa 53:8; Isa 53:9; Jonah 1:17; Matt 12:40;

5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Luke 24:34; John 20:19; Acts 10:41;

6 Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have also fallen asleep.

7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

8 and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. Acts 9:3; Acts 9:17; Acts 23:11; 1Cor 9:1; 2Cor 12:2;


Again, I have included cross-references for study. Why? Because all the events after Jesus’ resurrection are especially important. Today, give some thought to all this; study, learn and grow because of these things. And, just one more thing…


John 20 ( WEB )

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, wasn’t with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 After eight days again his disciples were inside, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, the doors being locked, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace be to you.”

27 Then he said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see my hands. Reach here your hand, and put it into my side. Don’t be unbelieving, but believing.”

28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed.”

30 Therefore Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book;

31 but these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.