Category Archives: Uncategorized

Abortion and Numbers 5: The Error that Deceives

Numbers 5:11-31 (Test for Unfaithful Wife)

Numbers 5 is far too often used by pro-choice advocates in their efforts to prove the Bible supports abortion. The atheist/pro-abortion advocate will cite Numbers 5 in the NIV which incorrectly translates the Hebrew.

Numbers 5:21, 22, 27, 28 (NIV)

21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

Numbers 5:21, 22, 27, 28 (NASB)

21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh [m]waste away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your [n]stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh [o]waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”

27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her [r]and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will [s]waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive [t]children.

Note: In the Hebrew, this test does NOT involve a child or a pregnant woman, but is simply a test of faithfulness v. unfaithfulness. If the Woman is guilty, her uterus will be made sterile or “waste away.” If the Woman is not guilty of adultery, she will be able to bear children…there is no mention of a miscarriage or abortion in the Hebrew…it’s simply the difference between sterility and fertility, but no child is mentioned in the text other than in v. 28 stating that the innocent Wife would be fertile and able to bear children.

See the following verses in Numbers 5 in Hebrew and note “nephal” (Strongs 5307) (waste away) is used and NOT “nephel” (Strongs 5309) (miscarriage or abortion).

v. 21 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-21.htm

v. 22 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-22.htm

v. 27 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-27.htm

The Hebrew word for miscarriage is “nephel” (Strongs #5309) (miscarriage or abortion) but Numbers v. 21-22 and 27 use the Hebrew word “naphal” (Strongs #5307) (to fall, lie) concerning the woman’s uterus (thigh or abdomen).  There is no mention of “miscarry” or a child in the Hebrew relevant to Numbers 5:21-22, 27.

See the Hebrew word “nephel” designating “abortion or miscarry which is NOT found in Numbers 5: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5309.htm

See the Hebrew word “nephal” (nō-p̄e-leṯ) as used in Numbers 5 meaning “to fall or lie” or to “waste away” https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5307.htm

Note: The NIV is the ONLY version that uses “miscarriage” in v. 21 and 22, see: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17009/does-numbers-511-22-describe-sanctioned-abortion

“Got Questions” agrees that Numbers 5 is not discussing an abortion and notes that the NIV mistakenly translates “miscarriage.” See: https://www.gotquestions.org/Numbers-abortion.html

Also see: http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2015/01/numbers-5-and-water-of-bitterness.html?showComment=1549839721300

Thank you,

R.D. Holtsclaw

MAGA Hats and CCW – Cop’s Suggestion…

As a retired 31-year veteran of the Houston, Texas Police Department, I wanted to share a thought or two about wearing TRUMP logos in public and the liability for those who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon for protection.

As many of my fellow Patriots know full well, we live in a society where a significant number of “adults” are unable to define gender; advocate for the mutilation of babies in the womb; espouse sexual perversion that is destroying our posterity; invite America’s most prolific enemy i.e. Islam, to serve in our Government; protest for open borders in hopes of destroying America’s sovereignty in the name of Globalism; fight tooth and nail to destroy America’s Constitutional Republic while endeavoring to replace same with Progressive-Socialism i.e. Communism.

Recently, the Covenant Catholic School debacle has verified just how deeply entrenched the prevalent mental illness known as Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) has manifest within those who support the Progressive-Socialist-Democratic Party of the United States. Having watched Political Correctness and obsessions with vile sexual perversion invade my Police Department and my Municipality and having watched the destructiveness of the Progressive Ideology in our society, I wanted to offer a piece of advice for my fellow Patriots who conceal carry…

There have been influential media persons on the Right who have suggested that Conservatives wear Trump apparel e.g. Trump T-shirts and MAGA hats in the public square as retaliation for the Leftist Snowflakes who suggest the MAGA hat is the new KKK Hoodie.  Leftist Media types suggest that just the mere presence of the MAGA hat “triggers” them with hate and desires for violence. With that said, I STRONGLY urge everyone who is licensed to carry a firearm that they NOT wear TRUMP related material in public. Why not?

I love my President and fully support his agenda to MAGA, but if a CCW permit holder wears TRUMP material out in public and a confrontation ensues with the mentally ill suffering from TDS, if you are required to use deadly force, chances are, you’ll have great difficulty with a Grand Jury review. Considering the politically charged environment surrounding us and the weak-kneed, Politically Correct agenda that inundates our society, our courts and our law enforcement community…the CCW license holder will be swimming upstream as they battle allegations of inciting a confrontation while armed; your criminal/civil liability will exponentially increase and you may very well lose your freedoms and your personal possessions once the criminal adjudication and civil litigation are finalized.

Something to think about…

God Bless President Trump,

R.D. Holtsclaw, Houston PD/Retired

Atheist’s Questions for the Christian

  1. If it’s the case that heaven and hell are the only two options in the end, and someone desires neither, do they still ultimately have free will?

Yes. Free will exists when more than one option is available. The eternal concept of free will for mankind and the angels is focused upon one’s option to choose life or death, obedience or rebellion, love or hate, good or evil, God’s way or Satan’s way. Though an individual might desire to neither serve God or serve Satan, this option is not available but…this does not negate “free will” because the option to “choose” still exists even though a person may not approve of or find the options available fair or attractive. God’s ways are not our ways and God owes mankind nothing but He has chosen to provide us an option to experience Eternal Life by trusting in Jesus Christ as our personal LORD and Savior for the forgiveness of sin.

  1. Why take a position on abortion if it could be Jesus’ will in the same way it was Jesus’ will in Noah’s flood to drown toddlers, babies, and the unborn?

Caveat: I want every woman or man who has been involved in the sin of abortion to know that forgiveness is available for anyone who repents of their sin and diligently, honesty, seeks Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior over their life. Abortion is not an unforgivable sin and there is mercy and grace in Jesus Christ as Mediator for your sin. Please, humble yourself, apologize to our Creator for your offensive behavior and trust in Jesus as LORD…there is forgiveness, peace, mercy, grace and an amazing new life awaiting you in Jesus Christ.

Abortion is the taking of human life in the womb without “due process” of law and is considered in the purity of American Jurisprudence as premeditated, conspiratorial murder. Though the SCOTUS has unwittingly provided Roe v. Wade (1973) as a buttress or defense to prosecution to the “charge of murder,” recent scientific discoveries verify life as beginning at conception; therefore, Roe is blatantly unconstitutional (violates the 5th/14th Amendments due process protections) and should be amended or better yet, repealed. Abortion is conspiratorial, premeditated murder i.e. fetal homicide, a violation of God’s moral law and a sin against our Creator and His will for our life.

It is also important to differentiate the spurious translations of the Ten-Commandments, #6, You shall not “murder” from the incorrect translation, You shall not “kill.” Two completely different meanings and outcome concerning sin and judgment. Please see the following for clarification: https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/20-13.htm

For the Atheist, pro-choice advocates who insists that God’s Word advocates abortion via Numbers 5, please see an exegesis on Numbers 5 and the “Test for an Unfaithful Wife” as per the NIV Bible version: https://rickeyholtsclaw.com/2018/11/18/new-international-version-errors/

Concerning the Noahic Flood and the eradication of the human race save eight, Noah and his family aboard the Ark. One must first analyze why the Noahic Flood was necessary and what is the impetus for The Flood? Though our Creator is often incorrectly targeted as the culprit for The Flood, remember it is the sin and wretchedness of mankind that brought the wrath of God to bear in Noah’s day. The Holy Spirit describes the generation of Noah…

“Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved [e]in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the [f]sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.” Genesis 6:5-8

The actual culprit for the Noahic Flood is none other than Satan himself who is the impetus for evil, sin, deception, death. Note the Words of Jesus Christ concerning Satan…

“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks [n]a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of [o]lies.” Gospel of John 8:44

The most relevant question at this point would be, why did our Creator find it necessary to destroy mankind in The Flood? Remember, the focal point or prevailing theme of the entire Bible is Jesus Christ and the redemption of mankind, the forgiveness of sin through Jesus’ faithfulness at the Crucifixion. Also, remember that God’s Plan for redeeming mankind through the forgiveness of sin required the presence of His Messiah at a specific time in history through a specific genealogy as prophesied. Before the creation of Time, Jesus was destined to be our Messiah and before God spoke the Universe into existence, a Plan to bring our Messiah through the seed of the woman was already in play (2 Timothy 2:8-10).

Subsequent to The Fall of Adam, mankind inherited a sin-nature that naturally rebels against the authority/dominion of our Creator and prior to The Flood there was also the presence of the Nephilim (Genesis 6:1-4) in the land and scholars debate the influence of these wicked beings upon Noah’s generation; nevertheless, Noah’s generation had become so vile and wicked that our Creator refused to set-apart a Holy and Chosen people through whom He would bring forth Messiah-Jesus Christ.

It is for this reason that our Creator destroyed the genome of wickedness in Noah’s day and began afresh with righteous Noah and Noah’s family. Later, the Scriptures articulate the setting apart of a people group through Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Jacob who would be called the Hebrew Nation, the Jewish People who would be God’s Chosen People to represent Him to the World. The Jewish people were given the responsibility to…

  1. Chronicle/Record God’s Word.
  2. To be an object lesson of God’s blessing for obedience/cursing for disobedience.
  3. The Jews are God’s eschatological time-clock indicating to the World where our LORD is at in World History by observing the Jewish Nation of Israel.
  4. Through the Jewish People, the Tribe of Judah, our God brought forth Messiah-Jesus Christ through the seed of Mary through the Power of the Holy Spirit as the Savior of the World.

Speaking of the Jewish Nation, God proclaims…

“Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.” Leviticus 20:26

And to Abraham, God proclaims a Covenant…

And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who [a]curses you I will [b]curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” Genesis 12:3

Jesus said…

22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. Gospel of John 4:22

Therefore, Jesus does not condone abortion on demand nor is our Creator a capricious and retaliatory God but a God who is slow to anger and provided Noah’s Generation ample opportunity to repent and turn to Him in obedience but they refused; therefore, The Flood. Another Judgment on the World, similar to The Flood, is coming, this time…by fire.

And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 [r]It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; 29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and [s]brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be [t]just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. Luke 17:27-30

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and [b]its works will be [c]burned up.11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. 2 Peter 3:11-13

  1. How can an ‘all good’ deity be ALL good if sin is a byproduct of his creation?

God desires relationship. Relationship, one that is manifest in purity and authenticity, mandates volition, free-will, the ability to choose to love or to hate; otherwise, relationship is robotic and impotent. Our Creator has provided His created beings, both Angelic and Human, with free-will, the ability to choose Jesus Christ as LORD or reject Jesus Christ and serve Satan by default. Sin, evil, death, have entered our World through the exercise of “free will.” Sin is the unfortunate default or “byproduct” of free will which is necessary for perfect love and enduring relationships to manifest in authenticity as well as the privilege to chose our own Eternal destiny.

  1. What is the best way to demonstrate to oneself that they are open to being wrong about a religious belief held as deeply as yours?

I am always prepared to accept rebuttal to my understanding of Scripture but this rebuttal must be supported with irrefutable Truth using the Word of God…NOT man’s opinion.

It is better to take refuge in the Lord
Than to trust in man. Psalm 118:8

5. If you learned that the pastor you met on the plane was no longer a Christian, would this concern you, not concern for him, but in terms of the path you went on in your life?

I would hazard to say that there are a number of “Pastors” who are not truly children of the Living God, in other words, they have never entered into a personal relationship with God the Father by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. A number of Atheists I have debated insist that they too were “former Christians” but finally “freed” themselves from what they believe is “religious deception.” Far too many of these Atheists had been involved in religions of paganism or cults, but the truth is born-out in the fact that they were never truly “born again” by the Holy Spirit of God for had they known the love of Jesus Christ and the assurance, security, wisdom, discernment, only available by the indwelling Holy Spirit given to the redeemed in Jesus Christ, these men and women would have NEVER walked away from Jesus as LORD. Why? Because our God has promised His faithful children that “no one” will be able to snatch God’s children out of the hand of Jesus or the hand of our Heavenly Father. Those who love and adore Jesus Christ as LORD are secure in that love and they will endure to the end and find grace and mercy and life in Eternity.

Jesus said…

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 [d]My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are [e]one.” Gospel of John 10:28-30

18 “Hear then the parable of the sower. 19 When anyone hears the [i]word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road. 20 The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the [j]word, immediately he [k]falls away. 22 And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the [l]world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 23 And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.”  Matthew 13:18-23

Unfortunately, “many” who “think” themselves to be saved or put up a facade of salvation will be in for a rude awakening at Judgment.

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [n]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ Matthew 7:21-23

6. IF it’s the case that people who don’t hear the good word go to heaven on merit, and those that hear, but reject the word, go to hell, wouldn’t it be preferable to wipe out all records of Christianity?

In the New Covenant, there is no other way to find righteousness (a right standing) with God the Father except by grace (unmerited favor) through faith (trusting) (believing) that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who entered Time and suffered/died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected for our justification leading to Eternal LIFE.

Jesus said…

Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. Gospel of John 14:6

“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not [a]obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” Gospel of John 3:36

Though God has clearly told us that where there is no law there is no sin or culpability, this truism, though relevant for children and the cognitively disabled, is not relevant for the cognitively aware/acute, discerning, adult in the New Covenant because our Creator has written His laws on our heart and we intuitively know that our Creator exists through what He has made; therefore, every man and woman is “without excuse” if they deny our Creator (Romans 1:18-32).  With that said, if a person in the Congo, for example, never hears of Jesus and never has the opportunity to acknowledge Jesus Christ as LORD, this is NOT our Creator’s problem for our LORD has clearly commanded the faithful to go into all the World and tell of Jesus Christ and teach them in the ways of righteousness.

“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 [e]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [f]always, even to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:18-20

With that said, will there be grace and mercy shown to those who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I don’t know…that is God’s purview.

  1. Would you prefer that everyone on earth converts to Christianity and the level of human suffering stays the same or that everyone on earth becomes an atheist and the level of human suffering falls 90%?

Your question negates itself because the suffering on this Earth will not be diminished but increase with the absence of Christianity along with the absence of the restraining power of the Holy Spirit to constrain the evil in man’s heart. It is the god of Atheism i.e. Satan (yes, Satan is the foundation for Atheism) that is the impetus for the horrors in our World and removing the ONLY restraining Force, the Holy Spirit, from our World would only exacerbate suffering and hopelessness.

 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 2 Thessalonians 2:7

8. How did you eliminate (if you did) infinite regress as an option?

I would need clarification concerning this question and its particular relevance to theology.  If your question concerns the origin of matter, the Universe and purpose, relevancy, please see my article on this subject at: https://rickeyholtsclaw.com/2017/09/27/in-the-beginning-god-why/

9. Why do you think Hindu’s are unconvinced of Quranic prophecy?

To understand why the Quran must be approached with caution and discernment, one must understand the origin of Islam, its purpose in Time and the genesis of the Quran. Please see Part II of my article for an overview of Islam, Allah, Ishmael, Muhammad, the Quran. https://rickeyholtsclaw.com/2017/09/27/in-the-beginning-god-why/

10. How could I tell the difference between someone who actually knows their purpose in life according to god and someone who just believes they know their purpose from god?

In order to make this differentiation, you must possess knowledge of God’s Word from the Genesis to the Revelation.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Timothy 2:15

Thank you,

R.D. Holtsclaw  @RickeyDale07 (Twitter)

Related article…

In the Beginning, God…Why? https://rickeyholtsclaw.com/2017/09/27/in-the-beginning-god-why/

 

 

 

 

Athanasius on the Canon

Athanasius on the Canon

Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296-373) was the most prominent theologian of the fourth century, and he served as bishop of Alexandria. His list of canonical books was published as part of his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of A.D. 367. After the list he declares, “these are the wells of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the sayings in these. Let no one add to these. Let nothing be taken away.”

2. But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtilty of certain men, and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.

3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

6. These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And he reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me.

7. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

See: http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

Revisionist Gay Theology

Male and female, together, are the fullest picture of the image of God in creation. That’s why they need each other. Adam wasn’t complete without Eve. In everyday terms, this means that only the difference and the complementary interplay of male and female uniquely reflect the image and likeness of the persons of the Trinity in creation. As a result, sexual love between married man and woman is a life-giving act of mutual giving and receiving that mirrors the Trinity like nothing else on earth.
– Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family
The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ’s words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism—for that is what the words “one flesh” would be in modern English. And the Christians believe that when He said this He was not expressing a sentiment but stating a fact—just as one is stating a fact when one says that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are one musical instrument. The inventor of the human machine was telling us that its two halves, the male and the female, were made to be combined together in pairs, not simply on a sexual level, but totally combined.
– C.S. Lewis
Because this relationship is so central to creation and humanity, God’s heart for marriage is woven throughout the Old and New Testaments. Marriage is the most important picture in Scripture of our own relationship with God. God is portrayed as a husband, and His wife is the nation of Israel. She is unfaithful, but still His own, and He lovingly pursues her. And the Church is the Bride of Christ, who sacrificed himself for her. 
– Focus on The Family – What does the Bible say about Homosexuality

Revisionist Gay Theology – A Christian Response

The Genesis Account of Male and Female

Genesis 2:20-24
The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Revisionist Argument:
The Genesis account does not forbid homosexuality; it simply does not refer to it.
Christian Response:
While it is true this passage does not forbid homosexual relations, it does provide the model, the standard, for human sexuality. The male-female marriage union, introduced in Genesis, is the only type of sexual behavior consistently praised in both Old and New Testaments. Moses, Jesus and Paul each point to Genesis as the primary text for understanding God’s design in creation.
We must look at all forms of sexual expression through the lens of marriage and the male/female complementarity of God’s design in Genesis. Dr. Robert Gagnon, one of the world’s foremost scholars on homosexuality, writes about how God brings forth the woman from the man, creating a longing within them to reunite through marriage and sexual intercourse. “The woman is not just ‘like himself’ but ‘from himself’ and thereby a complementary fit to himself. She is a complementary sexual ‘other.’”
Gagnon explains how this teaching from Genesis permeates Scripture. All through the Bible, men and women are presented as biologically complementary for the purposes of sexual activity and reproduction. This complementarity is “clear and convincing proof of God’s will for sexual unions.” Echoing Paul in the book of Romans, he continues by saying that even those who don’t believe the Bible should be able to figure out God’s design because of the physical structure of created humanity.

The Destruction of Sodom

Genesis 19:4-9
[T]he men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so
wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he has become the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door down.
Revisionist Argument #1:
Sodom was destroyed because of the inhospitality of its citizens, not because of homosexuality.
Christian Response:
The argument makes no sense in light of Lot’s words and actions. His first response, “Don’t do this wicked thing,” could hardly apply to a simple request to “get to know” his guests. The second thing Lot does is especially telling: He answered the demands of the men of the city by offering his two virgin daughters—another senseless gesture if the men wanted only a social knowledge of his guests. Surely the people of the town were acquainted with Lot’s daughters, and Lot’s response makes clear that he and the townsmen are talking about sexual activity.
Revisionist Argument #2:
Sodom was destroyed for attempted rape, not homosexuality.
Christian Response:
The argument is partially true; the men of Sodom certainly were proposing rape. But for such an event to include “all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old,” homosexuality must have been commonly practiced.
Professor Thomas Schmidt, in his book, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate , cites evidence in early literature connecting Sodom with more general homosexual practices. The literature says the people of Sodom were “sexually promiscuous” and “departed from the order of nature.” Here “the order of nature” is a reference to male-female complementarity.
Revisionist Argument #3:
The real sins of Sodom, according to Ezekiel 16:49, were “pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” These have nothing to do with homosexuality.
Christian Response:
Again, the argument is partially true. When Sodom was destroyed, homosexuality was one aspect of its wickedness. But Ezekiel also says of the city: “They were haughty and did an abomination before me” (16:50). When we read 2 Peter 2:6-7 and Jude 7, we learn that this “abomination” included sexual immorality and homosexual conduct.

The Holiness Code

Leviticus 18:2b-3, 22; 20:13
I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. … You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination [abhorrence]. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Revisionist Argument #1:
The practices mentioned in these chapters of Leviticus have to do with idolatry, not homosexuality.
Christian Response:
The prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20 appear within lists of other sexual sins—adultery and incest, for example—which are forbidden in both Old and New Testaments. If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned only because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No serious reader of these passages could accept such a premise.
Revisionist Argument #2:
The Holiness Code’s injunction against homosexual acts is not an ethical but rather a ceremonial prohibition. It focuses on Jewish ritual cleanness, not Christian behavior.
Christian Response:
This argument, too, is based on a partial truth. New Testament scholar Stanley Grenz says:
This theory is a helpful reminder that the Holiness Code arose partly out of a concern for ritual purity. However, it is not completely clear that the injunctions against sex acts such as bestiality and same-sex intercourse fall in this category. … Further, by claiming that the Holiness Code prohibition of homosexual acts arises merely out of concern for ceremonial purity and not for morality, the argument assumes a disjunction between ethics and ritual uncleanness that is foreign to Leviticus. … Considerations such as these make it difficult to get around the conclusion that the Holiness Code prohibits homosexual acts in general and that it did so on the basis of concerns that were at least in part moral.
Revisionist Argument #3:
You don’t follow all of Leviticus, you eat shellfish and wear mixed threads, don’t you? Those are prohibited in the same passages as the verses on homosexuality.
Christian Response:
Of course, sexual activity is a much bigger deal than eating shrimp or wearing a polyester-cotton blend shirt. They are not equivalent. In addition, we don’t throw out other sexual ethics in Leviticus 18 and 20 such as the prohibitions against incest or adultery
Dr. Michael Brown, author and theologian, helps explain the difference between dietary laws that applied to Israel and ethical laws that apply to everyone: Within the Torah (God’s Teaching and Law), there were many laws given to Israel to keep them separate from the nations (like Leviticus 19:19). That’s why the Torah said that certain foods, like shellfish, were unclean for the Israelites but not for all people (see Deuteronomy 14:7, 19). On the other hand, there were laws given to Israel that were universal in scope, like the command not to murder.
When it comes to homosexual practice, not only is it the only sinful action singled out in Leviticus as an abomination, but it is part of a list of universal moral prohibitions, including incest and other forbidden sexual acts. We know this because the chapter states that the Lord judged the pagan nations for these very acts, and if acts were wrong for idol-worshiping pagans, they were wrong for the people of Israel (see Leviticus  18:24-30). And when we see that the prohibition against homosexual practice is reiterated in the New Testament, the case is settled for those who accept the Bible as God’s Word.

David and Johnathan

1 Samuel 19:1
And Saul spoke to Jonathan his son and to all his servants, that they
should kill David. But Jonathan, Saul’s son, delighted much in David.
2 Samuel 1:25-26
[David is lamenting the deaths of Saul and Jonathan.]
Jonathan lies slain on your high places.
I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
very pleasant have you been to me;
your love to me was extraordinary,
surpassing the love of women.
Revisionist Argument:
David and Jonathan were obviously homosexual lovers.
Christian Response:
Given the evidence of the biblical text, the conclusion is anything but obvious. Instead, this interpretation reflects a set of cultural assumptions—in particular, a highly sexualized interpretation of the word “love”—which is more characteristic of modern Western society than of the ancient Near East. Contrary to the implications of contemporary movie plots and song lyrics, “love” and “sex” are not mutually interchangeable terms. They certainly weren’t in biblical times, and we shouldn’t impose our worldview on ancient times.
Demonstrative, emotionally charged same-sex friendships were common in David and Jonathan’s cultural context. Theologian Stanley Grenz notes that the language of David’s lament is typical of that used in treaties. In this case, it’s as if David were describing or establishing a treaty between himself and Jonathan’s family. Grenz also notes that both David and Jonathan married women and fathered children.
The Bible does not avoid David’s sins—including pointing out his orchestration of the murder of Uriah and his adultery with Bathsheba (II Samuel 11-12). If David had sinned homosexually, certainly Scripture would have noted it, and he might have incurred the penalty for such activity.

Plural Marriage in Scripture

Revisionist Argument:
Many in the Bible, including Abraham and David, practiced polygamy. Why aren’t you open to practicing polygamy and other types of sexual relationships?
Christian Response:
The Bible is honest about sexual sin in a fallen world and describes many kinds of sexual activity, including polygamy, incest, prostitution, rape and homosexuality, all of which are rejected as God’s design. But the only kind of sexual behavior the Bible prescribes is marriage between one man and one woman.

Jesus and the Subject of Homosexuality

Revisionist Argument:
Jesus never taught against homosexuality or lesbianism. In fact, He was silent on the issue.
Christian Response #1:
As Grenz writes:
{A}rguments from silence are notoriously difficult to substantiate. We might just as easily conclude that other acts about which Jesus was silent were equally unimportant to the Master. For example, does His silence about incest mean that we are no longer bound to the Old Testament prohibitions in this area?
There is a much simpler and more obvious explanation for Jesus’ silence. It was not a controversial issue of that period. It was a settled issue in Israel that homosexual behavior was a sin, so Jesus was not asked about it.
Christian Response #2:
Jesus is the Son of God; He is the living Word, God made flesh. The revisionist argument assumes that Jesus somehow might have had a different view of homosexuality from that which was made clear to God’s people in the Old Testament. Jesus is one with the Father, and the Spirit, and the same Holy Spirit inspired all the authors of Scripture. Jesus kept and affirmed all that the Law and the Prophets taught (Matthew 5:17-19).
Christian Response #3:
Jesus said everything that needed to be said on the subject of sexual ethics when He quoted Genesis in response to the Pharisees’ question about divorce: He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)
In other words, Jesus explicitly endorsed the Christian sexual ethic outlined Genesis, Mark and Matthew.
As Grenz affirms:
But nowhere did [Jesus] condone genital sexual activity outside the context of a lifelong heterosexual commitment. In fact, the only option He mentioned other than marriage was celibacy (Matthew 19:11-12). Moreover, whenever Jesus engaged with questions involving human sexual conduct, he appealed to God’s intention in creation (e.g., Mark 10:11-12; Matthew 19:4-9).

Paul – Natural and Unnatural

Romans 1:18-27
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Revisionist Argument #1:
Paul is not describing true homosexuals; rather, he is referring to heterosexuals who, as he says, “exchanged natural relations.” The real sin here is in changing what is natural to the individual.
Christian Response:
There is nothing in Paul’s wording to suggest he even recognized such a thing as a “true” homosexual versus a “false” one. The idea of gay as an identity, of someone “being gay” or “being homosexual” is a modern construct, rooted in ideology and a particular worldview. Paul simply describes homosexual behavior as against nature—unnatural.
Paul’s wording, in fact, is unusually specific. He chooses the Greek words that most emphasize biology. He is not considering any such thing as sexual orientation. He is saying that homosexuality is biologically unnatural—not just unnatural to “heterosexuals,” but unnatural to anyone. As Grenz puts it, “The verse does not
speak of natural and unnatural feelings, but natural and unnatural function.”

Paul is speaking of how we are created—male and female.

Revisionist Argument #2:
This Scripture describes people given over to idolatry, not gay Christians who worship the true God.
Christian Response:
Idolatry plays a major role in Romans 1. Paul begins his writing by describing humanity’s rebellion and decision to worship creation rather than the Creator. But Paul is also talking about sins that arise when humanity stops worshiping the true God, including the sin of homosexual sexual activity. Professor Schmidt explains:
Paul is not suggesting that a person worships an idol and decides therefore to engage in same-sex relations. Rather, he is suggesting that the general rebellion created the environment for the specific rebellion: “For this reason God gave them up to,” not “As a result of this they did.”

Paul: The Rejection of the Same-sex Acts

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. …
Revisionist Argument:
Arsenokoite, the word used for homosexuality by Paul in his letters to the Corinthians and to Timothy, is apparently a word he coined. It never appeared in Greek literature before he used it in these Scriptures. At that time there were other words for “homosexual.” Had he meant to refer to homosexuality, he would have used one of the words already in existence. Most likely, he was referring to male prostitution, which was common at the time.
Christian Response:
Whether Paul coined the term arsenokoite or not, there can be no doubt about its meaning. It is simply a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase mishkav zakur, “lying with a male,” which is “… the usual way of referring to homosexual intercourse in early rabbinic literature.” As such, it clearly refers back to the prescriptions of the Holiness Code, especially Leviticus 20:13 which, in the Greek Septuagint version reads, “…hos an koimethe meta aresnos koiten gynaikos.”
As Dr. Grenz concludes:
We must remind ourselves that Paul’s list in the Corinthian epistle occurs in the wider context of matters related to proper sexual conduct and the believing community (1 Corinthians 5-8). As his subsequent discussion indicates, Paul was convinced that the only proper context for sexual intercourse was heterosexual marriage. The apostle apparently did not see any reason to elaborate further why homosexual behavior violated this basic view.
Interestingly, this term arsenokoite or “men-who-bed-men” is close to the term used by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “men who have sex with men” or MSM. Like Paul, the CDC places the emphasis on the behavior, rather than on identity or attractions. And the good news, stated clearly in the letter to Corinth, is that people come out of homosexuality—they are washed, made holy and their sin is paid for by the work of Jesus on the cross. From the early Church until today, people have left homosexual behavior.
In his book, Is God anti-gay?,
Sam Allberry explains how Paul’s list of sins should bring us to acknowledge our deep need for a savior: These forms of behavior characterize those who are not “just” and for whom the law was given, in order to bring conviction of sin and the need for mercy. All these practices contradict “sound doctrine” and the gospel. They do not conform to the life Christians are now to lead. They go against the grain of the new identity we have in Christ.

New International Version (Errors)

The New International Version (NIV) translation of the Holy Bible is apparently compiled and edited by a group of theological liberals who seek to tickle the ears of heretics and atheists seeing that the translation takes liberty with the Hebrew and the Greek and says something that the Scriptures simply do NOT say (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,  and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4 NASB)

Psalm 119:152

The Atheists say…

psalm 119 152

The NIV incorrectly translates “commands” which should be “testimonies.”

“Of old I have known from Your testimonies
That You have founded them forever.” (Psalm 119:152 NASB)

“Concerning Your testimonies,
I have known of old that You have founded them forever.” (Psalm 119:152 NKJV)

“Long have I known from your testimonies
    that you have founded them forever.” (Psalm 119:152 ESV)

“Long ago I learned from your statutes
    that you established them to last forever.” (Psalm 119:152 NIV)

See Hebrew translation of Psalm 119:152 at https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/119-152.htm

“concerning your testimonies” = Heb: mê-‘ê-ḏō-ṯe-ḵā; Strongs #5713 [e] > your testimonies (occurrences 1 of 1)

What are the “testimonies” of our LORD referenced by Psalm 119:152?

Let us mark this eternal basis of “the testimonies of God.” The whole plan of redemption was emphatically “founded for ever”: the Saviour was “foreordained before the foundation of the world.” The people of God were “chosen in Christ before the world began.” The great Author “declares the end from the beginning,” and thus clears his dispensations from any charge of mutability or contingency. Every event in the church is fixed, permitted, and provided for — not in the passing moment of time; but in the counsels of eternity. When, therefore, the testimonies set forth God’s faithful engagements with his people of old, the recollection that they are “founded for ever” gives us a present and unchangeable interest in them. And when we see that they are grounded upon the oath and promise of God — the two “immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie” — we may truly “have strong consolation” in venturing every hope for eternity upon this rock; nor need we be dismayed to see all our earthly dependencies — “the world, and the lust, and the fashion of it — passing away” before us. – -Charles Bridges. See: https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/treasury-of-david/psalms-119-152.html

********************

Numbers 5:11-31 (Test for Unfaithful Wife)

Numbers 5 is far too often used by pro-choice advocates in their efforts to prove the Bible supports abortion. The atheist/pro-abortion advocate will cite Numbers 5 in the NIV which incorrectly translates the Hebrew.

Numbers 5:21, 22, 27, 28 (NIV)

21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

Numbers 5:21, 22, 27, 28 (NASB)

21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh [m]waste away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your [n]stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh [o]waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”

27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her [r]and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will [s]waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive [t]children.

Note: In the Hebrew, this test does NOT involve a child, a pregnant woman, but is simply a test of faithfulness/unfaithfulness. If the Woman is guilty, her uterus will be made sterile. If the Woman is not guilty of adultery, she will be able to bear children…there is no mention of a miscarriage or abortion in the Hebrew…it’s simply the difference between sterility and fertility, but no child is mentioned in the text other than in v. 28 stating that the innocent Wife would be able to bear children.

v. 21 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-21.htm

v. 22 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-22.htm

v. 27 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-27.htm

Note: The NIV is the ONLY version that uses “miscarriage” in v. 21 and 22, see: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17009/does-numbers-511-22-describe-sanctioned-abortion

The Hebrew for miscarriage is Strongs #5309 (miscarriage or abortion) but v. 21-22 and 27 use Strongs #5307 (to fall, lie).  There is no mention of “miscarry” or a child in the Hebrew relevant to Numbers 5:21-22, 27.

“Got Questions” agrees that Numbers 5 is not discussing an abortion and notes that the NIV mistakenly translates “miscarriage.” See: https://www.gotquestions.org/Numbers-abortion.html

Evolution – A Religion from Hell

“Richard Dawkins not only regards Darwinism as compatible with atheism, but that atheism is a logical outcome of evolutionary belief. He has long promoted atheism both individually and as part of atheistic organizations.”

See: (The Greatest Hoax on Earth?) https://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/introduction.php

Why do People Believe in Evolution?

  • It is all that they have been taught and exposed to, they believe the evidence supports evolution.
  • They do not want to be lumped with people who do not believe in evolution and are often considered to be less intelligent or “backward.”
  • Evolution has the stamp of approval from real scientists, and evolutionary history allows people to reject the idea of God and legitimize their own immorality.
  • Evaluating the presuppositions behind belief in evolution makes for a much more productive discussion. Two intelligent people can arrive at different conclusions using the same evidence; therefore, their starting assumptions is the most important issue in discussing historical science.

The Disastrous Results of Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory

  • Michael Denton (Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) suggests that the chief impact of Darwin’s ideas was to make atheism possible and respectable in light of the evidence for a Designer.
  • Darwin’s ideas fostered an environment where God was no longer needed—nature was all that was necessary.
  • Darwin’s ideas ushered in a pagan era that is now reaching a critical point.
  • The idea that the appearance of design suggests a designer became an invalid argument in the eyes of evolutionists.

Note: Darwin developed his ideas over many years after his journey aboard the Beagle. The idea of natural selection was recognized by creationists before Darwin used it to remove the glory from God. https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/speciation-yes-evolution-no/

******************************

Mutations: evolution’s engine becomes evolution’s end!

Excerpt: Mutations are not uniquely biological events that provide an engine of natural variation for natural selection to work upon and produce all the variety of life. Mutation is the purely physical result of the all-pervading mechanical damage that accompanies all molecular machinery. As a consequence, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.

See: https://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end

****************************************

evolution - darwin on couch with psychologist are the transitional fossils in the room with us now

That Quote about the Missing Transitional Fossils

Excerpt: Being a world-renowned fossil expert, Patterson’s frank admissions were embarrassing to adherents of the ‘religion of evolution’—including himself, it would appear. But there were even more devastating revelations to come from Dr. Patterson.

During a public lecture presented at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981, he dropped a bombshell among his peers that evening, who became very angry and emotional. Here are some extracts from what he said:

‘ … I’m speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it’s true to say that I know nothing whatever about either … One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let’s call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realization.

‘… One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.’ He added:

‘That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long … I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”

Dr. Colin Patterson, (1933 – 1988) former senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.

See: https://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils

evolution - atheism and evolution best friends forever

Darwin’s Gravest Objection (absence of fossil record)

Charles Darwin asks an excellent question in his work ‘On the Origin of Species’: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

He then attempts to defend his position over the next 23 pages, claiming “The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record”.

I believe that the science behind modern geology is fatally flawed by the evolutionary theories of influential writers like James Hutton and Sir Charles Lyell.

Their hunger to learn was overshadowed by their desire to explain their findings in a natural, atheistic way. In pioneering their fields of study, they sparked a conformist group who would continue on the same path to this day.

Did they believe in God? Not enough to give consideration to Biblical history. The future of science will one day show: THAT was a grave mistake.

https://thecreationclub.com/darwin-the-gravest-objection/

**********

Evolution is NOT Science

Also see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RLcfwAYCjQ

Religion: A cause, principle, or system of belief held to with ardor and faith (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) “ardor” – enthusiasm or passion, fervor, zeal, vehemence, intensity, verve, fire, emotion.

Faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof.  (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)

Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (http://dictionaryreference.com/browse/science)

Note: Evolution is not a science because Evolution has never been observed nor has experimentation of evolution taken place; however, evolution does fit nicely into the definition of religion. Evolution is a system of beliefs for which there is no proof.

evolution - evolution fantasy athesim exposed

Evolution – Which one?

Which “Evolution” are you discussing…there are six-meanings to the word, evolution.

  1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, i.e. Big Bang. “Nothing exploded and created everything.”
  2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen. According to the Big Bang Theory, the Big Bang created hydrogen and some helium but the question remains, how did the other 105 elements evolve? Did uranium evolve from hydrogen? Evolutionists say “yes” because of fusion in the stars but you cannot fuse past iron…also you have a “chicken and the egg” problem because you must have stars to make the elements and the elements to make the stars; therefore, which one came first?
  3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: Origin of stars and planets. No one has ever seen a star form. “The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form.” (Martin Harwit, Science, vol. 231, 7 March 1986, p. 1201-1202)  A scientist might see a spot in the sky and claim they observed a star form but what they’re actually witnessing is a scenario where a dust cloud has moved from in-front of a star…the star was present the whole time. We do see stars explode forming a Nova or a Super Nova…this is observed about every 30-years…yet we’ve never seen a star actually form. It has been estimated that there are enough stars for every person on Earth to own 11-trillion of them…yet we do not know their origin…these are only the stars we know about but it’s possible there could many more. Also see Harvard/NASA’s explanation for origin: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm
  4. Organic Evolution: Origin of life. According to Evolution, life must find its genesis in non-life yet no one has a clue relevant to how this is possible. Scientists have attempted to create life in the laboratory but they failed and even if science could create life in a controlled environment, this would only prove that Intelligence is required to create life…this would not prove evolution.
  5. Macro-Evolution: Changing from one KIND into another KIND. Note: A dog and a wolf are the same “KIND” but different species – but Darwin, in his book, The Origin of the Species, changed the classification from “KIND” to “species.” All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within a kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others)
  6. Micro-Evolution: Variations within KINDS…only this one has been observed. Micro-Evolution or variation within a KIND results from adaptation, breeding. Speciation yes! – Evolution no! (https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/speciation-yes-evolution-no/) Again: All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within a kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others)

Note that the first FIVE kinds of evolution are RELIGIOUS – NON-SCIENCE and are religious views for we have never observed any of them. Both Creationism and Evolution are religious by definition…one must choose to “believe.”

Evolution requires great faith in that which has never been observed:

  • Life coming from non-life
  • Matter creating itself
  • Animals producing different KINDS of animals
  • NONE of these things has ever been observed; therefore, Evolution is a religion consisting of faith/belief not a science.

Darwin’s Use of KIND

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, P.F. Collier & Sons, 1909

See: http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/kind.php

Though the typical evolutionist insists that a “kind” is not a scientific classification, even Charles Darwin himself used the term “kind” in its proper context.

[p.34] — “… the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bulldog, which we all know propagate their kind truly,”

[p.94] — “… would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind?”

[p.116] — “… they will have a better chance of surviving and propagating their kind;”

[p.154] — “In treatises on many kinds of cultivated plants, certain varieties are said to withstand certain climates better than others;”

[p.290] — “… from being sterile, they cannot propagate their kind.”

[p.339] — “… some of the higher animals, which propagate their kind much more slowly…”

[p.356] — “Yet these birds… they exist in infinite numbers and of many kinds.”

[p.522] — “Some of the many kinds of animals which live on the beach…”

Evolutionary Terms Defined

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/natural-selection-vs-evolution/

Natural Selection: the process by which individuals possessing a set of traits that confer a survival advantage in a given environment tend to leave more offspring on average that survive to reproduce in the next generation.

  • Natural selection is an observable process that falls into the category of operational science.
  • We have observed mosquitoes, birds, and many microorganisms undergoing change in relatively short periods of time. (all within their KIND)
  • New species have been observed to arise.
  • Biblical creationists agree with evolutionists on most of the ideas associated with natural selection, except the idea that natural selection leads to molecules-to-man evolution.

Speciation: the process of change in a population that produces distinct populations which rarely naturally interbreed due to geographic isolation or other factors.

  • Speciation is observable and fits into the category of operational science. Speciation has never been observed to turn one kind of animal into another.

Adaptation: a physical trait or behavior due to inherited characteristics that gives an organism the ability to survive in a given environment.

  • Evolutionary biologists assume, based on geologic interpretations, that there have been billions of years for this process to occur. But if long ages did not exist, the hypothesis cannot be true.
  • The other requirement, a mechanism for change, is also assumed to exist—even though it has never been observed.

Example: To produce the new bones in the fins (for a fish to walk on land) requires an elaborate orchestration of biologic processes. The bones don’t just have to be present; they must develop at the right time in the embryo, have their shape and size predetermined by the DNA sequence, be attached to the correct tendons, ligaments, and blood vessels, attach to the bones of the pectoral girdle, and so on. The amount of information required for this seemingly simple transformation cannot be provided by a process that generally deletes information from the genome.

Evolution: all life on earth has come about through descent with modification from a single common ancestor (a hypothetical, primitive, single-celled organism).

  • “Is evolution a valid scientific idea since it cannot be observed in experiments and repeated to show that the conclusions are valid?”
  • The fact that evolutionary processes, on the scale of millions of years, cannot be observed, tested, repeated, or falsified places them in the category of historical science.

Operational Science v. Historical Science

Operational Science can be defined as any science that sets out to describe how something works. It uses the traditional tools of observation and experimentation. Examples of this sort of science would include physics and chemistry.

Historical Science can be defined as any science that attempts to piece together past events in order to explain those events. Examples of Historical Sciences would include Archaeology and Police Forensics.

A key difference between these two types of science is that theories in operational sciences can usually be thoroughly tested in order to prove whether or not the theory is true. In contrast, in historical science, theories generally cannot be tested and always have some level of assumptions and doubts.

All theories about the formation and creation of the universe, the world, life, and man fall into the category of historical science. The events are all past events that are not observable. See: https://www.truthortradition.com/articles/a-critical-distinction-operational-science-vs-historical-science

A Major Problem for Evolution

  • A major problem for evolution is the huge increase in information content of organisms through time.
  • The problem is that through the imagined history of life on earth, the information content of the genomes of organisms must have increased dramatically.
  • Beginning with the most primitive form of life, we have a relatively simple genome compared to the genomes that we see today. Mutations are said to provide the fuel for the evolutionary engine. Virtually all observed mutations result in a loss in the information content of a genome.

What is a genome?

A genome is an organism’s complete set of DNA, including all of its genes. Each genome contains all of the information needed to build and maintain that organism. In humans, a copy of the entire genome—more than 3 billion DNA base pairs—is contained in all cells that have a nucleus. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/hgp/genome

 

Example: There would need to be some way to consistently add information to the genome to arrive at palm trees and people from a simple single-celled organism—the hypothetical common ancestor of all life on earth. Evolutionists have failed to answer the question, “Where did all the new information come from since mutations are known to reduce information?” You cannot expect evolution, which requires a net gain in information over millions of years, to occur as a result of mutation and natural selection. Natural selection, evolution’s supposed mechanism, causes a loss of information and can only act on traits that are already present!

In one of the most brilliantly and perceptively developed themes in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Denton shows how leaders in the science of classification, after a century of trying vainly to accommodate evolution, are returning to, and fleshing out, the creationist typological concepts of the pre-Darwinian era. Indeed, the study of biological classification was founded by Karl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus) on the basis of his conscious and explicit biblical belief that living things were created to multiply after kind, and that these created kinds could be rationally grouped in a hierarchical pattern reflecting themes and variations in the Creator’s mind. If evolution were true, says Denton, classification of living things ought to reflect a sequential pattern, like the classification of wind speeds, with arbitrary divisions along a continuum (e.g., the classification of hurricanes into categories 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 along a wind speed gradient). In sharp contrast, living things fit into distinctly bounded hierarchical categories, with each member “equi-representative” of the group, and “equidistant” from members of other defined groups.

“Actually,” concluded Gould, “the existence of distinct species was quite consistent with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian era” (emphasis added). I would simply like to add that the evidence is also quite consistent with the creationist tenets of the present post-neo-Darwinian era. In Darwin’s time, as well as the present, “creation” seems to be the more logical inference from our observations.

The collapse of neo-Darwinism has sparked interest in creation among secular intellectuals, leading to the influential movement now called “Intelligent Design” or ID. ID spokesmen present evidence for intelligent design without tying it to the Bible or any other overtly religious position. ID gained worldwide notoriety with Darwin on Trial in which a prestigious law professor from the University of California at Berkeley, Phillip Johnson,3 demonstrated that Darwinian evolution was based on so many errors in logic and violations of the rules of evidence that it represented little more than a thinly veiled apologetic for philosophic naturalism. Books and visuals by Jonathan Wells show that popular Icons of Evolution4 still used in textbooks, museum displays, and television programs were discredited scientifically years ago.

It’s no wonder that in recent times evolutionists have left the defense of evolution largely to lawyers, judges, politicians, educators, the media, and the clergy, NOT to scientists. Even secular and agnostic scientists are becoming creationists!

See: https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/speciation-yes-evolution-no/)

Example of Natural Selection and Speciation

Using the dog kind as an example, we can see the amazing variety that was programmed into the DNA from creation. Using basic genetic principles and operational science, we can understand how the great diversity seen in the dogs of the present world could have come from one pair of dogs on Noah’s Ark.

  • Using the genes A, B, and C as examples of recessive/dominant traits in dogs, if an AaBbCc male were to mate with an AaBbCc female, there are 27 different combinations (AABBCC … aabbcc) possible in the offspring.
  • If these three genes coded for fur characteristics, we would get dogs with many types of fur—from long and thick to short and thin.
  • As these dogs migrated around the globe after the Flood, they encountered different climates. Those that were better suited to the environment of the cold North survived and passed on the genes for long, thick fur. The opposite was true in the warmer climates.
  • Natural selection is a key component of the explanation of events following the Flood that led to the world we now see.
  • This type of speciation has been observed to happen very rapidly and involves mixing and expression of the preexisting genetic variability.
  • Not only does natural selection select from already existing information, it causes a loss of information since unfavorable genes are removed from the population.
  • Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.
  • Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.
  • The differences in groups of similar organisms that are isolated from one another may eventually become great enough so that the populations no longer interbreed in the wild. This is how new species have formed since the Flood and why the straw man argument set up at the beginning is a false representation of creationist interpretations.
  • All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others)

No matter how hard evolutionists try, they cannot explain where the new information that is necessary to turn a reptile into a bird comes from.

  • The typical neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation, chance, and time cannot generate new information.
  • The failure of evolutionary models to explain how a single cell could have evolved more complex information by additive mutations challenges the entire concept.

If we start from the Bible, we begin with the idea of specially created organisms possessing large amounts of genetic variability.

  • These original kinds have undergone mutations—which cause a loss of information—and have been changed into new species by natural selection. In this biblical framework, the history of life makes sense.

Micro and Macro Evolution – Explanation and a problem for Evolutionists

Evolution has also taken on two different meanings that are not equal.

Microevolution

  • Accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike as good observational science. This type of evolution allows change within groups but not between groups.

Macroevolution

  • Involves the idea that all organisms on earth share a common ancestor by descent with modification.

Typically, textbooks show that new species can form—evolution has occurred—so they argue that it is obvious that evolution, in the molecules-to-man sense, must have occurred.

  • The problem is that just because natural selection and speciation have occurred (and there is strong evidence to support such claims) the claim that all life has evolved from a common ancestor is based on many assumptions that cannot be ultimately proven.

Evolution and Origin – assumptions and problems arise

When we deal with the issue of origins, we must realize that:

  • No people were there to observe and record the events.
  • When scientists discuss the origins of the universe, the earth, or life on earth, we must realize that the discussion is based on assumptions. These fallible assumptions make the conclusions of the discussion less valid than if the discussion were based on actual observation.
  • Almost all biology books and textbooks written in the last two-generations have been written as if these presuppositions were true.
  • Proponents of the evolutionary worldview expect everyone to accept evolution as fact. This is a difficult case to make when the how, why, when, and where of evolutionary history are sharply contested or unknown by the scientists who insist evolution is a fact.

Evolutionists often claim that creation is not scientific because of the unprovable assumptions that it is based on.

  • The fact that evolution is based on its own set of unprovable, untestable, and unfalsifiable assumptions is recognized by many in the scientific community.

Within the scientific literature, the mathematical and chemical impossibilities of the origin of the universe and life on earth are recognized. Many notable scientists, including Sir Fred Hoyle and Sir Francis Crick, have gone so far as to suggest that life originated on other planets or was brought to earth by an intelligent being. These ideas are no less testable than special creation but avoid invoking God as our Creator.

The Impossibility of Life’s Evolutionary Beginnings

While virtually all of the evolutionary story lacks empirical support, its greatest impediment is the fundamental problem of how life first arose. Ultimately, life requires DNA, RNA, and protein in a system in which each molecule is dependent on the other two to both exist and function in the cell. It’s even more confounding than a chicken-and-egg scenario as to which came first. Furthermore, since each type of molecule carries and conveys complex encoded information, an intelligent information originator is the only logical cause. Code implies a coder, not naturalistic random processes.

See: https://www.icr.org/article/impossibility-lifes-evolutionary-beginnings/

********************************

“Mullerian Two-Step”Irreducibly Complex Bridges

When you see atheist claims to destroy/devastate Christianity (or anything else opposed to a materialistic worldview, such as Intelligent Design/Irreducible Complexity), step back and carefully look at a) the assumptions, b) the connections between premises, and c) the conclusions, and you’ll likely find the claims of obvious superiority exaggerated. Whether you subscribe to Behe’s arguments or not, this “Mullerian Two-Step” is based on a flawed foundational assumption that the precursor is functional but not irreducible also. Therefore, it simply isn’t a valid defeater for Behe’s theory. Next contestant?  See: http://welldesignedfaith.net/tag/mullerian-two-step/

 

******************************

Creationists Point to Huge Holes in Evolution “Theory”

See: https://creationtoday.org/creationist-challenge/

************************************

Does Richard Lenski “Escherichia coli experiment” prove Evolution? No!

Evolution’s Top Example Topples

Excerpt: “This is evolution by degradation. All of the functional parts of the system were already in place before random mutation began to degrade them. Thus it is of no help to Darwinists, who require a mechanism that will construct new, functional systems.”
See: Behe, M. A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street: Experimentally Confirming the Limits to Darwinian Evolution. Evolution News. Posted on evolutionnews.org January 11, 2012, accessed August 13, 2015.

***********************************

Do new functions arise by gene duplication? No…

Excerpt: “However, biologists are now becoming more and more convinced theoretically and empirically that most duplicated gene copies undergo degenerative, rather than constructive, mutations, ending up in nonfunctionalization.”

Evolution by gene duplication predicts a proportional increase in genome size with organism complexity but this is contradicted by the evidence. It is not genome size but intergenic regulatory sequences and gene regulation hierarchies that determine complexity. Gene regulation networks are irreducibly complex and constitute an insurmountable barrier for the theory.”

See: https://creation.com/do-new-functions-arise-by-gene-duplication

Does gene duplication provide the engine for evolution?

Excerpt: “Proponents of the gene-duplication hypothesis of evolution argue that a mutation can cause the duplication of a gene that allows one copy of the gene to mutate and evolve to perform a novel function, while allowing the other copy of the gene to continue to perform the original gene’s function. Gene duplication is now widely believed by Darwinists to be the main source of all new genes. A review of the evidence shows that there are numerous problems and contradictions in this theory and the empirical evidence indicates that gene duplication has a role in variation within kinds but not in evolution. Darwinists therefore have nothing more to go on than to depend heavily upon extrapolations from gene similarities—a circular argument founded upon the assumption of evolution, and yet another example of evolutionary story telling.”

“Darwinists promote gene duplication as an important means of evolution, not because of the evidence, but because they see no other viable mechanism to produce the required large number of new functional genes to turn a microbe into a microbiologist. In other words, evolution by gene-duplication is yet another example of just-so story-telling.”

See: https://creation.com/does-gene-duplication-provide-the-engine-for-evolution

**************************************

Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism?

Excerpt: “Homology involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be proven by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals. Since Darwin, homology has been cited in textbooks as a major proof for evolution. A review of the literature on homology indicates that the theory does not provide evidence for evolutionary naturalism, and that the common examples of homology can be better explained by Creation. Furthermore, increased knowledge about the genetic and molecular basis of life has revealed many major exceptions and contradictions to the theory which, as a result, have largely negated homology as a proof of evolution.”

See: https://creation.com/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism

***********************************

Common Ancestor and Genetic Similarity

Excerpt: “Moreover, if the thesis of common ancestry were correct, we are not talking about there being a few transitional forms like Archaeopteryx. Rather, as Michael Denton says in his book, there should be literally millions and millions of these transitional forms in the fossil record. Think, for example, of all of the intermediate forms that would have to exist in order for a bat and a whale to have descended from a common ancestor. And yet, they are not there. Moreover, a bat and a whale are actually rather closely related on the evolutionary tree of life in that bats and whales are both mammals. They are both vertebrates. Think how many transitional forms would have to exist for a bat and a sponge to be descended from the same ancestor. So this problem can’t just be dismissed by saying we haven’t dug deep enough. The transitional forms haven’t been found because they don’t seem to be there. This absence would be consistent with versions of the thesis of common ancestry that appeal to leaps in the evolutionary development so you wouldn’t find the transitional forms but it would tell against versions that are gradualist in their development.

So it seems to me that the data concerning common ancestry are mixed. I think the genetic evidence does lend support to the thesis of common ancestry but the fossil evidence tends to go against it. So our final verdict will attempt to ask how we can put this evidence together in such a way as to best explain the evidence.”

See: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-creation-and-evolution/creation-and-evolution-part-18/

***********************************

Does the DNA similarity between chimps and humans prove a common ancestry?

Excerpt: The DNA similarity data does NOT quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!

See: https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html

***********************************

Radiometric Dating – a Worldview is at Play

The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating

See: https://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating

Radiometric Dating — Is It Accurate?

See: https://creationtoday.org/radiometric-dating-is-it-accurate/

More Bad News for Radiometric Dating

Excerpt: I really feel “bullish” about the creationist model now. Evolution has always been in trouble. I now have a good explanation for where the flood water came from and where it went, based on water trapped inside the crust (however the planet formed or was created). And now radiometric dating has had its foundation removed from under it. I suspect that a number of geologists now realize the implications of what they know about the lead and uranium content of subducted oceanic plate versus crustal material and the mechanics of magma solidification. What it means is that radiometric dates have no necessary relation to true ages! (For this I’m mainly concerned with the geologic column of Cambrian and above.) At least, there are so many variables to consider that the relationship between radiometric ages and true ages is too complicated to disentangle at present, isochrons or no isochrons.

See: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

jesus - eternity in our heart

Jesus - in the latter times some shall depart

Related Article: Progressivism – Party of Deception and Death: https://rickeyholtsclaw.com/2018/01/26/progressivism-satans-party-of-death/