Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Prophe-Zine Issue 075
PropheZine #75
April 1, 1999
Bob Lally Publisher
Mimi Nila Senior Editor
Rick Woodcock Asst. Editor
Abraham George Asst. Editor
Lori Eldridge Asst. Editor
Bob Ippolito Asst. Editor
ARTICLES
Robert Gange, Ph. D.........Darwin's Dilemma
Lori Eldridge...............What Day of the Week Was Christ Crucified?
Chuck Missler ...............Countdown To Eternity
Dr. Ron Rhodes ..............What Happens at the Moment of Death?
NEWS ITEMS FROM ISRAEL
ICEJ News .....................Hillary Clinton Visits Mideast, Skips Israel
News Report From Jerusalem ..Christian Groups Attacked In Jerusalem
ICEJ News..................... Eu: Jerusalem Is Not The Capitol Of Israel
A Joke Overheard...
****************************************************************
Hello Everyone!
We rejoice with you at this time of the year over the proof of our Salvation -
the Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ!
Because He lives, we shall live also!
He, the Firstfruits of the harvest, we, the main harvest.
In this issue we also celebrate the Son of God for His role as our Creator.
One of the ways is by exposing End Times "doctrines of devils"
[1]:*like Evolution - a doctrine designed to deny that I am "fearfully and wonderfully made"
[2];*like Cosmology (of a flawed type) that tries to deny that "the heavens and the earth are the Lord's"
[3] and the heavens and earth "reveal His handiwork"
[4];These false doctrines are designed to rob the Lord of His rightful glory, while seeding despair into the souls of men in order to rob them of the hope of a resurrection into eternal life, bought and paid for by Jesus the Christ.
In this issue, we have a spectrum of excellent articles from Chuck Missler, our own Lori Eldridge, as well as a newcomer to Prophezine - scientist, author and lecturer Dr. Robert Gange. God's servants are at work, loving Him with their WHOLE person including their minds [5], to "explain with gentleness and reverence, the reason for the hope that is in them"[6], by "tearing down strongholds and every lofty thought that raises itself up against the Kingdom of God, and taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ." [7].
Read, ...be strengthened, ...and rejoice...for He is Risen, just as He said!
In His Service,
Bob Ippolito
WatchmanT@aol.com
http://pages.prodigy.net/hippolytus
[1] - 1 Tim. 4:1; Rom 1:18-22
[2] - Psalm 139:14
[3] - Ex. 9:29; Gen 1: 1; John 1:3
[4] - Psalm 19:1
[5] - Mat 22: 36-38
[6] - 1 Pet 3:15
[7] - 2 Cor. 10:4
|==========================================
|
| DARWIN'S DILEMMA
| By Robert Gange, Ph. D.
|
Part I
The name "Darwin" is synonymous with evolution. Yet evolution, as a concept, traces back well before Darwin's time. Ancient Norsemen believed that life evolved from slowly melting ice, and that the process was fueled by breeze from a "land of fire." Greek philosophers likewise held that life's advent was natural. They viewed it as just another physical process. These old ideas may have influenced Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus, who speculated in his book, Zoonomia that life may have evolved. But unlike those of the past, Darwin was committed to the scientific method. He also knew his Bible, and was married to a deeply religious woman. But that did not keep him from abandoning his views on Creation - a transition that began with a voyage.
DARWIN'S CHANGE OF HEART
In 1831, Darwin set sail on the Beagle. Leaving Devonport, he traveled toward Patagonia. Before the trip Darwin believed that Science reinforced the Bible's description of life's origin. The geologists, cosmologists and biologists of the day concurred. Virtually all of them believed that earth's history was the result of supernatural happenings. But as Darwin traveled, he saw things that changed his mind. He was also influenced by a book that he read along the way: Lyell's Principles of Geology. This book taught that small past changes accumulate to yield the structures we see today. Darwin's studies lasted about five years, and he left the ship convinced of two things: (1) The Genesis account was not literal; and (2) Evolution had occurred in nature.
His first conclusion stemmed from observations he made regarding formations in the earth's surface. He wrote, for example, about huge vertical walls in a canyon several miles across that was composed of very hard rock about three hundred feet thick. Six thousand years was too short a time for natural processes to produce what he saw. Changes caused by erosion, for example, require centuries before they are even noticeable. Also disturbing to him was the discovery that many species were extinct. If Noah had taken all the species with him on the ark, how could so many have perished in the short span of several thousand years? Conversely, if the earth were very old, then the opportunity might exist for one species to change into another. Thus, for Darwin, the two ideas of a very old earth and the creation of new species were related.
Darwin's belief in evolution was also fueled when he noticed that insects common to South America and Europe landed on plant life common to these same continents. Had God separately created these plants and insects thousands of miles apart? Or did each come from a single parent that underwent change in the past? Analogous yet different species scattered throughout the Galapagos Islands posed a similar question to Darwin: Were these created as distinct species? Or had they evolved from a few life forms common to the islands? He found, for example, over ten different species of finches. Yet they looked like one another, and they sang the same kind of song.
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
Although Darwin became convinced that change over long time periods had produced life's diversity, he had no theory to explain it. He completed his voyage after about five years. Two years later, while reading Malthus's Population, Darwin pondered the question: "Why does one species survive over another?" Darwin's answer was that favorable changes are preserved and unfavorable ones destroyed. He then assumed that the surviving change created new species. Twenty years later, he wrote The Origin of Species. This book synthesized notes from the voyage with his idea that the fittest survive.
Prior to Darwin's publication in 1859, biologists believed that life was created by God, that living structures were designed, and that species were discontinuous and unchanging. But Darwin's theory changed all that. Life was now the result of an opportunistic combination from continuous random changes. In effect, physical matter had replaced God, and good fortune rather than design was the explanation. The survival of an opportunistic combination was seen as the "natural selection" of a universal, mechanistic materialism whose random motion never ceased. At long last biologists believed that they understood life's diversity.
THE DEMISE OF OLD IDEAS
There were two lingering beliefs that had kept Darwin's ideas from being accepted. The first was that each species of life on earth is fixed and cannot change. The second was that the earth is very young, and that its age is about 6000 years. But as Darwin's discoveries became known to wider numbers of people, these beliefs began to be seriously questioned, and their impact decreased with each passing year.
What were these discoveries? Darwin observed that the differences that separated certain dissimilar species were as large as the differences he found among some domestic animals of the same species. He argued that if such differences had occurred in animals of the same species, then they could also arise to separate animals into new and distinct species.
He further proposed how the changes occurred that created the new species. Darwin argued that a virtual continuum of evolutionary changes had occurred over long time periods, and that a natural selection mechanism existed that favored the "fittest" adaptations. New species then evolved from these "favored" changes. His arguments proved persuasive, and the old belief that species were fixed began to erode. But there was one other problem. How could evolutionary changes occur over long time periods when the earth was only 6000 years old?
One of the ways Darwin answered the age problem was an appeal to coral growth. He observed that coral reefs slowly grow off ocean floors. But they do so at depths no greater than about twenty-five feet below the surface of the water. How then, asked Darwin, can some of these coral structures be hundreds of feet high? He answered his own question in a most appealing way. He supposed that the ocean floor had slowly sunk over eons of time, and that the gradual growth of a hundred yard high coral reef from the ocean bottom had occurred not by the coral reaching great heights but, instead, by the ocean floor slowly dropping to great depths. Explained this way, the earth was not thousands -but millions of years old!
Here, then, was the removal of two great ancient beliefs that had barred the acceptance of his ideas: The first, that species are fixed and cannot change; and the second, that the earth's age is 6000 years. With these two ideas aside, the old system with fixed species and young earth was replaced by a dynamic evolving edifice where mutations create new life forms over eons of time.
The implications of Darwin's synthesis were staggering. First, life's advent and development did not need God. Second, religious thought regarding creation and, by implication, all Scripture was in error. Third, human life had no purpose and, therefore, no destiny.
TWO KINDS OF EVOLUTION
In view of the foundational aspects of these inferences, it is astounding that so little data has nurtured their acceptance over the years. Even in Darwin's day, the evidence was purely circumstantial. Consider, for instance, a similar structure that is used in different ways i.e., the lever arm in a bat's wing, frog's leg and man's arm. For Darwin these were not the single design of a Supreme Intelligence, but the modifications of an earlier structure that had evolved through natural selection.
Darwin also believed that the increase in the complexity of life forms with time demonstrated evolution. These included groups of existing species, as well as sequences of simple to complex fossils in the geologic record. Darwin believed that, given enough time, small changes produced new species, and that they also produced new kinds.
These two ideas are known, respectively, as micro and macro evolution - terms have much broader application than "adaption," which pertains to a modification that enhances an organism's survival to a changed environment. Unlike adaptation, which involves change within the same species, microevolution pertains to the production of different species within the same kind of life. For example, different species of finches in the bird family. The second broad term, macroevolution, pertains to the creation of different kinds of life. For instance, the creation of sea life versus air life.
But it's here that we need a perspective. In Darwin's day, living cells were considered to be as complicated as ping-pong balls. Darwin had no understanding of DNA or RNA. Yet if we modeled a living cell today using objects as small as marbles, we would need a room with a volume of about 500 cubic feet. Darwin thus proposed a theory of life in a time period when knowledge about its DNA blueprint was nonexistent. We are therefore led to ask: How valid were his ideas?
MICROEVOLUTION
Two species of the same kind of life, and that may have evolved from a common ancestor are the Black Backed and Herring Gulls. The first is found in North America, and the second in the Bering Straits. However, each species seems to undergo gradual transition into the other as one travels from either location toward that of the other. In Europe, which is about midway between either location, the two species exist side by side and do not interbreed. Yet if we leave Europe and travel either east or west, the one species gradually diminishes until only the other remains.
Another example of microevolution is the Hawaiian fruit fly. Changes in the gene sequences along salivary gland chromosomes indicate that over 500 species seem to be descended from less than three colonizations. Over twenty species of a Hawaiian bird (the Honeycreeper) likewise appear to have come from only one ancestor.
Other examples could be cited to show that microevolution appears to exist in nature. Two possible reasons for microevolution are gene movement and genetic spread. The first occurs from the more or less random interchange, insertion, modification or altered duplication of genes. The second arises from prior chemical information within the gene producing a response at the molecular level to environmental change in a way that enhances the organism's survival. Gene movement is a more or less random process, whereas genetic spread is a "programmed" adaption.
In this latter case, each species seems designed with a range of genetic motion that ensures survival of the organism in response to changing environmental conditions. Breeders have used this genetic latitude to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet, or the range of edible birds that have been bred from the wild jungle foul. In times of drought, for example, genetic spread permits a root to grow deeper, and its cuticle to thicken. These and other similar changes, such as the thickness of a mongoloid eyelid or the skin color in a negroid constitute examples of genetic spread. But although these examples denote change within the same species, the molecular mechanisms involved can, in principle, gradually alter reproduction within isolated populations over extended time periods. Were this to occur, a new species could, in principle, arise - but it would necessarily be of the same kind as the parent stock, and of a very similar appearance. Possible examples might include the Black Backed and Herring Gulls, or the Hawaiian fruit fly or Honeycreeper.
But microevolution can also occur from the motion of one or more genes. The geographical distributions of similar species of life have been examined across our planet. Some of these are a mystery. But others can be explained by presuming that genetic changes occurred within a fixed kind of life that disallowed interbreeding of the modified organisms with the parent stock.
The current understanding of this phenomenon is that a small portion of a given species is environmentally isolated from the parent stock. Genetic changes within the altered environment then occur. In some cases, the molecular alterations disallow interbreeding. If the two groups are later rejoined, the failure of the previously isolated group to interbreed is seen from a taxonomic view as constituting a new species. If such changes actually occur, it means that the process forms a new species within a fixed life kind. The reason is that the term "species" taxonomically means the ability to sexually reproduce.
DOES SCRIPTURE DISALLOW MICROEVOLUTION?
Does a process that disallows sexual reproduction among some members of a given life kind contradict Scripture? The answer is no. The Bible teaches that God created life after its kind - and not after its species. The term "species" is a human label, and it denotes one of a series of taxonomic titles created by man to catalog life. Other titles include phylum, class, order, family and genus. But the Bible uses the term "kind," and it defines what it means. In Genesis 6:19-20, for example, Noah is instructed to bring "every living thing of all flesh." God then defines what He means: birds, animals, creeping things and (verse 18) man. But Noah was not told to take sea life with him. Genesis chapter 1 also defines "kinds." They are: (v.20) Sea Life, (v.20) Flying Creatures, (v.24) Animals (v.24) Creeping Things and (v.26) Man. The term "kind" is also defined in the New Testament.1 Corinthians 15:39 refers to men, animals, birds and fish. Since the context of this passage is degrees of glory, it is not surprising to find Creeping things omitted.
To summarize, the Bible defines five kinds of life: sea, air, land surface, earth's interior and man. And it teaches that God created each as a separate category, distinct from all others. But Darwin's leap of faith extrapolated microevolution (genetic spread) into macroevolution. He assumed that natural selection had created man in the same way that it made new skin colors.
Genetic spread is a feature of life put there for its survival. But macroevolution denotes an article of faith that has no basis in fact. The uncritical acceptance of macroevolution by numerous U.S. academic and professional societies has discouraged critical examination of Darwin's ideas. In particular, it is implicitly presumed that if evolution has occurred in some small degree, then it can occur without limit. In other words, if microevolution has happened, then so has macroevolution. However, the problem with this idea is that macroevolution implies changes to every component of the biological system. But if this occurs, how can the organism survive? This question is largely ignored by Darwin's supporters. Yet its affirmation undergirds the validity of his proposals. In part II of this article, we discuss the folly of Darwin's leap from micro to macroevolution, and why natural selection cannot create new "kinds" of life.
Part II
In Part I of Darwin's Dilemma, we discussed macro and microevolution. Macroevolution is presumed to have created different life-kinds such as sea, land and air whereas microevolution is the label given to genetic processes that are alleged to produce different species within the same kind of life. For example, consider birds in the finch family. The warbler finch (4.0 inches) and the large ground finch (6.5 inches) are two of fourteen finch species discovered by Darwin in the Galapagos and Cocos islands. Although the breeding habits of these finches are similar, they do not interbreed. Experts who study birds (ornithologists) are virtually certain that all fourteen species of finches derived from a finch-like form that originally colonized the islands.
Different finch species are found around the world. The red-
billed fire-finch (3.5 inches) lives south of the Sahara in Africa, whereas the habitat of the snow finch (7.0 inches) is on barren, stony ground in mountains 7000 feet above sea-level in Southern Europe, Central Asia and the Himalayas. Two genetic processes that are alleged to produce different species within the same kind of life are gene movement and genetic spread. In Part I we said gene motion appears to be a random process, while genetic spread is a feature of life identified with chemical information within the genes that helps ensure its survival.
Macroevolution is, however, quite a different concept. It is a label that pertains to hypothetical events that are alleged to have created different "kinds" of life. For instance, the creation of sea life versus air life. The uncritical acceptance of macroevolution by numerous U.S. academic and professional societies has discouraged critical examination of Darwin's ideas.
A widely accepted assumption is that if evolution has occurred in some small degree, then it can occur without limit. But macroevolution implies that an organism can survive changes to every component of its biological system. This assumption is critical to Darwin's proposals and is widely accepted by his supporters. Yet its validity has never been established. On the contrary, there are reasons to believe that an organism cannot survive widespread changes to its various biological components.
Yet the macroevolution proposed by Darwin, and that is accepted by his followers cannot exist without them. The basic reason that such widespread changes cannot occur in the manner proposed by Darwin concerns the complex and intricate way that various parts of living systems interact with each other. In order illustrate the point, let us examine the breathing apparatus that exists in the human body.
BREATHING
We can obtain an appreciation for the bewildering mutual dependencies that different parts of a living system have on each other by considering the way oxygen passes through our bodies. It begins with an involuntary action called "breathing." Each breath starts when groups of electrical signals from the brain reach a muscle called the diaphragm. This muscle spans the lower part of our body above the abdomen. When activated, it moves downward, thereby lowering pressure within our lungs below that of the atmosphere (nominally 14.7 pounds per square inch). This pressure difference causes air to flow into our lungs so that the pressure may be equalized. Our lungs then begin to expand, much like a balloon, as the flow of air fills them. fills them.
DIAPHRAGM BOUNDARIES
But if we were to design this system, what would we need to know? For example, the forces generated within the diaphragm are successful in moving it downward only because its boundaries are fixed. The diaphragm is attached to our breastbone in the front, our spine in the rear, and to the inside of each of our lower three ribs on both sides. In order to specify the strength and location of electrical signals that are appropriate for breathing, we would need to know the size of the diaphragm, and just how far its muscle tissue moves in response to the incoming electrical signals. We would also need to know how much force can be applied at the points where it is attached along the breastbone, spine and ribs. Otherwise the diaphragm's motion might rip these points apart, and cause tissue to undergo self-destruction.
We have only considered the electrical signals into the diaphragm, and the motion of muscle tissue that occurs in response to them. Yet questions that concern the size of the diaphragm, and the strength of the points at which it is attached lead us into another system component: the skeleton. The diaphragm is pinned to the breastplate, the spine and the ribs.
If we can specify the skeleton, we will know their size and location. The skeleton's specification therefore tells us the size of the diaphragm, and the maximum force that the muscle tissue can exert at the points where the diaphragm is attached before the bone tissue will break. Yet this is only part of the story.
The details of the location, shape and strength of the bones, and the size of the diaphragm, and how its muscle tissue responds to incoming electrical signals require us to know information we have not yet specified about the lungs. This is also true of the force that can rupture and break the points where the diaphragm is attached. To ensure that the electrical signals are not too strong, or that the motion of the diaphragm exceeds the so-called "yield strength" of the points where it is attached, we need to specify certain things about the lungs.
The diaphragm works in concert with the lungs, and the size and interface of both must agree. Also, the diaphragm's motion cannot be too extensive. Otherwise the lung tissue will rip. The amount that it does move cannot exceed the lung tissue's elastic limit. Otherwise irreversible loss in lung elasticity will result, and lung tissue will be destroyed.
THE LUNGS
How large must the lungs be? That depends on the percentage of oxygen in the air, and the efficiency with which it passes through lung tissue and into the blood. For example, if our lungs were to pass one half their oxygen to the blood, they would only be 50 percent efficient. Fortunately, they are much more efficient than this. Our atmosphere has 21 percent oxygen by volume, and we typically breathe about 20 cubic feet of air daily. But these numbers work in our favor because they organizationally harmonize with the parameters above (and some we have as yet to discuss).
Lung tissue consists of about 600 million tiny sacs called "alveoli." Although each is only 4 thousandths of an inch in diameter, in total, they represent an area the size of a racket ball court. Each sac is a highly complex machine that processes air it receives from inside the lung, extracts the oxygen, and then passes the oxygen into the blood. Millions of these remarkable "sacs" work at very high efficiency to give us a lung size that is practical. But does this end the story? If we knew the lung size, and could specify the alveoli's extraordinary properties, could we then design this system? All that we have discussed: the electrical signals, diaphragm muscle, lung tissue, skeletal structure, and the various properties of each including size, location, response, strength, efficiency and so forth are all part of a very complicated system. Each parameter works in harmony with each of the others as an optimized, balanced system.The final goal is to burn oxygen in each of billions upon billions of body cells - a process called "metabolism."
THE BLOOD
But to burn oxygen, we must get it to the cells. Oxygen isn't easily carried by a liquid. It prematurely burns by reacting with virtually everything that it contacts. This premature burning disables oxygen from being burned at its final destination in cells. But the blood that flows through our body is no ordinary liquid. It has truly remarkable properties that allow large quantities of oxygen to be transported from the lungs, and to countless billions of body cells.
The blood in each of our bodies contains about 30 trillion cells. These differ from normal body cells in that they have no nucleus (except when they first form).
Each of these 30 trillion "red blood cells" have about 270 million very special, highly intricate chemical structures called "protein molecules." Totaling almost ten thousand million trillion, they each contain a ring that is composed of carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen. The rings are afloat in the blood stream, and a cluster of four iron atoms sits at the center of each of the rings. This cluster, in turn, provides a seat for two very privileged guests: a pair of oxygen atoms that sustain life by ultimately being burned in the cell they are destined to reach. But the cluster of iron atoms surrounds the oxygen in a way that protects it from premature burning until it reaches its final destination!
This incredibly designed molecule is called "hemoglobin," and it enables an amazing amount of oxygen to be carried from the lungs, and to the body cells by the blood. Were it not for the astounding orchestration of numerous electrical, mechanical and chemical properties that have been interwoven among trillions of these intricate, microscopic structures, our hearts would need to pump 50 thousand gallons of blood through our bodies each day at almost 5 times atmospheric pressure. Since our bodies disallow this, a change in blood fluid properties would necessitate changes in the electrical signals, diaphragm muscle, lung tissue, skeletal structure, and so forth. Why? because each component interacts with all others. It is a system problem.
Yet, specifying all of these things (including the blood) still does not permit us to design the system. Even given all these things, we still need to know how quickly the blood is carrying oxygen to our body cells. The present rate is about 2000 gallons per day. But if it were half this number, we would then need to readjust all of the other systems' parameters to satisfy the demand for oxygen by the cells. It would do us no good to change just one of the parameters, say, lung size or atmospheric oxygen content. The reason is that each system component is functionally related to all the others and quantitatively impacts the way they perform. A change anywhere means a change everywhere.
THE HEART AND ARTERIES
To specify the flow rate of blood, we must know the number, diameter and distribution of all the arteries. Our body has an arterial network which, in total, covers about 60,000 miles. Yet even if we could enumerate all of the branches, and calculate the turbulence at each of the forks, and compute back-pressure near the valves, and catalog the manner of its distribution - knowing, for example, that 500 gallons pass through 140 miles of arteries in the kidneys daily - it would still be of little value. We must also have full knowledge of the pump that is driving the system -it's size, impedance and flow characteristics. As incredible as it sounds, a typical heart is just larger than a fist and weighs only eleven ounces! Yet, on average, it reliably pumps 2000 gallons of blood daily for over 70 years.
THE BRAIN
But given all of this, we would still need to know the rate at which the heart pumps the blood. A typical heart beats over 100,000 times each day. This totals about 2 billion beats in a lifetime. However, the rate at which these complex cycles of contractions and expansions occur is controlled by electrical signals from the brain. Thus we need to know aspects of brain operation not only in regard to electrical signals to the diaphragm muscle, but also with respect to its signals to the heart. And even if all of these things were known - we would still have inadequate information to design this system. We also require details of the burning process once the oxygen reaches its destination. This includes the rate of the metabolism, and the feedback signals from the cells to the brain controlling the release of sugar products within the liver, insulin from the pancreas and digestive chemistry within the stomach.
COMPOUND INTERACTIONS
This myriad of parameters undergoes cooperative interactions that stagger the mind. A trivial system with, say, five components displays twenty basic kinds of interactions. Compound interactions increase this number to sixty four.* But even a simple biological system such as a single-celled amoeba must move around, acquire food, process oxygen, eliminate waste, interact environmentally and reproduce itself. It contains hundreds of components with base and compound interactions that number in the tens of thousands, and millions, respectively. Darwin's belief in biological change through the natural selection of certain evolutionary changes were, for him, sensible because the variations that he saw were small. But his idea that special combinations survive to produce new kinds of life had no data, whatever, to support it. Macroevolution has been defended for over one hundred years. Yet nothing has been found showing natural selection created even one new life kind!** Despite this fact, however, the idea remains popular.
(* These arise when nonlinearities create functional dependencies between a system component, and the joint combination of two or more other components.) (** The five kinds of life are: sea, air, land surface, earth interior, and man.)
MACROEVOLUTION
Macroevolution implies changes to every component of the biological system. Considering the countless interactions that exist in real living systems, how can an organism that is forced to undergo natural selection endure? Any change into a new life kind must disrupt millions of coadaptive interactions within the organism. To survive, countless other modifications that have not yet occurred would need to be simultaneously selected. Also, separate life kinds such as fish or birds exist as distinct complex systems. What data teaches that countless graduations of modified hybrids differing slightly from one another exist between them? To modify a fish into a bird requires changes that create the bird essentially in its final form.
Thus the idea that random changes and natural selection create new life kinds is both simplistic and inadequate - a view published some time ago by the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences. They noted that existing genetic variations are negligible compared to what is necessary to create new life kinds. They further said that the functional adjustment of an organism's parts into a new life kind requires that the blueprint of the new life kind be in existence prior to its creation. The reason is clear:
Natural selection is not a mechanism that can simultaneously modify an organism's parts into an integrated system with coadaptive interactions that yield the desired functionality.
Despite this fact, Darwinian believers herald `descent with modification' as the source of new life kinds. However, the unwritten creed to which they are truly paying homage is design with modification. Each life kind represents, as far we can tell, an optimally designed system. A characteristic of such systems is that a change in any one of its components degrades overall system performance. To illustrate the point, let us consider some of the systems that we design. Consider a color TV picture. We can create this using only three components: glass, metal and phosphor. But properly organizing these components brings into existence something that lies outside the properties of glass, metal or phosphor considered separately. A color TV picture is familiar to all of us. Yet it exists as the collective interplay of numerous exchanges of energy that arise from way the various pieces of hardware are organized. It truly is a system property, and thus represents a dimension of being totally apart from any one of the components considered separately.
The TV picture doesn't stem from the properties of glass, or metal, or phosphor. Instead, it arises as an organizational property of their mutual interactions. This occurs through a myriad of complex, microminiaturized integrated circuits that have been creatively designed and meticulously assembled by hundreds of trained, skilled thinking people in an optimized and balanced way. But if a change occurs in one of the components, the picture doesn't improve. On the contrary, it deteriorates. In like manner, living things exist as a consequence of the vastly complex, organized interplay of myriads of nonliving parts. Our bodies consist of chemicals that are organized to live in an optimal way. And when an unintended change occurs in one of our components, we call that disease.
Another system that we design is an airplane. It is composed of parts that are organized to fly. But no one component of the airplane can fly by itself, just as no part of a TV can produce a black and white or color picture. If, during flight, an airplane component were to undergo change, would the airplane fly better -or would it crash?
The point is, airplanes fly because of the design of the wing, engine, rudder and so forth. Each is optimally designed and assembled in special relation to all of the others. It is the organizational balance and interplay that yields the final result, and if a change occurs anywhere it signals disaster, not delight. Living systems are similar, except that they are vastly more complicated. No one chemical in our body has life in and of itself. Instead, the chemistry is so configured as to have been organized to live. Changing any part of a biological system changes the interaction of that part with virtually all other components throughout the system. This doesn't create a new life kind any more than changing a radio creates a television set, or changing a car creates an airplane. Changing optimally configured parts degrades the overall system performance, and makes for a guaranteed worst result.
The interactions among glass, metal and phosphor yield something new: a color TV picture. Likewise interactions among airplane parts produce something new: A flying object. Now let's consider just one interaction. Two gases (hydrogen and oxygen) combine at room temperature to create water, a liquid that at lower temperatures becomes a solid (ice), and at higher temperatures changes into a gas (steam). This one interaction creates a new substance. Regardless of whether the water is liquid, solid or gas, each represents a form with properties different from the two gases that created it. But can we improve on the properties of water by making a change in either the hydrogen or oxygen gas whose sole interaction created it? The answer is no. Instead of improving it, making a change in either gas destroys the very special liquid we know as water. With this in view, why would we believe that a change in the component of a living system would create an improved, new life kind? The "newness" of even the simplest of organisms contains vast numbers of components undergoing vast numbers of interactions. When examined in detail, these "components" emerge as highly complex entities with millions of balanced energy exchanges that functionally coadapt into a system that "lives." The organism thus exists through the strategic interplay of its nonliving components, and not through the hokum of some ill-defined circumstance.
SURVIVAL VALUE
Sometimes it is argued that the basis for selecting an "optimum" change can be found in the survival of the organism. But, of itself, no one component in which the change occurs has survival value. Survival has meaning only in terms of the organism taken as an entire system. It is a system property. The organism exists through coadaptive interactions among its components. But natural selection operates at the component level. For example, what survival value does an eyelid have without muscles to operate it? Or a retina without the lens? Or the duct glands without the pupil? Or any one of these things without any other?
Yet the eye is but one of a number of subsystems within the body. Natural selection explains none of them. Or consider the acoustic sending and receiving mechanisms in a dolphin or a porpoise or a platypus. How can natural selection create either mechanism without the other? For instance, of what possible survival value is the sending unit without a way to receive the echo? And of what possible survival value is either mechanism in the absence of interpretive brain centers to guide the organism?
Compound traits are found in all living things, many at unseen levels. One example is enolase, versus triose isomerase, versus 2,3 diphosphoglyceric acid in glycolytic metabolism. A more familiar example is the ductus venosus versus the umbilical vein in fetal blood circulation. In this case the right ventrical is connected to the aorta, thereby bypassing lungs that otherwise remove CO2. Therefore, although an organism may undergo random changes, those that favor a new life kind are only known in terms of survival criteria that pertain to the entire organism. This is also true for individual subsystems that display compound traits, such as the eye. Survival is an organizational property. Thus any mechanism imagined to create new life kinds must be global in scope. Conversely, natural selection operates at the component level. It is a local mechanism and cannot, therefore, explain the advent of new kinds of life.
ORGANIZATIONAL COMPLEXITY
Examination of any biological structure shows that its chemical building blocks are located in strategic places that create vast numbers of constructive, harmonious, life-sustaining interactions. These channel energy along countless numbers of intricate, very special pathways. Therefore, biological components are organized to "live," in that they are separated into a highly complex configuration that has virtually no order. Its descriptive blueprint requires vast amounts of information. But simple gases create water by combining into a configuration that constitutes a highly ordered state with virtually no complexity. Its descriptive blueprint is complete with very little information. Mixing the gases creates paths of energy reduction typical to that which occur in all natural processes.
But organizing parts to "live" requires a plan of energy ex-
change that specifies, controls and stabilizes the unnatural simultaneous cooperation of millions of intricate, self- sustaining interactions. Since this plan of life provides the only criteria by which the collective selection of millions of random changes can survive, how can its existence be explained by the natural selection of favored random changes? In effect, we have a chicken-egg situation. For natural selection to create a meaningful new life kind, the plan must first exist to tell it what changes are favorable i.e., that identify the changed components that are to be retained. The plan cannot, therefore, be the product of natural selection. Moreover, virtually all of the components would need to undergo simultaneous change to ensure the survival of the new life kind.
In general, changing only one part of a biological system leads to disastrous consequences. The advent of nuclear reactors, for example, created a convenient source of radiation to which plant life and insects (e.g., fruit flies) have been exposed in experiments conducted over a period of at least two decades. In each case the mutations deteriorated the species. In other experiments fifty roses of the Queen Elizabeth variety were neutron irradiated at a strength equivalent to several million lifetimes of the rose. All of them became weaker or defective. Or consider the hemoglobin discussed earlier. Natural mutations have created at least forty variants of this incredible molecule. Yet all of them carry less oxygen than normal hemoglobin. Why?
Because changing an optimally design system degrades it.
Human cells, for example, contain twenty-three pairs of chromosomes. Each pair contains over three thousand microscopic genes. On average, about six of these are "defective" in every person alive. This means that each of us carry about six genes that, in one way or another, have undergone abnormal change.
Fortunately, these genes are suppressed and the "change" is unexpressed. But what would occur if these changes were to impact our genetic machinery, such as is alleged to occur in macroevolution? Would we improve as a species? To the contrary, we would undergo a range of genetic disorders including cancer, sickle-cell anemia, hemophilia and Huntington's disease. Male babies born with an extra Y chromosome, for instance, tend toward extreme violence, have lower IQ's, and are ten times more likely to end up in a maximum security prison. Families with markers along chromosome 15 are identified with dyslexia. The most common form of mental retardation in males (1 in 2000) occurs from a change at a fragile site along the X chromosome, and a single base substitution in the complementary DNA for a certain enzyme (ornithine transcarbamylase) leads to sparse fur and skin abnormalities in mice, and to metabolic and neurological disorders in humans. The point is this: As a practical matter, life on earth constitutes biological systems that are optimally designed. Rather than creating new and more complex life kinds, unintended genetic changes destroy these systems.
From a scientific perspective, this does not mean that natural selection does not occur. Neither does it mean that natural selection may not have been responsible for the advent of some new species among very similar kinds of life. But what it does mean is that if macroevolution occurred, then natural selection is an inadequate explanation. The data that supports natural selection pertains to micro, and not macroevolution. Therefore, to suppose that macroevolution exists in nature, or that it somehow created new kinds of life seems to be an exercise in faith based upon neither science nor sound reason.
SUMMARY
We have discussed macro and microevolution. Evolutionists say that the first - macroevolution, is what created the different kinds of life - such as sea, land and air. On the other hand microevolution is identified with genetic processes that are said to produce different species within the same kind of life. One good example is different species of birds in the finch family.However, the uncritical acceptance of macroevolution by many academic and professional societies has served to keep Darwin's ideas from being critically examined. Many assume that if any evolution has occurred, even in some small degree, then it can occur everywhere and without limit.
These ideas not only require changes to occur in virtually every biological component of an organism, but also that the organism will survive these changes in a beneficial way. The reasons why this will not happen were discussed in Part II of Darwin's Dilemma. Survival is an intricate compound trait i.e., it depends upon the complex yet harmonious interplay of literally millions of separate living parts. To illustrate the point, we turned to the breathing apparatus of the human body and examined the consequences of making even a small change to the diaphragm.
We saw that this implied changes to the muscles and ligaments that attached the diaphragm to the breastbone, spine, and ribs. It affected the location, shape, size and strength of skeletal structure bones. Lung size, cell efficiency, heart rate, blood flow, artery networks , brain signals-- all must be included as part of a vastly complicated system where details of the oxygen burning process including metabolism rates and feedback signals from the cells to the brain control the release of sugar products in the liver, insulin from the pancreas and the digestive chemistry of the stomach. This functionality rests upon an astounding orchestration of innumerable electrical, mechanical and chemical properties that underlie trillions of intricate interwoven parts.
When one believes that a significant mutation brings anything but catastrophe to this system, one has accepted a dogma that lies outside the realm of science and rational thought.
A listing of Robert Gange's publications may be found at his Website:
http://www.genesisfoundation.org
|==========================================
|
| WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK WAS CHRIST CRUCIFIED?
| By Lori Eldridge
|
(all scriptures NIV unless otherwise noted)
Most of the papers focused on the crucifixion date propose Wednesday as the day Christ was crucified, a few believe it was Thursday, and some on Friday. However a lot of them contain flaws in understanding the Jewish terminology where it concerns the time of day compared to how the western world determines time. Therefore I have written this article with the intention of better explaining how time was used in Bible days. I don't claim to have all the answers but as a result of this study I believe I have figured out the only day that could work for the crucifixion and would like to submit my ideas for consideration.
JEWISH vs ROMAN RECKONING OF TIME
Most of the confusion relating to the crucifixion can be traced to the way a Jewish person in Bible times would have interpreted time as compared to how someone from the west interprets time today. The Jewish "day" starts at Sunset, the exact timing of which changes slightly depending on the season. Therefore, their day is getting dark when it begins whereas a day in the western world is getting light.
During the time of Christ the Israelites adopted the Roman practice of counting 4 "watches" during the night. Each watch started at approximately 9:30, 12:00 midnight, 2:30 (called the cockcrow watch), and 5 am. From sunrise they divided the day in sections into what they termed "hours"(1). Thus when they said that something happened at the 6th hour it was about noon or 6 hours after sunrise, not 6 AM like we would reckon time in the west.
A Roman "day", however, started at midnight (as does most of the western world) so when their day began it would be dark and would soon be getting light--just the opposite of the Jewish day. Most scholars agree that John wrote the Gospel of John late in the first century. He often used Greek terms in his writing which indicates he was heavily influenced by Greek culture. Further evidence is seen in that he would often interpret the meaning of Hebrew words which would have been unnecessary if he had been writing for a Jewish audience. Also, Irenaeus stated that John published his Gospel during his residence at Ephesus--the capital of the Roman province of Asia. Therefore he was obviously writing to the Gentiles and would have used terminology related to the time of day that Gentiles would have understood.
An example of this confusion of the different terminologys can be found when Christ was nailed to the cross. According to Mark it was the third hour--third hour since sunrise or 9 am (Mark 15:25). However John says it was "about the sixth hour" when he was still being sentenced by Pilate and before he was led to the cross (John 19:14). The difference lies in the fact that John is thinking Roman time which starts at midnight and thus it was about 6 am. It probably took a few more hours for Christ to make his way to the cross and not hard to imagine that it was accomplished by 9 AM.
RULES FOR SELECTION OF PASSOVER LAMB
"The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 'This month is to be for you the first month [Nisan], the first month of your year. Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month [Nisan 10]
each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. . . .The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at Twilight" (Exodus 12:1-6).
Notice that this was the 10th day of Nisan--4 days before Preparation day of Passover which occurs just before the Feast of Passover. Actually the Feast occurs that evening, but according to Jewish time it is actually the next "day".
JESUS IS OUR PASSOVER LAMB
The day after being questioned about whether he was the Christ, John the Baptist said when he saw Jesus approaching: "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" John later said that the Holy Spirit told him who Christ was and that he is "the Son of God" (John 1:29-34).
WHEN DID JESUS ARRIVE IN BETHANY?
John 12:1 says that Jesus arrived in Bethany (from Jericho) 6 days before the Passover where he stayed at Lazarus' house and a special dinner was prepared for him. The word Passover can mean either the preparation day (Nisan 14), or the feast of Passover (after sunset on the 14th or Nisan 15), or the entire feast of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 14-21).
However, if you read where Jesus talks about only 2 days left till Passover it has to be referring to the preparation day because Matthew 26:1 says that "the Passover is two days away and the Son of man will be handed over to be crucified". We know Jesus was crucified on the 14th so this passage has to be referring to the day of crucifixion, or day of preparation of the Passover and not the Feast of Passover which occurs on Nisan 15. Therefore when John says that Jesus arrived in Bethany 6 days before Passover, arriving around sunset, John could have been talking about the day of Preparation which would have made the date Nisan 8.
It was a long walk from Jericho to Bethany, about 15 miles, and mostly uphill, so it's logical to think that Jesus would have arrived late in the afternoon and spent the night in Bethany before continuing to Jerusalem. He then arranged the triumphal entry which occurred on Nisan 10 which was 4 days before the day of Preparation. If you will notice there is a missing day between Nisan 8 and Nisan 10. That will be explained later.
Mark and Matthew don't state when the disciples arrived at Lazarus' house, only that they were approaching Bethany and Bethphage on the day of Triumphal Entry. It's also possible that Lazarus lived on the other side of Bethany and therefore Jesus had to pass through it to get to Jerusalem. It also seems logical that Jesus would have sent his disciples to Bethany for the colt being as the village they were coming to was "up ahead" instead of their going all the way in to Jerusalem and back again with the colt.
TIMING OF THE WEEKLY SABBATH
Bethany was about 2 miles from Jerusalem, however, the Mt. of Olives was only a Sabbath day's walk from Jerusalem (see below). This means the Mt. of Olives, where Jesus retired the night he was arrested, was closer to Jerusalem than Bethany and Bethany would not have been within the distance of a Sabbath days walk from Jerusalem. Therefore when we hear that Jesus retired to Bethany for the night we know it was not on a Sabbath. If you will read Mark's account of the few days before the crucifixion you will see that Jesus traveled to Bethany sometime before the 10th, went to Jerusalem on the 10th, and returned to Bethany the next two nights and then back to Jerusalem at least as late as the 12th. Luke tells us, on what must have been the 13th, that Jesus taught in the temple each day and returned to Bethany each night (Luke 21:37).
Therefore, being as the day of Triumphal Entry couldn't have been on a weekly Sabbath (because of the work involved--see below), and Preparation day for Passover could not occur on a Sabbath either (for the same reason), and what Luke said about Jesus returning to Bethany every night, it was impossible for a weekly Sabbath to have occurred from Nisan 10 through Nisan 15.
TIME OF THE EVENING SACRIFICE
God gave Moses instructions about Passover, " . . . on the 10th day of this month [Nisan] each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. . . . The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight" (Exodus 12:3-6). Other versions say "between the evenings."
The daylight part of the Jewish day was divided into two parts: the first part was from sunrise to noon and was considered "the morning" part of the day. The second part of the day, from noon to sunset, was called the "evening" part of the day. The night part of the day, which started at sunset was also called "evening", and lasted for the next 12 hours. So what we actually have is parts of the Jewish day being called both "morning" and "evening" and the night also being called "evening". Therefore when scripture indicates the lamb was to be crucified "between the evenings" it meant half-way between noon and sunset, i.e., about 3 PM.
According to Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon of the Old Testament the word twilight/evening used in Ex. 12:6, Strongs # 6153, translated as 'ereb, means:
"evening . . . in the phrase "between the two evenings" Ex 16:12; 30:8; used as marking the space of time during which the Paschal lamb was slain, Ex 12:6; Lev. 23:5; Num. 9:3; and the evening sacrifice was offered, Ex 29:39, 41; Num. 28:4; i.e., according to the opinion of the Karaites and Samaritans (which is favored by the words of Deut. 16:6), the time between sunset and deep twilight. The Pharisees, however, and the Rabbinists considered the time when the sun began to descend [similar to an Arabian word which means 'little evening' for when it begins to draw towards evening] to be called the first evening and the second evening to be the real sunset." Therefore the time between when the sun began to descend [early afternoon] and sunset, i.e., the 9th hour according to Jewish time or 3 PM Roman time.
This is corroborated by the Mishnah (a Jewish publication detailing the instructions for the Passover) in Tractate Pesahim by Danby, p. 144, where it says the Passover lamb was to be killed "Bain ehrev" . . . between the evening in its appointed time." And a similar Jewish publication, The Chumash by ArtScroll, p 351, Exodus 12:6 says, "the entire congregation of the assembly of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon". Josephus further corroborates the time of day of the sacrifices during a Passover feast in his "Wars of the Jews", Ch. IX: "So these high priests, upon the coming of their feast which is called the Passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour to the eleventh [3-5 PM],. . ."
This is the same time of day that Jesus died on the cross according to Matt. 27:45-50, on the 9th hour, or about 3 PM.
Following is a diagram of the Jewish day and how they determine time. You may find it useful to refer back to this diagram as you are reading about the Jewish method of determing days or time in the rest of this article.
(Open the following in a monospaced font. If the top line is wrapped to the next line then widen your page until it is intact):
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
The Jewish day:
Sunset - - - - - - - - - - Morning - - - - - - - - - - Sunset
Approximate times (depending on the season):
6 PM - - - - - - - - - - - 6 AM - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 PM
Watches during the night/Hours during the day:
- 9:30 - 12:00 - 2:30 - 5:00 / 1st - 3rd - 6th - 9th - etc.
Evening part of the day/Day part of the day:
6PM Evening - - - - - - - 6 AM Day- - Noon-(little eve)-6 PM
Between the Evenings*:
6 PM Evening - - - - - - - Morning- - - Noon- - 3 PM* - 6 PM
PRESENTATION OF PASSOVER LAMB
According to Jewish tradition the lambs were to be presented to the priests on Nisan 10 for inspection in preparation of Passover. After the Lamb was selected they were to take it into their home for 4 days and keep an eye on it and examine it each day for flaws. Jesus is our Passover Lamb so it seems logical that he would comply with this detail also.
As Jesus and his disciples approached Jerusalem Jesus sent two of the disciples ahead to get a colt: "The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them. A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. [Crowd shouted Hosanna to the Son of David!] . . . Jesus entered the temple area . . .And he left them and went out of the city to Bethany, where he spent the night" (Matt. 21:1-11 with a quote from Zechariah 9:9).
Thus, the same day that the Jews were presenting their lambs to be inspected for the Passover we see our own Passover Lamb presenting himself to the people of Jerusalem for inspection as their long awaited King. The people accepted him but their leaders did not. He was then examined for 4 days by the chief priests, teachers of the law, elders, Pharisees, Sadducees, and even Herodians, but they could not find fault with him and had to rely on false witnesses in order to convict him.
This event is one of the keys to figuring out the day of the week for the crucifixion. Notice all the work that is going on. If this day would have occurred on a Saturday Jesus would have caused everyone to break just about every rule regarding the Sabbath rest (see below).
WHEN DID JESUS CELEBRATE HIS PASSOVER MEAL?
All three Gospels state that "while they were eating" Jesus gave his disciples instructions on observing this day in the future and he indicated that this meal was his Passover celebration (Luke 22:15, 18,19). If you study up on the instructions of a Jewish seder he followed it perfectly:
The Fruit of the Vine is the "cup" in the Passover Seder; the Matza bread was also used in the Passover Seder; and he said the same blessing over the bread as is said in the traditional Seder.
Jesus followed the commandment for the Passover in Ez. 12: "Tell the whole community of Israel that on the 10th day of this month [Nisan] each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. . . . Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. . . . That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. "
Therefore, Jesus ate his Passover after sunset on the 14th of Nisan according to the commands of God in Ez. 12.
If you read the story in Exodus carefully it will show that everything happened on the same day (day 14 starting at sunset):
Blood on the door post Eating the Passover before midnight The Lord striking all the firstborn of Egypt Their leaving Egypt the next morning
This was to be commemorated from then on in the same manner. Look at Num.
9:1-5 and you will see that they celebrated Passover in the same manner the next year also except they didn't prepare to leave on a journey this time.
The Jews eventually changed the day of eating the Passover to shortly after sunset on the 15th of Nisan. Therefore the day Jesus ate the Passover and the day he was crucified was the same--Nisan 14--according to the ancient commands of God which had never been rescinded. A very good book that explains the history of this is "Prelude to Glory" by Wayne D. Leeper (3).
PREPARATION DAY vs. PASSOVER DAY
God gave further instructions for the Passover in Exodus, "On the fourteenth day of the first month [Nisan] the Lord's Passover is to be held. On the fifteenth day of this month there is to be a festival; for seven days eat bread made without yeast (Festival of Unleavened Bread). On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work" (Num.
28:16-18).
And a repeat from Leviticus, "The Lord's Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. On the fifteenth day of that month the Lord's Feast of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast. On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do not regular work. For seven days present an offering made to the Lord by fire.
And on the seventh day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work" (Lev.
23:5-8).
Apparently the word "Passover" can mean anything from Nisan 10 through the week following the first day of Unleavened Bread up to Nisan 21--much like our word for Christmas can mean the whole two weeks from Christmas Eve to the New Years holiday. This is one reason there are so many differences of opinion regarding the timing of the crucifixion. The best way to differentiate between the two days is to take notice of what is occurring on those days, i.e., are they preparing "for" the Passover or participating "in" the Feast of the Passover.
TWO DAYS BEFORE PASSOVER
"Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. 'But not during the Feast,' they said, 'or the people may riot'" (Mark 14:1-2).
The Passover (Feast) and the Feast of Unleavened Bread are two holidays that start on the same day, the 15th of Nisan, which is always a High Holy day --a Holy Sabbath day of rest--not to be confused with the weekly Sabbath. There were only two days left by this time so the chief priests and teachers of the law had to accomplish their plan quickly. Keep in mind that the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread were eaten right after sundown on the 14th which would actually be the 15th according to Jewish time but actually the same day according to Roman time.
RULES FOR SABBATH REST
"Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabba
th to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your man- servant and maidservant may rest, as you do" (Deut. 5:12-14).
Please notice that not even donkeys were supposed to work on the Sabbath.
"Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out"
(Ex 16:29).
The distance between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives was considered a Sabbath days walk. This distance was about 1,200 yards or about 3/4 mile (Acts 1:12) (2). Therefore when you hear of anyone walking farther than the Mount of Olives from Jerusalem then it could not have been the Sabbath. According to a current map of Jerusalem Bethany appears to be about 1 1/2 miles from the Temple and may have been more in ancient days depending on the roads. Therefore it must have been a double Sabbath days walk just to get to Bethany. Please remember that Jesus walked back to Bethany to spend the night for several days just before the crucifixion.
TWO SABBATHS DURING CRUCIFIXION WEEK
A lot of the confusion concerning the date of crucifixion arises from the fact that many don't understand that there were two Sabbath's during crucifixion week--one of them being a Passover which is also called a High Holy Sabbath and the other the regular weekly Sabbath. Both Sabbaths coincided near the time of Christ's death.
Matt. 28:1 says "After the Sabbath at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb." However, J.P.Green's Interlinear New Testament indicates the word for Sabbath in this instance, Strong's #4521, is in the plural form, i.e., there were two Sabbath's that week, back to back. This phrase is translated as "after the Sabbath's" in some versions.
Luke's account of the burial of Christ (Luke 23:44-56) gives us a progression of events that indicate there had to be two Sabbath's involved:
1. Jesus died at 3 PM.
2. Joseph of Arimathea hurried to Pilate and got permission to bury Jesus.
3. Nicodemus helped out by purchasing 75 pounds of spices and they both prepared the body for burial before the Passover Sabbath began at sunset (John 19:38-42).
4. The women followed Joseph of Arimathea to the tomb and watched the proceedings of the burial then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes but rested on the Sabbath.
5. The women "bought" the spices after the Sabbath according to Mark 16:1.
The next day after the crucifixion (starting on that same evening) was the Passover Sabbath so they would have had to wait 24 hours to purchase the spices unless the next day was also a Sabbath and then they would have had to wait 2 days.
If Jesus had been crucified on Friday there would have been only one day in-between when Christ died and the first day of the week and it would have been a Sabbath. So where and when did they buy the spices?
If Christ was crucified on a Wednesday then there is an intervening weekday between the two Sabbath's when the women could have bought the spices but then Christ wouldn't have risen until "after" the 3 day period because He had to rise on Sunday to fulfill the First Fruits and Wave Sheaf offering after the Sabbaths (see below) and the women wouldn't have gone to the grave to anoint his body if he arose on Saturday anyway because it was a Sabbath.
If Thursday is Crucifixion day the next day is the High Passover Sabbath and the next day after that is the weekly Sabbath. Because of the back-to-back Sabbath's the women would not have had a chance to buy the spices until right after the weekly Sabbath in the evening (the beginning of Sunday at sundown). They would have had time to prepare them that night and took them to the grave the next morning (Sunday morning).
3 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS
"Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, 'Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.' He answered, 'A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt. 12:38-40).
Mark 16:1 says the women arrived at the tomb just after sunrise which indicates that Christ arose from the dead either shortly before they arrived or sometime during the night after sundown the previous evening.
Matthew 28:2 states that there was a violent earthquake when an angel rolled the stone away from the tomb. It is very possible the earthquake could be a possible indicator of when Christ arose from the grave--i.e., just before sunrise. There will be another great earthquake when he returns the 2nd time (Zech. 14:4).
If Jesus was crucified and buried late on a Thursday (Jewish time) and rose again on Sunday sometime between Saturday sundown and sunrise early Sunday morning (Jewish time) that gives us two whole days and parts of 2 other days. Being as Jews consider part of a day a whole day it is very reasonable to assume that the 3 days and 3 nights in a tomb were fulfilled.
However, the phrase "three days and three nights" isn't necessarily as precise a statement as one might think. It is a figure of speech that was used during the biblical period and does not necessarily mean the same thing that it would mean to us today. When the disciples boldly claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead on the third day (Acts 10.40), no one disputed it. Therefore the phrase "three days and three nights" was obviously a colloquialism of that time and not to be taken literally as meaning exactly 72 hours.
Also, when Jesus was talking to the Pharisees He mentioned "three days and three nights", whereas when talking to his disciples he said, "after 3 days I will rise again" in Mark 10:34, he said "3 days later" in Mark 9:31, and he said "on the 3rd day" in Luke 18:33. In other words, he gave a very general time period to his disciples whereas he said something that implied 72 hours to the Pharisees (unbelievers). This kind of makes you wonder if this may have been done purposely to lead them off the track as to when he was to be resurrected.
RESURRECTION DATE
"When the Sabbath was over . . . Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb . . . But when they looked up they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away." And they were told, "He has risen" (Mark 16:1-6). Matthew 38:1 says "After the Sabbaths" and also mentions a violent earthquake.
Therefore, Christ rose after both Sabbaths on the first day of the week Sunday. This occurred 3 days after Nisan 14 on Preparation day so it was Nisan 17.
This is the same day the Israelites were delivered from the Egyptians. God instructed them to anoint their door posts with the blood of the lamb on the twilight of Nisan 14 and he would "pass over" them on the 15th (after sundown on the 14th) when he would strike down all the firstborn of Egypt. They were instructed to be ready to leave at daybreak on the 15th, the morning of the 15th (Ex 12:1-13).
They then traveled day and night for the next few days first to Etham and then to Pi Hahiroth where they encamped by the sea (Ex 13:20-14:2). After the Egyptians appeared the Lord parted the Red Sea all that night (Ex 14:21) from which the Israelites emerged on the other side as the day was dawning and at which time the sea covered the Egyptians (Ex 14:27). This event is a shadow of the fulfillment of the day of First Fruits (see below).
Therefore the people of Israel were "saved" by coming through the Red Sea on the same day of the year and same time of day that Jesus rose from the dead as the "savior" of all who will turn to him before dawn on Nisan 17. The day the Ark rested on Mt. Ararat also falls on Nisan 17 as well as several other important events in Israel's history.
FIRST FRUITS / WAVE SHEAF OFFERING
Right after God gave Moses the instructions for Passover he told them about the First fruits/Wave Sheaf offering which occurs a few days after Passover:
"When you enter the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest. He is to wave the sheaf before the Lord so it will be accepted on your behalf; the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath." (Lev. 23:10-11).
This day is very important because the Israelites were to start counting on this day:
"for 7 full weeks. Count off fifty days up to the day after the seventh Sabbath and then present an offering of new grain to the Lord. . . . The priest is to wave the two lambs before the Lord as a wave offering, together with the bread of the firstfruits. They are a sacred offering to the Lord for the priest. On that same day you are to proclaim a sacred assembly and do no regular work. This is to be a lasting ordinance for all generations to come, wherever you live."
This day is called Pentecost which means fifty days (Lev. 23:15-21).
Compare what happened to the Israelites fifty days after they were "saved" from the Egyptians in Ex. 19:16-19 with Acts 2:1-8, fifty days after Christ had risen.
"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the first fruits; then when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come . . . " (1 Cor. 15:20-24).
Therefore, Jesus fulfilled the offering of the first of the harvest as he was the "First Fruits" and he also fulfilled the day of Pentecost by giving the Holy Spirit to all believers. Jesus' fulfillment of this day proves that this holiday was not to be celebrated the day after the Passover Sabbath but on the weekly Sabbath following Passover, i.e., after both Sabbaths.
SUMMARY: WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY or FRIDAY?
Wednesday:
If Preparation Day occurred on a Wednesday then we have a whole day on Friday when they did not anoint the body which seems very strange because the next day would have been the regular Sabbath when they would have had to rest again. Also if Christ had arisen on Saturday the women would have broken the Sabbath by going to anoint his body that morning.
Therefore Christ couldn't have risen until the next day which would have been Sunday which would have entailed 4 days that Christ's body had lain in the tomb instead of 3. What Martha said to Jesus when he was about to raise Lazarus from the dead comes to mind: "But, Lord, by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days" (John 11:38).
Also, Nisan 10, the day of the Triumphal Entry, would have been a Sabbath and all those people who were worshipping Jesus would have broken the Sabbath on that day by going to get the colt, cutting palm branches, walking from Bethany, etc. Christ also would have broken the Sabbath by making the colt carry a burden.
Another reason this date is not acceptable is because it would have eliminated Christ rising on the day of First Fruits/Wave Sheaf which was the first day after the two Sabbath's, (see First Fruits above) i.e., this day obviously has to occur on a Sunday. Therefore the day of Preparation for Passover/Christ's crucifixion could not have occurred on a Wednesday.
And one more reason that was not included above--if Jesus arose on a Saturday then he told the women to tell his disciples to go to Galilee that same day, i.e., breaking the Sabbath again (Matt. 28:10, Luke 24:13).
Friday:
If Christ had been crucified on a Friday then he and all his disciples would have broken the Sabbath by traveling from Jericho to Lazarus' house on the Sabbath, a distance of 15 miles. Also, Passover would have occurred on the regular Sabbath and Scripture indicates there were two Sabbath's that week.
Thursday:
The only scenario that I can reconcile is that the crucifixion occurred on Thursday because that makes Nisan 8 (the day Jesus arrived from Jericho), Nisan 10 (triumphal entry) and Nisan 17 (first fruits/Wave sheaf/resurrection day) all land on a day which was not a day of rest according to all the work that was involved on all those days. This also accounts for the two Sabbath's in-between the time Christ was crucified and his resurrection. This also means that Jesus wasn't traveling to Bethany from Jericho on a Sabbath and Mary would have had time to plan a special dinner in Jesus' honor, invite guests, and prepare it after the Sabbath ended (at the end of Nisan 9) but before the Triumphal Entry the next morning (the beginning of Nisan 10).
ONE FINAL PROOF OF A THURSDAY CRUCIFIXION FROM SCRIPTURE:
Luke 24 tells us that on the first day of the week (Sunday), after Jesus arose, two disciples were walking to Emmaus and were greeted by Jesus in disguise. They told him what had recently happened with their savior and that it had been "the third day since all this took place" (Luke 24:21).
Following is a diagram to help in the counting of the 3 days. Open it in a monospaced font like Courier. The first row of vertical lines indicate sunset of each day (the beginning of the Jewish "day") N=night, *=dawn, D=day. The top line indicates the maximum width of the diagram; if it wraps to the next line then widen your page until it is straight or this chart will be distorted.
_______________________________________________________
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|_N_*____D_|_N_*____D_|_N_*____D_|_N_*____D_|_N_*_____|
Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
| | | | |
| | | | |
Days=-4---------3----------2---------1---------------
Please notice that if you count backwards from Sunday (before dawn) to Wednesday (before sunset) you get 4 nights and 4 days. If you count backwards to Friday you only get 2 nights and 2 days. Thursday is the only combination that produces 3 days and 3 nights.
MY METHOD OF STUDY:
In order to thoroughly research this topic I first typed up all the important details from each gospel. Then I arranged them in narrow columns and cut them out and lined them up side by side, cutting and pasting until they all lined up via the date when reading across the Gospels.
Then I made a large horizontal chart about 10 feel long with every day marked off from Nisan 8 to Nisan 17 with each sunset marked at the beginning of each day and different breaks in the days marked accordingly. I then wrote in all the events that occurred on these days. Below that I wrote in the days of the week for each theory (Wednesday, Thursday and Friday crucifixions). This chart hangs over my computer so I can see at a glance what is happening on each day. With this chart is very easy to see the flaws in the different theories and I would encourage anyone who wants to pursue this study to make similar charts.
FINAL COMMENT:
Exodus 12:14 and Leviticus 23:21 tells us that these feast days are festivals that God's people are to commemorate "for all generations"
wherever they live. I therefore would ask any Christians reading this to prayerfully consider whether they should do so.
- - - -
FOOTNOTES
1. Zondervan Pictorial bible dictionary, Zondervan, 1967, p. 854, 855.
2. Baker Encyclopedia, Baker Book House, 1988, Vol. II, p. 1879 "The Prohibition against work on the Sabbath was interpreted to exclude inordinate travel (Ex. 16:27-30): 'Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out' (v. 29). One was permitted no more than 2000 cubits (1,000-1,200 yards). This was determined by the distance between the ark and the people following it (Jos. 3:4) or from the pasture lands to the Levitical cities (Num. 35:4, 5). Thus, in the former instance, one would not go further to worship or in the later to pasture an animal.
The only biblical reference describes the distance from the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem as 'a Sabbath day's walk' " (acts 1:12).
3. "Prelude to Glory" by Wayne D. Leeper. Distributor: Does God Exist, 718 Donmoyer Ave. South Bend, Indiana, 46614-1999.
Questions, and comments are welcome.
Lori Eldridge
(C) April 16, 1997
Updated March 16, 1999
lorel@ior.com
|==========================================
|
| Countdown To Eternity
| By Chuck Missler
|
Prologue to Destiny
The Creation: Setting the Stage for Recurring Themes
Before a house is built, the foundation must be laid. But even before starting the foundation, the idea from someone's imagination was organized on a set of plans. The question is, who created man's imagination. And will that Creator intervene with His creation?
Preview of the Creation
When reading this chapter, start to think in the terms of why one must know about the creation of earth and mankind and early Biblical events, and how they set the stage for everything that has transpired since then.
The Old Testament has a significant bearing on what God's plan of salvation is for everyone, and when disobedience takes place, what God does about it.
The book of Genesis sets in motion all of God's fundamental principles; the rest of the Bible discusses in more detail the ideas, characters, and scenarios first introduced in Genesis. Try to think of God not only as a Sunday school nice guy who loves little children, but as a God who has created everything and will go out of His way to assist those who love Him, and will show great wrath for those who disobey. This chapter demonstrates that God cares what man does. One can recognize how He goes about doing things, and that He requires, not just asks - that His children recognize Him and do things His way, for He is the Creator.
Relevant Terms
creation: the act of bringing the universe into existence; the latest scientific findings reveal that not only matter and energy, but space and time itself, had a beginning
evolution: usually refers to biogenesis, a theory that the origin of life happened by chance without the benefit of deliberate design from an external source or designer
Exodus: a mass departure; emigration; specifically the departure of the Jews from Egypt sometime before 1494 B.C.
Holy Spirit: the active presence of God in human life constituting the third person of the Trinity
Holy Trinity: the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead
prophecy: the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose; also, the function of a prophet, one who utters divinely inspired revelations
Sodom and Gomorrah: cities in the ancient world that were destroyed by God for their wickedness sometime before 2000 B.C.
There are many questions that come to mind when one tries to understand creation. Every person can come up with his or her own list of questions pertaining to evolution. Do people come from single-celled fish? Are people created from an all-knowing God? One should take a moment and review one's belief system and jot down their views on the following issues:
Do you believe the universe is the object of skillful design of a random accident?
Do you believe your personal existence is the object of skillful design or derived from a random accident?
What do you think the designer desires as a response from His creation?
Something New For Everyone
The reader is challenged to dismiss preconceived notions and allow the Holy Spirit to guide his or her thoughts as the Bible is read. This book is only meant to be a guide to assist the reader. Once the Bible is read, the concepts and verses will become more readable.
Verses that have been read many times over or heard through sermons will take on more significant meaning. There is something new in almost every one of the passages that are highlighted for reading in the Bible.
Everyone, regardless of his or her personal belief system, will discover new concepts through and open-minded reading of God's Word.
How Can I Know if the Bible is True?
There are many aspects to this question. The integrity of the message has transcended over time, and the freedom from scientific error is amazing. Moses, who wrote the first five books of the Bible, was schooled in the arts and sciences of the Egyptian empire. As archaeologists discover the weird medical views of this culture, it is amazing that NONE of these myths have entered the Books that Moses wrote. In fact, these discoveries of the dietary and medicinal aspects have revealed insights only appreciated in recent years!
Transcending Time
The Bible is the only book that describes God as transcending time and space as we know it. All other religious books assume three spatial dimensions and time. In fact, the ancient Hebrew sages recognized that the Bible describes a universe of at least 10 dimensions: four are knowable, six are not. The latest discoveries from particle physics imply a universe of 10 dimensions, six of which are discernible only by indirect means. The Bible has withstood attacks of all kinds, throughout all history, and has survived, unscathed, and thus, stronger than ever. It is disputed only by the uninformed.
History In Advance
The Bible describes history in advance; none more impressive than the history of the Jew. His times of favor; his times of distress; his dispersion throughout the world for centuries; his regathering to the land of Israel - precisely as the Bible predicted. It is the detailed history - in advance - that has caused some to declare that Israel is God's Timepiece.
Describing The Messiah
Most significant is the description of the person - his origin, his career, his mission, his destiny. A messiah, first described in Genesis, and detailed throughout each book subsequently. His birthplace, his genealogy, over 300 details of his life - laid out in advance.
Revealing Today's Newspaper Headlines
The Bible is revealing the newspaper's headlines of today. It describes a climactic period of history in which Israel will be returned to the land amidst its enemies. (It did on May 14, 1948.) It would regain control of Biblical Jerusalem. (It did on June 7, 1967.) It would rebuild its temple. (It has begun.) It describes the re-emergence of the city of Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates. (Saddam Hussein has spent 20 years rebuilding the ancient city of Babylon.) It describes an invasion of Israel by a group of nations that God Himself will interrupt. It appears that this invasion is ready to happen.
While all this is happening, a European superstate will emerge to assume a role as a final global empire. This, too, is on the horizon. Every major theme of Biblical prophecy appears ready to climax in our very lifetime. It is, indeed, time to do our homework.
A Topic That Pops "The Question"
Creation is one of today's hottest topics. And it should be, because that concept forms the basis of belief in a superior being. One needs to know if he or she was created, or evolved over billions of years.
The point that one should ask is, "Is God capable of creating all the things seen in the universe? How does He display this and prove that He has done so?" It is important to keep an open mind as to the time frame of how old the earth really is because many people use the age of the earth to refute the idea of what the Bible says about God's existence. The exact age of the earth should not be the important question, though it is the focus of many philosophies.
The question should be, "Did God create man and all the elements?"
NASA Scientists Have Discovered an Ever Expanding Universe
You may have read about it in the newspaper or heard on the news that the most significant scientific discovery of the 20th century has now confirmed that the universe is ever expanding. Which means that it had to have started from a tiny dot. Therefore, implying that there must have been a creator!
The body of evidence now available to the scientific community allows for no other conclusion, but that the Bible's account of creation is the best possible scenario for the universe's creation.
Searching For Truth
In the human psyche, when people start to think about the beginning of human life, some tend to slide over that question because they don't know how to answer it. It's easy to say, "Scientists say humans evolved," or "The church says God created all living things." But man needs to know why society's respected leaders are saying what they are, and form their own opinions. Man needs to search for the truth, not take other people's words for granted. It's only by going through a search of the Word that anyone can come to have the understanding they desire.
Searching the Bible Daily for Insight
Reviewing Acts 17:11 reminds us of the importance of searching daily the words of the Bible ourselves for insight, rather than just listening to the words of others:
"But the people of Berea were more open minded than those in Thessalonica, and gladly listened to the message. They searched the Scriptures day by day to check up on Paul and Silas' statements to see if they were really so. As a result, many of them believed" (TLB).
If Black is the Absence of Color then what is the Absence of Black?
Take away the beautiful rolling oceans. The moonlight and the stars at night. The ominous mountains, the fertile valleys and crops. What would life be like without the simple things that people take for granted each day? Take away the rain clouds that supply the rivers and oceans with water. Imagine the earth without other human beings or animals. To make the earth really void, imagine the world without trees, the grass, flowers, so that it is completely bare. After picturing this, imagine that there is no earth, no universe, no nothing, The question that then pops into one's mind is, "Has the universe existed forever? Was there ever a time that it began?" Surely it must have had a beginning. But when would that have been? How would it all have happened? One thinks, "Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here?"
Where to Search for Answers
These questions are answered by searching out Genesis, for the book explains the intelligent design of mankind's origin and gives human life meaning and purpose. It explains where human beings came from, where people of the world are now, and the blessed hope for eternity.
The Excitement of Creation
Imagine the excitement God must have felt when He created the whole universe. To understand the creation, try to view things from God's position. God put the stars in the sky, and then turned His attention to earth. He gave it shape, for at first "it was shapeless, and a chaotic mass" (Genesis 1:2).
He gave the earth light. He divided the earth into daytime and nighttime. He created the oceans, the sky, and the dry land.
Imagine the fragrance and color that came from the grass and the fruit-bearing trees, and how they pleased God. Imagine the pleasure that came from creating the seasons, and how God created every leaf. Sense the brilliance of the sun as God placed it in the sky, and the smaller planet of the moon that reflected the sun's lights, so that there would be light in the night. Feel the exuberance as God placed the fish and other life into the seas, animals on the ground, and birds in the air. Imagine God's star creation, that "He made man in His own image" (Genesis 1:26).
The very Beginning of all Things
The very first line in the book of Genesis reads "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." It does not say how long ago He created it, but this was the very beginning of all things.
There is no date attached to this. In fact, there is no date attached to this event anywhere in the Bible, no matter how hard it is searched for.
If one reads further into the first chapter, one gets the understanding that God took a certain amount of time to formulate the earth, as is explained in the chapter's thirty-one verses. That time was six days.
The terminology of a day is used, but our word "day" and how it is used in the Scriptures vary greatly. In Psalms 90:4, the term "day" is actually one year long; II Peter 3:8 has a "day as one thousand years. Therefore, one cannot know exactly how long a period of time God was referring to when He said, the first day, the second day, the third day, because they are in God's days, not human days.
Billions! Is that Spelled with a "B"
Scientists estimate the age of the universe to be about 15 billion years old. Many of the creationists believers feel that the earth can only be the age of man (or Adam), which is roughly six thousand years old. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." This passage from Genesis 2:7 illustrates the birth of Adam and the starting of the human conception of time (in effect, one day equals twenty-four hours), and the basis for six thousand years ago being the beginning of time. This is where human time began, however, and the earth could really be millions or billions of years old.
The Bible is not in Conflict with Science
The Bible assumes that God created everything. A biblical view of creation is not in conflict with science, nor many of the various evolutionary theories. The conflict comes about only if the theory starts with no creator.
Instead of discussing the arguments related to how old the earth is, and if there is a place for evolution in this time frame, "because there is no Biblical Scripture that pinpoints the time," one should turn one's attention to another point that the verse reveals: that God actually was the creator of mankind.
Time is not Absolute!
Man's idea for the time dimension is probably not as accurate as most perceive it to be. Most realize that we can tell about the past, but not the future. Yet we can only go forward in time, but can not go backwards in time. This means that we only have the capacities of half the time dimension. Time is actually a physical property that varies with mass, acceleration, and gravity. Since we do not know God's mass, acceleration, or gravity we can not determine what a day in time would be in terms of God's time dimension.
Prologue to Destiny
Other Theories Divine intervention has been proven without a doubt in scientific forums, where some scientists now believe that there is an intervention from a creator on each cell development of the DNA molecule of any living organism. True scientists have an open mind, and come to a problem, trying to solve it, without preconceived notions.
They have come now to a conclusion in their research in cell development, that without divine intervention, the cells would adapt and not continue to formulate similar cells. Therefore, without divine intervention, organisms would be ever-changing, and could not continue life on a daily basis from one day to the next in the same manner as humans know it.
If you Believe in Evolution You'd better Hold the Peanut Butter
One of the popular myths of our culture is that life began by itself; spontaneously. That somehow, "millions of years ago," chemicals were activated some way to produce the various structures and interactions to bring about living creatures, which, in turn, "evolved" into the variety of life forms now existing.
Entropy Law: Order to Disorder
There are some fundamental problems with this conjecture. There is an invariable law of nature known as the Entropy Law. Everywhere, in all the sciences, we observe that things always tend from order to disorder. Things always break down from the complex to the simple. Things go from hot to cool. They can't go the other way without the addition of external energy or information.
We even notice this in our closets, our garages, our locker in school. We may spend a Saturday cleaning things up and "organizing" them, but soon, through the random events of life, they soon return to a condition of confusion and chaos, unless we devote energy to keep things organized. This is an example of the Entropy Law. Things always tend to disorder, randomness. In Thermodynamics, it is called the Second Law.
The Fiction of Biogenesis
We all have been exposed to the myth of biogenesis: that life can begin on its own. The premise is that matter + energy = > new life
That is, inanimate matter plus some form of energy can yield, on occasion, new life.
A Refutation
When you go to the market and purchase a food product-say, a jar of peanut butter-you have an opportunity to put this theory to the test.
The jar of peanut butter is an "open thermodynamic system." Energy can enter the jar (it gets warmer) and leave the jar (it gets cooler.) In fact, in this example, if the jar is clear glass, optical energy can also enter or leave.
This gives us a chance to try out the theory that matter (the stuff inside) and energy (heat or cold) can, occasionally, yield some new life form.
When you open the seal and look inside, how often do you find "new life"? Not very often! And aren't you glad!
Yuk.
Creation of New Life
It requires more than matter plus energy to create new life: it also requires information. This can be in the form of a spore, germ, or some form of "contamination" to introduce the necessary codes, or information.
Our marketplace conducts over a billion experiments each year-and has for over 100 years-and no product has ever produced new "life" (in the absence of external information in some form of contamination, spores, etc.) The entire food industry relies on the fact that "evolution" is not only unlikely, but impossible.
The Discovery of the Language of Life
The discovery of the DNA codes in molecular biology has totally destroyed the old ideas of life by "accident." We now know that the digital codes within the DNA molecules direct the fabrication of the required complex proteins from a total repertoire of twenty amino acids-and that this code is error correcting, self-reproducible, and the "engines" that reproduce the codes, edit them, and, following their instructions, assemble the necessary proteins as required, are as complex a "factory"
as can be conceived of. There is no way that the engines, the codes themselves, and the intermediate mechanisms could have "evolved" independently of a master plan and a master designer.
Don't let anyone con you about the "accident" of our origin. Remember that every time you open a food product and find it absent of any "new" life forms!
Some Theories Have Holes in Them.
This has a Gap
The Gap Theory expounds on the notion of a time gap. The theory says that there may have been some time between verses in Genesis 1:1-2 when certain events took place. Consider the second verse, "The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." One does not know, by reading this, whether or not God created the world void, or if something happened during this time gap, where it became void.
Does Age Really Matter?
The age of the earth is not as important as how it was formed, and that it was created by God, whatever that time period happened to be. No one knows how long that time period is precisely, because God has not revealed it. Caution needs to be taken when debating points for which there are no scriptural basis. To understand this point clearly, one must be able to step back and look at creation separately from any pre-existing ideas.
It Takes Faith to Believe in Man-Made Theories
Why have the ancient Godless ideas existed for so many years? So many feel that believing in the non-accountable doctrines that people have created is much easier, and that challenging those belief systems takes too much effort.
People have become comfortable with them. With that comfort, all known past civilizations, such as the Romans, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, fell from within, through seeking to continue the way of life they had come to know. The civilizations fell into believing their own lies, and that was the cause of their downfall.
Take a moment and consider the faith it actually takes to believe in a random accident universe versus a God designed, finely balanced universe. It's like taking your car when it needs repair to a junk yard and waiting for a random repair versus going to your trained mechanic for the car repair.
The Delusion of the Big Lie
It takes little effort to reveal mankind's current situation in the world, whether it be in the United States, Europe, or the East; that people in those countries hold and believe the same self-made philosophies and are still under the delusion of the big lie: that people don't need God and were not created by Him. Some will believe that God created them. Others will say that God will not intervene in, or judge, His creation.
The reader will find that certain Bible passages show that God does intervene in His creation, and in understanding how He has done this in the past, will show how He is currently doing it. Faith and belief in the prophecies of eternity will come from this understanding.
God's Direct Involvement
God intervenes directly, and there can't be enough emphasis on this. His promise to intervene in the future is spelled out in great detail in the Bible. Until one realizes the great extent to which God has intervened in the past, the concept will remain foreign and unbelievable. Once one realizes the events that have taken place were created with God's direct involvement, then the fear of God takes on a different meaning. That fear is translated one of two ways.
First, if one is on His side, that fear becomes trust because God offers protection. He or she is assured that God will not cause harm.
Conversely, if one is not on His side, not fully believing in Him, this fear translates into worry, and that worry will cause no end of self-imposed imaginings and nightmares about a person's future.
A Most Dramatic Incident
God has intervened many times in the Bible. The most dramatic incident was God's intervention with the Flood, when He asked Noah to build the ark so that He could save a specie of all the animals and a remnant of the population to repopulate the earth.
He was so upset with the evil nature of the population, (reliable estimates state the population then to have been of similar size as it is today, approximately 4 to 7 billion people) that He completely destroyed all human beings and animals. This direct intervention shows the dramatic extent to which God will go. But this is not an isolated incident.
The Stench Got So Bad It Bothered Heaven
Another incident of God's intervention is seen in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. These two ancient cities were decadent in their lifestyle, and were known to be homosexual in their nature.
Many of the state's laws today dealing with sodomy reflect this lifestyle.
The cities were "utterly evil, and everything they do is wicked" (Genesis 18:20, TLB0). The story goes on to tell how the angels of the Lord literally destroyed the two cities so that they would never be seen again. "The stench of the place has reached to heaven and God has sent us to destroy it"
(Genesis 19:13, TLB).
God intervened in the destruction of these cities, and the Bible is filled with many of these illustrious stories, where God has reached down and intervened. The Bible also outlines many prophecies that are about to take place. They are graphic, and give considerable detail to the events that they describe.
As one reads the Bible, one should think of the words describing the incident. Many of these passages are similitudes of what will happen in the future, therefore they are considered prophecies of what God will do or how He will intervene in His creation.
What is Meant by an Analogy or a Similitude and why Search for Them in the Bible?
Analogy and similitude are defined in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary as "an inference;
that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others." In Hosea 12:10 it states that, "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of prophets." Therefore if one searches the Bible for understanding, one can gain insight and meaning of one Bible verse by studying the pattern of another verse which refers to the same subject.
Unexplainable Happenings
God does care about what is going on with the earth today. He will become involved with destroying and promoting the people He wants to. What many have called miracles, whether recorded or not, allow people to see that often there is supernatural intervention.
God has not only intervened with our ancestors, but He is real today. Many of God's miracles are performed on a daily basis. Some call them "unexplainable happenings," however, to the ones that experience the miracles, they are direct interventions from God.
God's Amazing Power to Intervene
God has intervened in many ways in both the Old and New Testaments, and the stories are recorded for anyone who wishes to see God's willingness to intervene. Some of these stories are very familiar to people today, such as the story of Jonah and the fish, the parting of the Red Sea, and the Flood of Noah.
The documentation behind those stories are, in some instances, extremely detailed by ancient and secular records. Similarly, God works in people's lives today, and people need to recognize this intervention, although it may be subtle and not written down in any big book.
Many would agree that it is indeed a miracle that they survived a car accident, a fire, or some kind of personal tragedy.
God speaks in His word of His plan for mankind; He prophesies of events to come, some of which have literally come true to the day for the world to see, such as the reunification of Israel. One must have faith in God's track record, His promises, and His word to intervene with present and future events, many of which are chronicled throughout the Old testament, in books of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, and discussed in the New Testament's book of Revelation.
When people believe in God's future plan for His children and the world, they will see that the prophecies stated in the Bible are real and alive, and give direction to people today, so that the world can have hope of eternal life with the supreme Lord and Savior.
There's A Difference
After a study of these biblical events and their ramifications, it will be obvious that people shouldn't get hung up on man-made ideas that are misconceptions or hearsay, no matter how comfortable the ideas might seem.
Many respected scientists now have new insights, and have recognized the importance of revelation.
Readers of the Word may now want to reevaluate their beliefs. Take a look at the Word in a literal manner and read and understand it for its true meaning. Recall the words of David in Psalm 95, verses 7 and 8:
"Today, if you will hear His voice: 'Do not harden your hearts.'"
The Bible is a literal interpretation of God's Word, but it takes study to understand some of the relationships, and the Holy Spirit is the only means for a person to have that understanding. If one goes to the Word, the Holy Spirit can open the heart and give one that meaning.
Consider this analogy: If I were to throw a straight pin at you, the most that you would feel is a little prick. But if I were to take that same straight pin and wrap it around a rod of iron, I could then with that rod of iron behind the straight pin strike your heart and pierce it. That is the difference between the Holy Spirit guiding the reading of God's Word with the force of a rod of iron, versus the pin prick of reading God's Word without the help of the Holy Spirit.
Spiritually Receiving God's Word
If one loves God, when he or she reads the Bible, the Holy Spirit will reveal God's Word in spiritual terms. Consider what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:9-14 about how God's Word is revealed to people's hearts:
"Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
For what man Knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?
Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Chuck Missler's Website is at http://www.Khouse.org
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PROPHEZINE NEWSLETTER - ISRAEL IN THE NEWS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*****
NEWS REPORT FROM JERUSALEM 1/20/99
SPECIAL REPORT: CHRISTIAN GROUPS ATTACKED IN JERUSALEM
(By Amy Klein, The Jerusalem Post) Jerusalem police are investigating a recent wave of threats and violence against Christian organizations in Jerusalem. The incidents have led some Christian leaders to distance themselves from the concept of the millennium, saying there is no scriptural basis supporting it.
Pictures of a bullet shot through the forehead of one of the Swiss Catholic women whose apartment in Mea She'arim was burned down last November were plastered outside two churches and a Bible bookstore on New Year's Eve, police confirmed this week.
Nearly two weeks ago vandals hurled stones at Jerusalem's St. Andrew's Church of Scotland, breaking several of its stained glass windows.
Police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby said police do not know if the events are related and no suspects have been arrested.
"Two pictures of the Swiss woman with a bullseye around her face and bullet hole in her forehead were glued on our door," said Judy McClean from the Torch Book Shop on Jaffa road. The store, a non-denominational organization, publishes Bibles in different languages. McClean believes the incident was the result of haredi violence against Christian organizations.
Other Christian leaders are concerned that the violence has resulted from the recent deportation of the Concerned Christians, the apocalyptic cult suspected of planning a violent attack in Jerusalem to bring about the second coming of Jesus.
"The recent TV coverage has painted all the Christian groups as one and the same - as violent," said Charles Kopp, the Chairman of the Union of Christian Councils in Israel, whose Baptist House Center on Narkiss Street also was splashed with bullseye posters. "There are all kind of incidents taking place lately which might have resulted from the coverage of this millennial event, which is not an eschatological event."
Though the bullseye pictures were posted prior to the arrest and deportation of the cult members, Kopp believes that recent anti-Christian activities are the result of negative images of Christians portrayed as missionaries and cultists.
Since the deportation of the 14 members of the cult, many Christian leaders are quick to distance themselves from the cult and the concept of the millennium.
"The vast majority of Christians do not take seriously anyone who may be setting with certainty either 2000 or 2001 as the date for Christ's return," said David Parsons, a media officer for the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem.
"There has been a gross distortion of Christian views on the approach of the new millennium which has caused unnecessary apprehensions in Israel about the millions of Christians expected to make pilgrimage here over the next two to three years to mark this event."
Parsons pointed out that most scholars agree that the actual anniversary of Jesus' birthday occurred in 1996, and this is more a "symbolic" birthday celebration and not an expectation for the second coming.
Douglas Davis adds:British security authorities are preparing for possible terrorist attacks or an act of mass suicide in Britain by members of the Concerned Christians, 14 of whose members were expelled from Israel earlier this month.
Monte Kim Miller, leader of the Denver-based Concerned Christians, is known to be hiding in Britain, along with an unspecified number of his fanatical cult followers.
Scotland Yard's Chief Superintendent Brian Younger, who is in charge of a $10 million anti-terrorist team based at the Millennium Dome, confirmed that Miller is in Britain and said there were concerns that his cult and others might be targeting the Dome.
The Dome will be the focus of British events to mark the millennium and is being built at Greenwich, which is traditionally used as the base line for measuring time and distance from the meridian.
"We have to be aware that New Year's Eve and the whole millennium year
could be the focus of some terrorist or other type of attack," said Younger.
*****
ICEJ NEWS - MAR 14, 1999
EU: JERUSALEM IS NOT THE CAPITOL OF ISRAEL
The European Union has sent a communiqué to Israel in which they state that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel and is not under Israeli sovereignty. The
communiqué also states that according to Europe all Jerusalem is in occupied territory. The communiqué was delivered to Israel by the German Ambassador in Israel in the name of the EU. Germany currently holds the presidency of the European Union.
Israeli politicians across the board have come out in support of Israel's position that Jerusalem is and will always remain, the country's undivided capital. Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday: "Our government has no intention of making any concessions whatsoever regarding the status of Jerusalem".
"Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish nation for 3000 years now, the capital of the State of Israel for 50 years, and will remain so for eternity," he added. (ICEJ)
*****
ICEJ NEWS MAR 22
HILLARY CLINTON VISITS MIDEAST, SKIPS ISRAEL
Hillary Clinton began a two-week Middle East tour on Saturday, but won't be visiting America's major regional ally.
She is the second senior U.S. figure to visit the region - but not Israel - in two weeks, adding to the perception here that Washington is snubbing the Netanyahu government in the run-up to the crucial May 17 election.
A statement from the White House said Clinton's visit, to Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia, was aimed at "strengthening the bonds of friendship between the United States and these nations - and the bonds of understanding between the United States and the entire Arab world."
Even though her visit in Egypt is intended to mark the 20th anniversary of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, she will not include the neighboring Jewish state in her itinerary.
It was not appropriate for her to visit Israel at this time, "because of the election", the statement said, adding that Clinton plans to visit Israel and Jordan later in the year.
Professor Shmuel Sandler, a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, said he thought the Americans were "making a big mistake."
"If they want to hurt Netanyahu, these thing tend to boomerang, as happened when [President] Clinton supported [Labor leader Shimon] Peres during the last election," Sandler said.
He said Israelis don't like their country being treated as "a banana republic".
Israelis have noted a tangible change in U.S. attitude since last December, when President Clinton visited Gaza, and the Netanyahu government was brought down, paving the way for elections.
The U.S. has been actively engaged in consultations with Palestinians and other Arabs, while Israel has been marginalized, officials in Jerusalem say.
While Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat is to be welcomed to the White House again tomorrow, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has declined to meet Netanyahu or Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon.
These developments are seen by Israel as part of a concerted effort to influence Israeli voters to throw out Netanyahu in May.
Recently, Deputy Secretary of State Martin Indyk - a former U.S. ambassador to Israel - visited Turkey, Morocco, Jordan and Syria, but left out Israel, although the possible resumption of peace talks between Damascus and Jerusalem was on his agenda.
And Mideast envoy Dennis Ross has been discussing the Oslo Accords with Arafat in Madrid.
During Wednesday's State Department press briefing, spokesman Jim Foley was asked whether there was nothing unusual about neither Indyk nor Ross bringing Israel into their consultations.
"Indyk went to Syria and Jordan, which sort of is in the neighborhood where Israel lives," a correspondent noted. "Ross went to talk to Arafat. Isn't . some country missing from this consultation picture?"
Foley said the U.S. remained "in close contact with the Israeli government" but rejected the suggestion that the administration was "icing Israel until after the election".
Earlier this month, Defense Secretary William Cohen stopped in Israel at the end of a nine-nation Middle East tour.
Unusually, he was not scheduled to meet Netanyahu, but after Israeli media questioned this decision, he asked at the last minute for a meeting - but also insisted on seeing Netanyahu's main challengers in the prime ministerial race, Ehud Barak and Yitzhak Mordechai.
Although Cohen maintained this condition was in order not to be seen to be interfering in the election campaign, commentators noted that foreign officials meet Netanyahu in his capacity as prime minister, not as Likud leader and election candidate.
*****
A JOKE OVERHEARD:
Q: What is the difference between an "Israeli"... and an "Israelite" ?
A: The "Israe-'lite" has 30% less fat.
