How do we know that Jesus was the Messiah?

The word "Messiah" means "Anointed One," the name given to the promised Deliverer who would some day come to the people of Israel as their great Savior and Redeemer, "anointed" as Prophet, Priest, and King by God Himself.

Some, of course, are still looking for the fulfillment of these Old Testament promises in the future, when the "Messiah" will come to establish a world kingdom of peace and justice centered around the chosen nation, Israel.

On the other hand, the group of Jewish believers who became the first founders of Christianity were convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was their promised Messiah. The name "Christ" is the Greek equivalent of “Messiah,” so that the name Jesus Christ really means "Jesus the Messiah," or "Jesus the anointed." They preached this truth with such conviction and power that not only many Jews but, later, a still greater host of Gentiles, believed on Jesus, both as the Christ and also as the Lord and Savior of all men.

And indeed they had good reason for such faith. The Old Testament Messianic prophecies were found to be uniquely fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ. There are hundreds of these prophecies, so that the possibility of their accidental convergence on any ordinary man is completely ruled out by the laws of probability.



Some of the prophecies are so framed, in fact, as to preclude their fulfillment by anyone living after the first century A.D. For example, the patriarch Jacob said, in Genesis 49:10, "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come." The name “Shiloh” is a title of the Messiah, and the prophecy states that Judah's tribe would remain the chief tribe in Israel, in particular providing their kings, until Messiah would come. The prophecy must have been fulfilled prior to the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem in A.D. 70, by which time certainly all semblance of a scepter had departed from Judah.

Similarly the promise was given to King David that the Messiah should be one of his descendants, as the King eternal, the one of whom God said, "I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever" (II Samuel 7:13). Isaiah said, "There shall come forth a rod out of the stem (literally 'stump') of Jesse (that is David's father), and a Branch shall grow out of his roots" (Isaiah 11:1). This is another name of the Messiah, and indicates that, even after it would appear that the family tree of Jesse has been cut down, yet one Branch will grow out of the stump. Evidently the very last one who could be known to have come of this lineage would finally prove to be the promised Messiah!

This was fulfilled uniquely in Jesus. His foster father, Joseph, was in the royal line from David and thus held the legal right to the throne (Matthew 1:1-16). His mother, Mary, was also a descendant of David, as shown by her genealogy in Luke 3:23-31. But ever since the time of Jesus, it would be quite impossible to establish the legal or biological lineage of any pretender to David's throne, as all the ancient genealogical records were destroyed soon after that.

An even more striking prophecy is given in Daniel 9:24-27. There Daniel was told explicitly that Messiah would come 69 "sabbaths" (that is, 69 sabbatical years - a total of 483 years) after the decree was given to rebuild Jerusalem, which at that time lay in ruins after Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had destroyed it.

Such a decree was given later by the Persian emperor. Although the exact date of the decree is somewhat uncertain, the termination date of the prophecy must have been some time in the first century A.D. In fact, it must have been before the destruction of the city and the temple by the Romans in A.D. 70, because the prophecy said quite explicitly: “After (the 483 years) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” (Daniel 9:26). Not only must Messiah come before this destruction, but He was also to be“cut off,” rejected and killed, before it came.

It is obvious that no one but Jesus could have fulfilled these prophecies. The prophecies absolutely preclude any still future Messiah, except that even that hope also will find its fulfillment in the second coming of Christ.

And then, of course, there are still hundreds of other prophecies, all of which were fulfilled by Jesus Christ: His virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14); His birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2); His sacrificial death (Isaiah 53:5); His crucifixion (Psalm 22:14-18); His bodily resurrection (Psalm 16:10); and many others. All of these unite in their witness that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31).

The probability that hundreds of such specific predictions, each quite independent of the others, could all be fulfilled concurrently in one individual, is unlikely in the highest degree, especially in view of the miraculous nature of many of them (e.g., the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc.). No rational conclusion seems possible except that Jesus is all He claims - Messiah, Savior, Lord and God.


Excerpt from The Bible Has the Answer, by Henry Morris and Martin Clark,
published by Master Books.
Read More...

Who created God?

A number of skeptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question Who created God? is illogical, just like To whom is the bachelor married?

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause? In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Its important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.

Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

* 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
* 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.

So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn't think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.

Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.
IN SUMMARY

*The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
*It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
*The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
*God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.

OBJECTIONS

There are only two ways to refute an argument:

1. Show that it is logically invalid
2. Show that at least one of the premises is false.

Is the argument valid?

A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this article is valid; it is of the same form as: All whales have backbones; Moby Dick is a whale; therefore Moby Dick has a backbone. So the only hope for the skeptic is to dispute one or both of the premises.

Are the premises true?

1. Does the universe have a beginning?

Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy.

This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.2

Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is open.

According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass.3

Some recent evidence for an open universe comes from the number of light-bending gravitational lenses in the sky.4 Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universes expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe.5,6 It seems there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a big crunch.

Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable inflationary version of the big bang theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse a flat universe.

Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical big crunch.7

As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics say that the universe oscillates, There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.

Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that's the end.8

2. Denial of cause and effect

Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.9

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario should not be taken too seriously.

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate their quantum vacuum is a lot of matter-antimatter potential not nothing.

Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.

If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.

Is creation by God rational?

A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened before the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened before the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universes beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies,10 pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (17241804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this cant be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

A final thought

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called “eternity.” God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.

Paul S. Taylor, adapted from author Ray Comfort
Further Reading

More information can be found in the following works. Unfortunately they are too friendly towards the unscriptural big bang theory with its billions of years of death, suffering and disease before Adams sin. But the above arguments are perfectly consistent with a recent creation in six consecutive normal days, as taught by Scripture.

1. Craig, W.L., Apologetics: An Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1984).
2. Craig, W.L. online article “The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe” http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
3. Geisler, N.L., Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1976).


References and Notes

1.Actually, the word cause has several different meanings in philosophy. But in this article, I am referring to the efficient cause, the chief agent causing something to be made. Return to text
2.Novikov, I.D. and Zeldovich, Ya. B., “Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities”, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 11:401-2 (1973). Return to text
3.Schramm, D.N. and Steigman, G., “Relic Neutrinos and the Density of the Universe,” Astrophysical Journal, 243:1-7 (1981). Return to text
4.Watson, A., “Clusters point to Never Ending Universe,” Science, 278 (5342):1402 (1997). Return to text
5.Perlmutter, S. et al., “Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe,” Nature, 391(6662):51 (1998). Perspective by Branch, D. Destiny and destiny. Same issue, pp. 23-24. Return to text
6.Glanz, J., “New light on the fate of the universe,” Science, 278 (5339):799-800. Return to text
7.Guth, A.H. and Sher, M., “The Impossibility of a Bouncing Universe,” Nature, 302:505-507 (1983). Return to text
8.Tinsley, B., “From Big Bang to Eternity?”, Natural History Magazine (October 1975), pp. 102-5. Cited in Craig, W.L., Apologetics: An Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1984), p. 61. Return to text
9.Davies, P., God and the New Physics (Simon & Schuster, 1983), p. 215. Return to text
10.Craig, W.L., “God, Creation and Mr. Davies,” Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 37:163-175 (1986). Return to text



Author: Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ministries International. First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1):20-22, 1998.
Read More...

What does Islam teach about the crucifixion of Isa al Masih (Jesus)?

The essential difference

Historic Christianity contends that Jesus was crucified, dead, and buried outside of Jerusalem during the thirty-third year of His life. Christians contend that there is Biblical and historical evidence for the crucifixion, and that it was significant theologically in providing an atonement for the sins of all who would/will believe.

Muslims dispute the fact of Jesus' crucifixion, arguing that Allah would never have dishonored His prophet by allowing Him to undergo such a death. Muslims believe that Jesus was miraculously caught up into heaven and that someone (perhaps Judas Iscariot) surreptitiously took His place on the cross.


Does it really matter?

The historical reality of Jesus' crucifixion is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. Without the crucifixion the resurrection becomes irrelevant, and without the resurrection Christianity itself is rendered meaningless, i.e. I Corinthians 15:14 "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."
Does the Qur'an actually contend that Jesus was not crucified?

Is it possible that this is really a case of misguided tradition? Surah 4:157-158 states: "That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah'—but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not—nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself." Now if “they” refers to the Jews (and that seems clear), then the Qur'an might be considered technically correct in contending that the Jews themselves did not crucify Jesus (see also John 18:31)—that it was actually the Romans who did the deed. Is it possible that the heart of the conflict here really lies in a faulty interpretation of the Qur'an?
Why would Jesus as Allah's prophet have so often predicted His crucifixion?

Matthew 17:22-23 says "And while they were gathering together in Galilee, Jesus said to them, 'The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men; and they will kill Him, and He will be raised on the third day.' And they were deeply grieved." Consider also Mark 9:31; Luke 9:22; John 12:32-33. Jesus stressed this over and over. Why?
Doesn't the Qur'an corroborate the Bible regarding Jesus' death?

Surah 3:54 states: "When Allah said: 'O Jesus, I will cause thee to die and exalt thee in My presence and clear thee of those who disbelieve..." In so many ways that seems to corroborate with Philippians 2:8-10 which states: "And being found in appearance as a man, He [Jesus] humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth,"
Why would Allah deliberately deceive the world in such an insidious way?

It seems most incongruent with Islamic doctrine regarding the character of Allah to maintain that Allah would have either needed or chosen to resort to chicanery and mass deception in order to spare the life of Isa (Jesus).

Author: Daryl E. Witmer of AIIA Institute.
Read More...

Muslims - What does the Qur'an say about Isa (Jesus)?

Over 1400 years ago, Muhammad (Mohammed) was born in Arabia. His father Abdullah was of the tribe of Qureyshi, and died before Muhammad was born.

As a lad, Muhammad traveled to Syria with his uncle on merchant caravans. Years later, he made the same journey while working for a wealthy widow named Khadijah. He later married her and, even though he was 15 years younger than she was, they had a good marriage.

Muhammad soon gained rank among the notables of Mecca. The Meccans claimed to be descendants of Abraham (Ibrahim).


As one who abhorred evil, Muhammad detested those who disobeyed the Scriptures. He was familiar with the teachings of the Jewish and Christian holy book the Bible (perhaps in reading it himself, if he was literate, or in learning of it through oral means via storytelling). He was very upset with the hypocrisy among the people: the idol worship, and anything dishonoring to God was very revolting to Him. He believed that Allah had revealed the Torah and the gospels (the Injil).

"ALLAH is HE besides Whom there is none worthy of worship, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. HE has sent down to thee the Book containing the truth and fulfilling that which precedes it; and HE has sent down the Torah (Law of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guidance to the people; and HE has sent down the Discrimination (judgement between right and wrong)."—Qur'an, Surah 3:3-4

One who was greatly respected by Muhammad was Abraham (Ibrahim), whom he called an upright and righteous man.

"Abraham was indeed a paragon of virtue, obedient to ALLAH, ever inclined to HIM, and he was not of those who set up equals with ALLAH; Ever grateful for HIS favours: HE chose him and guided him to a straight path. And WE bestowed on him good in this world, and in the Hereafter he will surely be among the righteous. And now WE have sent revelation to thee, enjoining, 'Follow the way of Abraham who was ever inclined to ALLAH and was not of those who set up equals to HIM.'"—Qur'an, Surah 16:121-124

Abraham was also looked upon as one who fulfilled God's commands:

"And remember when his Lord tried Abraham with certain commandments which he fulfilled, HE said, 'I will make thee a leader of men.' Abraham asked, 'And from among my offspring?' God said, 'MY covenant does not embrace the transgressors.'"—Qur'an, Surah 2:125

Muhammad also had great understanding of the scriptures and faith in the angels who told Zechariah he would have a son (as in Luke 1:18, 57-60).

"So her Lord accepted her with gracious acceptance and caused her to grow an excellent growth and made Zachariah her guardian. Whenever Zachariah visited her in the chamber, he found with her provisions. He said, 'O Mary whence hast thou this ?' She replied, 'It is from ALLAH.' Surely ALLAH gives to whomsoever HE pleases without measure.

Then and there did Zachariah pray to his Lord, saying, 'My Lord grant me from Thyself pure offspring; surely thou art the Hearer of Prayer.'

And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the chamber, 'ALLAH gives thee glad tidings of Yahya, who shall testify to the truth of a word from ALLAH - noble and chaste and a Prophet, from among the righteous.

He said 'My Lord, how shall I have a son, when old age has overtaken me already, and my wife is barren?' He answered, 'Such is the way of ALLAH; HE does what HE pleases,'

He said 'My Lord, give me a commandment.' He replied, 'The commandment for thee is that thou shalt not speak to men for three days except by signs.

And remember thy Lord much and glorify HIM in the evening and in the early morning.' And remember when the angels said, 'ALLAH has chosen thee and purified thee and chosen thee above all women of the time.

'O Mary, be obedient to thy Lord and prostrate thyself and worship the one God with those who worship HIM.'

This is of the tidings of things unseen which WE reveal to thee. And thou was not with them when they cast their arrows, as to which of them should be the guardian of Mary, nor was thou with them when they disputed with one another.

When the angels said, 'O Mary, ALLAH gives thee glad tidings of a son through a word from HIM; his name shall be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, honoured in this world and in the next, and of those who are granted nearness to God;

'And he shall speak to the people in the cradle, and when of middle age, and he shall be of the righteous.

She said, 'My Lord, how shall I have a son, when no man has touched me? He said, 'Such is the way of ALLAH. HE creates what HE pleases. When HE decrees a thing HE says to it 'Be,' and it is;"—Qur'an, Surah 3:38-48

Muhammad also speaks of the resurrection of Jesus:

"Thereupon she pointed to him. They said, 'How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?' Jesus said, 'I am a servant of ALLAH. HE has given me the Book, and has made me a Prophet; 'And HE has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live; 'And HE has made me dutiful towards my mother, and has not made me arrogant and graceless; 'And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.' That was Jesus, son of Mary. This is a statement of the truth concerning which they entertain doubt."—Qur'an, Surah 19:30-35

In calling Jesus a messenger, Muhammad was also correct. He did not mean that Jesus was not the Messiah. Muhammad knew that one could be a messenger and not be a Messiah… but as The Messiah, one is also a messenger.

Jesus was both a messenger and The Messiah that Allah had promised! What is a Messiah? A Messiah is always known as "a Saviour… a liberator and a deliverer." God had promised to send one (Messiah) to pay the debt of sin for all mankind.

The Messiah!… God's gift to sinful man… The Saviour… The Liberator… Our Redeemer. The prophets of the Torah foretold of His coming. Muhammad and his Disciples revered Him… the Qur'an and the Bible reveal Him! The Messiah… The Saviour of the world! Neither the Qur'an nor the Bible speak of any other as being the Messiah!!!

Dear friend, that is the most profound truth! And it is truth that cannot be denied. Jesus is the one and only Messiah. He is the Saviour. He is the Messiah of the Muslims, the Jews, and the Gentiles. Millions throughout the world of every nation and creed accept Him as Saviour.

Many have followed false Messiahs and had their lives ended in death. They were sincere, but they were sincerely wrong. Had they only accepted the indisputable claim that Jesus is the Messiah, they would have found the peace that they were looking for, and the eternal life that God has promised to all who will accept Jesus as Messiah… the Saviour of the world. Yes, Isah Al Masih loves you! The Messiah that Muhammad wrote about… to forgive you and to be your Saviour… your Liberator… your Deliverer from sin. History tells us that He was crucified and died on a cross. History tells us that three days later there was an empty tomb. History, and hundreds of eye witnesses, tell us that He rose from the dead. But sadly many also reject the love and forgiveness God has offered in Jesus.

Allah has given you a free will. YOU must make a choice. You cannot be neutral.

Don't take this writer's word for it. Investigate for yourself the claims of Muhammad, the prophecies in the Torah, and the life of Jesus written in the Bible. The prophecies that were fulfilled by His birth, life, death and resurrection.

Check out the reasons why Paul, the greatest persecutor of Jesus' followers, became such a strong believer in Jesus as the Messiah… and why he became the world's greatest missionary.

If you are not already a follower of Isah (Jesus), you must make a choice 1) to believe that Jesus is the Messiah OR 2) to reject Him as Saviour. You can choose to believe the Messiah, Jesus, who said He would, and did, rise from the dead. Allah gave Jesus, born miraculously through Mary (Maryam, Sura 3:45) as Muhammed agreed, to the world… for you.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."—John 3:16

("Son of God" does not mean that God had physical relations with Mary, but rather that God willed it supernaturally that Mary would become the earthly mother of Jesus even as a virgin. See Surah 3:47-48)

Allah loves you. How could anyone want to reject such a wonderful love… reject Allah's forgiveness… His promises of eternal life? The Bible teaches how we can know where we will spend eternity.

Author: Mike Tabish. Provided by Eden Communications.
Read More...

THE NEW TOLERANCE It's politically correct, but does it hold danger for followers of Christ? Is love the same thing as tolerance?

Not long ago, the word 'tolerance' meant 'bearing or putting up with someone or something not especially liked'. However, now the word has been redefined to 'all values, all beliefs, all lifestyles, all truth claims are equal'.1 Denying this makes a person 'intolerant', and thus worthy of contempt.

Where does this leave Christians? Jesus said,

'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me' (John 14:6).

And the apostle Peter said,

'It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God

raised from the dead Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved' (Acts 4:10-12).

The new definition of 'tolerance' makes the Christian claims to exclusivity 'intolerant', which supposedly justifies much of the anti-Christianity in the media and the education system.

But this argument is glaringly illogical and self-refuting. That is, if these 'tolerance' advocates reject Christianity, then they are not treating this belief as 'equal'. So, in practice, to paraphrase George Orwell in Animal Farm, all beliefs are equal, but some beliefs are more equal than others. The result is extreme intolerance towards Christianity from people who talk so much about tolerating all views. In short, they are intolerant of intolerance, so logically they should be intolerant of themselves!

The hypocrisy of the new tolerance was shown recently at two universities. At Texas Tech University (Lubbock), Michael Dini, professor of biology, said he would not recommend any students for medical school if they did not believe in evolution. Dini's university rushed to defend him on the grounds of 'academic freedom'.2

Contrast that with what happened at Sydney University in Australia. A number of top academics signed the following statement in a full-page student newspaper advertisement:

'On any criteria, Jesus Christ is one of the great figures of history. More than that, his claims to be the Son of God, who has made God known and taken away the sins of the world, bear up under the closest scrutiny. This is our conviction, and we urge every student to thoroughly investigate this unique figure, Jesus'.

This evoked hysteria about religious intolerance and misuse of academic freedom. Some anti-Christian students even raised paranoid fears about discrimination.3 Yet the above statement said nothing of the kind, unlike Dini's overt intolerance and discriminationagainst biblical Christianswhich was happily tolerated.


Author: Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis. Excerpted from "The Tyranny of 'Tolerance'," Creation, Vol. 25, No. 4 (September 2003), p. 6. Text Copyright © 2003, 2004, Answers in Genesis.

Danger in the general philosophy of tolerance

There is a great danger lurking in the general philosophy of tolerance. In Australia, a group formed and called itself Toleration, which many Christians viewed as a harmless organization with a worthy cause. Toleration's goal was to promote a tolerance of all religious ways, beliefs and doctrines. Their major theme was "We've got to stop being intolerant of other people's beliefs. Everyone should have a right to his or her own opinion on any matter."

Eventually the organization issued a promotional leaflet espousing this “tolerance” of all beliefs. What did the very first page contain but a detailed list of all the things they were against! They said they were for tolerance of all beliefs, yet they were in-tolerant of the teaching of Creation and the absolutes of Christianity.

People who teach a tolerance of all beliefs almost invariably oppose Christianity. They cannot tolerate Christians saying, "Here's what's right and here's what wrong. God says it. And so that is final." They reply, Oh, no. We can't tolerate that. We've got to tolerate all beliefs."

What are they really doing? They are being intolerant of the absolutes of Christianity, because the absolutes of Christianity oppose a philosophy that says, "Everything can be done in accord with one's own opinion." It is not difficult to see that this popular philosophy is an anti-biblical way of thinking--so dangerous, in fact, that it could one day lead to the outlawing of Christianity.
Personal opinion and following Christ

There is yet another sad aspect to the philosophy that all people have a right to their own opinions. Not only is this being emphasized in our public education system, but it is reaching out from there and permeating all parts of our society, even our churches.

What happens today when churches address issues like abortion, homosexuality, women's role in the church, and so on? All too often, Christians are simply offering lots of different opinions, eagerly expressing their own ideas and beliefs. Often their leaders participate by merely summarizing these differing viewpoints and stopping short of supplying a definite conclusion about what is right or wrong according to God's Word.

The wonderful truth is that, as Christians, we can base our lives on something much more substantial than mere personal opinions! We have foundational knowledge from an Infinite Being, our Creator, to guide us. The record of this basic knowledge begins in the most foundational of all books, Genesis. Our Creator has not left us to find our own way; he has provided directions and specific principles by which to live. Christian leaders should be reminding people that God owns us and therefore sets the rules. What he says must be the basis for all our thinking and behavior.

Our conclusions must be based on the foundation of God's Word, not on fallible human opinion!


Author: Ken Ham. Excerpted from Ken Ham and Paul Taylor, The Genesis Solution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), pp. 47-51. Text Copyright © 1998, Films for Christ.
The difference between tolerance and Christ's love

Christian author and speaker Josh McDowell reminds followers of Christ that,

We must humbly pursue truth. It may be difficult to speak the truth in today's climate, but Jesus said,

"The truth will set you free."

Pursuing truth in this context means countering the new doctrine of tolerance. It means teaching our children to embrace all people, but not all beliefs. It means showing them how to listen to and learn from all people without necessarily agreeing with them. It means helping them courageously but humbly speak the truth, even if it makes them the object of scorn or hatred.

We must always remember, however, that when the apostle Peter told us,

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have," he added, "But do this with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15).

We must aggressively practice love. Everyone loves love, it seems, but few recognize how incompatible love is with the new tolerance. Tolerance simply avoids offending someone; we must help our children live in love, which actively seeks to promote the good of another person.

Tolerance says, "You must approve of what I do."
Love responds, "I must do something harder; I will love you, even when your behavior offends me."

Tolerance says, "You must agree with me."
Love responds, "I must do something harder; I will tell you the truth, because I am convinced 'the truth will set you free.' "

Tolerance says, "You must allow me to have my way."
Love responds, "I must do something harder; I will plead with you to follow the right way, because I believe you are worth the risk."

Tolerance seeks to be inoffensive; love takes risks. Tolerance glorifies division; love seeks unity. Tolerance costs nothing; love costs everything.

I believe the dreadful potential of the new tolerance can be averted, but only with a renewed commitment to truth, justice and love. And, as it happens, that powerful trio of virtues can do more than prevent disaster; it can bring about true community and culture in the midst of diversity and disagreement.

Author: Josh McDowell. Excerpted from Focus on the Family magazine (Colorado Springs, CO: 1999). Text Copyright © 1999, Focus on the Family.
References

1. McDowell, J. and Hostetler, B., The New Tolerance: How a cultural movement threatens to destroy you, your faith, and your children (Tyndale House, 1998).
2. Matthews, M., "Dunce cap for creationists? Texas Tech prof won't recommend creationists," www.answersingenesis.org , 14 January 2003.
3. Contractor, A., Noonan, G. and Burke, K., “God's quad,” Sydney Morning Herald (November 2002), p. 37, 1617.


Read More...

Does Scripture refer to life in space?

The Bible records that spirit beings, both good and evil, are to be found in space. Ephesians 6:12 refers to "spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms," and Daniel 10:12-13 gives us a glimpse of the warfare that goes on in high places. Beyond this, selected Scripture verses are sometimes also quoted in support of physical beings in space as distinct from the spirit world:

"Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you." (Deut. 30:4)

"And the multitudes of heaven worship you" (Neh. 9:6)

"In that day the Lord will punish the powers in the heavens above" (Isa. 24:21)

"And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens" (Mark 13:27)

"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also" (John 10:16)

It is important to notice that several of these references could well refer to angels. The verses could also describe different groups of people scattered across the earth. Therefore, these texts are not evidence of extraterrestrial life. In contrast, Scripture in general indicates the uniqueness of the earth as a sustainer of life.

"The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth he has given to man" (Ps. 115:16)

"He who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited" (Isa. 45: 18)



Author: Dr. Donald B. DeYoung - adapted from Astronomy and the Bible: Questions and Answers, 2nd Edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 176 pp.
Read More...

Were the nephilim extraterrestrials?

Galaxy

Some have claimed that the “sons of God” and/or the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were aliens.

The Bible, the revealed written Word of God teaches that life is only possible through a process of creation. Even if there were other galaxies with planets very similar to earth, life could only be there if the Creator had fashioned it. If God had done that, and if these beings were going to visit us one day, then He would surely not have left us unenlightened about this.

God has given us rather specific details of the future—for example, the return of Jesus, and some details about the end of the world. The universe will, at some future point, be rolled up like a scroll (Isaiah 34:4, Revelation 6:14). If God had

created living beings elsewhere, this would automatically destroy their dwelling place as well. Adam's sin caused all of creation to be affected by the Curse, so why would a race of beings, not of Adam's (sinful) seed, have their part of creation affected by the Curse, and then be part of the restoration brought about by Christ, the last Adam? All of this would seem exceedingly strange.[1]

Some have claimed that the nephilim, or the “sons of God,” both mentioned in Genesis 6:2-4, were aliens. This is a wild extension of a common view that the “sons of God” who married the “daughters of men” were fallen angels, and that the nephilim were products of those “marriages.”

“Sons of God” is clearly used of angels in Job 38:7. The Septuagint (LXX) here translates “sons of God” as “angels of God.” This need not mean that evil angels, or demons, actually cohabited with women—Jesus made it clear that angels do not engage in sexual activities, at least not angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30). Nevertheless, evil angels on earth could have used the bodies of ungodly men, by demonic possession, to achieve their evil purpose of producing an evil generation of people (Genesis 6:12).[2]

There are other reasonable suggestions as to the identity of the “sons of God” and the Nephilim. Interestingly, the word nephilim is only used here and in Numbers 13:33, where it clearly refers to the descendants of Anak, who were big people, but still people. Furthermore, “sons of God” is not used exclusively of angels—the children of Israel are called “the sons of the living God” in Hosea 1:10 (see also Psalm 73:15; 80:17).

Bible scholars such as H.C. Leupold believe that the “sons of God” were descendants of Seth, the godly line who are detailed in the preceding chapter (Genesis 4:25-5:32). Leupold wrote, “But who were these ‘sons of God’? Without a shadow of a doubt, the Sethites.”[3] In this view, the descendants of Seth became wayward and married the “daughters of men” indiscriminately, basing their choice only on appearance, without concern for godliness, and the nephilim were their offspring.
Rulers in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia often proclaimed themselves as “sons of God” to enhance their power and prestige. So, another view with much support is that the “sons of God” were power-hungry rulers and despots, who, in their hunger for power and influence, took many wives in polygamy. They, and their offspring, through tyranny, became “mighty men.” (Nimrod was described as a “mighty one” in Genesis 10:8.)

So, there is no need to resort to fanciful suggestions involving aliens to understand this passage of Scripture.
The purpose of the stars
The reason stars were made are given to us in several places in the Bible, not only in the well-known Psalm 19 but especially in the creation account. In Genesis 1:14 we read: “And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night. And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.”

Thus, God made the stars for mankind on earth, not for another alien race “out there.” Add to this the sequence of creation (on the first day the earth, and only on the fourth day the stars), and it is easy to see the thrust of the biblical testimony, that the purpose of creation is uniquely centered on this earth.


Footnotes
1.Furthermore, Jesus dying for alien beings makes no sense, since Jesus took on human nature, and remains the God-man forever as our Savior. If He were to atone for Vulcans, say, he would need to become a Vulcan. The whole purpose of creation is focused on the race on earth, of which some will be Christ's “bride” throughout eternity. Christ will not have multiple “brides.”
2.H.M. Morris, The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976), p. 169.
3.H.C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, Vol. 1 (Ann Arbor, MI: Wartburg Press, 1942), p. 250.

Read More...

What does the Bible say about intelligent life on other planets?

The question of UFO's and intelligent life on other planets has become very popular. Many fashionable scientists speculate about the possibilities, insisting that we cannot be alone in the universe. Alien life is the subject of hit television shows and movies, and is also a common belief of many New Age religions. Many people have asked what the Bible has to say about this subject. The following article is an attempt to deal honestly and simply with this subject and to answer the question in an easily understood manner. It is not meant to be an exhaustive or comprehensive theological treatise.
The Scriptures do not directly address the question of alien beings. The Bible does not explicitly confirm or deny the existence of intelligent life from other planets. Although the subject is not addressed explicitly, the Bible teaches implicitly that the only things He created with intelligence are the angels, man, and the animals.

It is important to remember that the stars and planets were not created billions of years before Earth. According to the Bible, Earth is not the result of billions of years of stellar evolution during which many other planets were created. Earth was created before any other planet or star existed. Earth came into existence on the first day of Creation (Genesis 1:1). God withheld the creation of the Sun, Moon and stars until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). Earth is unique and holds center stage in God's Creation.
Furthermore, the Bible clearly indicates that the fate of the universe (every other planet and star) is forever linked to God's timetable for mankind and the Earth. One day, Christ will return to Earth and complete the final act of man's redemption (2 Peter 3:9-10). He will destroy this present universe and create a new heavens and Earth (2 Peter 3:7,10; Revelations 21:1). All the stars and planets will be destroyed, along with the Earth.

What bearing does this have on the question of extraterrestrial life? The timetable (and the whole reason) for this destruction and re-creation clearly seems to be based on God's plan for us Earthlings. If God had created intelligent life on other worlds, it is hard to imagine that their lives would be calibrated by the failures of Earth's inhabitants. It seems unlikely and unfair that their distant planets would be destroyed by God because of His plan for Earth. The implication of Scripture is that there are no other intelligent beings besides man, animals, and the angels.

Why will God destroy the planets and stars along with Earth? When Adam sinned, ALL of creation was affected—the entire universe. Romans 8:18-22 teaches that all “creation was subjected to futility.” Although we are all familiar with the fact that God made man the ruler of Earth (Genesis 1:28), Scripture suggests that even the heavens are subject to mankind.

“Thy heavens, the work of the Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou has ordained…Thou dost make him [man] to rule over the works of Thy hands, Thou has put all things under his feet” (Psalms 8:3,6).

“And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the Lord your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage” (Deuteronomy 4:19).

Practical experience suggests that nothing in the universe is probably in its more perfect, originally created state. Earth is certainly no longer the paradise described in Genesis. Stars are dying. The moon and planets have been pummeled. It seems that everything in the universe will eventually wear out.

Why would God create such a vast universe if it is only for those on the planet Earth? What purpose does the universe hold? Frankly, God has not revealed all the answers, but he has shared at least some of the reasons:

* LIGHT, TIME-KEEPING AND NAVIGATION. Scripture tells us that God created the Sun, Moon and stars to give light (brightening the utter darkness of the night sky) and to assist mankind (Genesis 1:14-15, etc.). That's right, one of the reasons that God made the Moon, solar system and stars was to provide a way for us to distinguish the passage of time (days, months and years) and predict the coming of seasons. Without these heavenly bodies, the job of keeping time and navigation would have been far more difficult. We learn from history that from the earliest days, ancient peoples used the movement of stars in producing their calendars and finding their way across great distances, just as God designed from the beginning. It may be that even some migrating birds make use of the constellations.
*

GLORIFYING THE CREATOR. Another purpose for the myriad of stars is to bring glory to God—focusing man's attention on the Creator's awesome power and greatness. Psalm 19:1 states,

“The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.”

The vastness of the universe is a tremendous expression of God's might and power. God is greater than we could ever imagine, even greater that His spectacular creation, the universe. Psalm 8:1,3,9 states,

“O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth, Who hast displayed Thy splendor above the heavens! …When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, The moon and the stars, which Thou has ordained; …O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth!”

When we consider the vastness of the universe, let us meditate upon the glory of God, not on dreaming up fantasies of alien beings.

The Bible does not teach that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our universe. Although our all-powerful God could have created such life had He desired, it seems rather obvious from Scripture that He did not. The timetable for this present universe is measured by God's dealings with us. It appears that God has created the human race, on the planet called Earth, as the sole beneficiary of His fellowship. This fellowship is of such a unique design that we are told that God's only true extra-terrestrial creations—angels—are eager to observe it in action. It is our privilege to be the center of attention in our vast and wonder-filled universe.

Author: Mark Van Bebber of Eden Communications
Read More...

Does ET really exist? A study of the alleged “Martian” meteorite

On August 7th, 1996, NASA (America's National Space and Aeronautics Administration) made a surprise announcement that was quickly reported throughout the world. Almost every news service, national and local news program, newspaper, and talk show soon discussed this "discovery of the century." Scientists throughout the world have been accepting hasty media interviews on the subject and excitedly saying some very foolish things—without actually having read the research papers. Some would have us believe that man evolved from these “seeds” blown from a distant planet. Others boldly say we now know that the whole universe is populated with living creatures of every description.

Has the existence of extraterrestrial life finally been proven?



Certainly not, here are the facts.
Discovering life on another planet is the “Holy Grail” of many modern scientists. Annually, millions of dollars are spent on the search. Year after year, absolutely no evidence has been found. Now that this unusual meteorite has been examined, these scientists have a tiny shred of evidence of a tiny bacteria—but the slimmest, weakest, most insubstantial of evidences. One wonders if the purpose of this announcement was more than anything else, another attempt by NASA to reap more taxpayer money. NASA has been doing a lot of public relations publicity recently—on the airwaves, the Internet, and in Congress—trying to justify their huge budget for extraterrestrial exploration and ignite the public's imagination and support.

[To read our answer on the biblical position on the
possibility of extraterrestrial life, click here.]
What was actually found?

Since 1969, when the first meteorite was picked up in frozen Antarctica, researchers have annually returned to collect more specimens. One of these rocks, found in 1984, was recently examined in painstaking detail using one of the world's finest electron microscopes and the world's most sensitive mass spectrometer. This igneous rock weighs about 4.5-pounds and is about the size of a potato. The researchers involved claim that this meteorite landed in Antarctica 13,000 years ago, leaving us with evidence of bacteria dead for some 4.5 million years. [All of the age estimates in this story are based on questionable Evolutionary theories. We highly doubt their accuracy.]

Although many people following this story have made the leap from single-celled bacteria to intelligent life forms, please note that no living animals, plants or people were discovered. Nor were some tiny petrified single-celled creatures discovered displaying to the microscope their cell structure. What has been found are elements and chemicals common on Earth. The scientists' case relies heavily on chemistry and is rather complex. The supposition is that these materials could have been left behind by the decay and/or burning of tiny bacteria that once lived in water in the fractures and pores of the rock. In reality, every chemical found in this rock could have been created by natural processes that don't involve life. Some could also conceivably have been produced by Earth organisms.

Summary of evidence
A MARTIAN ROCK? Found in an Antarctic ice field, the research team involved is confident that the meteorite in question (Identification #ALH84001) is an igneous rock from the crust of Mars. Why? The supposed 4.5 billion year old gases trapped inside the rock's tiny pores reportedly match today's atmosphere on Mars extremely well—as measured by the Viking Lander (argon-36, argon-40, xenon, krypton, neon, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc.).

Is this Martian identification a sure thing? No, there are certainly indications that the identification is correct, but it is not a certainty. To be ejected from Mars gravity, the rock would have to have reached a speed more than five times the muzzle velocity of a hunting rifle. Some very large objects have obviously hit Mars, so this is not impossible. The sun's gravity would draw an object like this in our direction. At any rate, the amounts of gas involved are small, and various assumptions have been made in guessing this volcanic rock's history. Mars may well have been the original source of this rock, but some would like to see more definitive proof. If the rock was blown off Mars, the fractures (in which these bacteria supposedly grew and formed) seem more likely to have been produced by the impact that shot the rock off the planet.

HOW OLD?!? These scientists are claiming that this volcanic rock crystallized from molten lava 4.5 billion years ago. Not long after, it is supposed to somehow have become infested with bacteria. Then the rock got blasted off the planet by a huge comet or asteroid impact with enough force to escape Mars gravity. Next, it floated in space for 16 million years (based on cosmic ray exposure data), and then landed on Earth 13,000 years ago.

THE EVIDENCE INSIDE THE METEORITE. According to NASA's David S. McKay, it is only the fact that the following four items were found together in one location that suggests life was once present in the rock.
*

CARBONATE GLOBULES. These are extremely tiny, generally disc-shaped globules of orange-colored carbonate [see picture on right] (virtually identical to the main ingredient in your antacid tablets—calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate). The largest of these globules is less than 1/100 the diameter of a human hair. Most are 1/1000 that size. They were found along fresh fractures and in pore spaces in the rock. The globules were possibly formed at high temperatures - some 700o C. The scientists' eye of faith can see sausage-shaped microfossils on and within these globules—shapes that somewhat resemble certain supposed “fossils” of microorganisms on Earth. The supposed “fossils” in the meteorite are only 100 millionths of a millimeter in length. It may be important to note that various supposed Precambrian microfossils on Earth have been disproven or brought into serious question. These supposed “nanobacteria” are very tiny things, controversial, and difficult to interpret—even in Earth's rocks. Also, the research team involved was divided on how these globules formed, whether at very high temperature or not. High temperature would make their proposition more unlikely. Proponents hope that the globules can be explained by formation in water under lower temperatures.

Although carbonates are sometimes produced by living creatures, as in our oceans, they can also be formed when a lot of carbon dioxide is dissolved in water causing carbonates to precipitate out. British research, Ian Franchi (Open University) says that spheres of carbonate tend to form on Antarctic rocks after they have been removed from the severe cold. The meteorite research team's rebuttal to this argument is that some of the carbonate spheres are cracked. They say most likely happened when the meteorite struck Earth.

After further research, geophysicists in Hawaii published strong evidence that these carbonate globules are NOT fossils or the result of any biologic processes. Rather they crystalized from shock-melted materials. That is, materials exposed to intense radiation and/or intense heat such as would occur as a meteorite entered Earth's atmosphere. [Edward R.D. Scott, Akira Yamaguchi, and Alexander N. Krot, "Petrological Evidence for Shock Melting of Carbonates in the Martian Meteorite ALH84001," Nature, Vol. 387 (1997), pp. 377-379.]
*

HYDROCARBONS—“abundant” but “relatively simple” polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in these “fresh fracture surfaces” (The rock breaks relatively easily.). These PAHs were in highest concentration around the globules and are thus assumed to be related to them.

NOTE: These hydrocarbons are produced when molecules containing carbon are heated to high temperatures. They are found throughout the Earth—and apparently throughout the universe. By themselves, PAHs are definitely not a reliable indicator of life.
*

MAGNETITE and IRON SULFIDES—fine-grained magnetic iron oxide (magnetite) and iron sulfides "similar in size and structure" to those produced by earth's bacteria. These were found in surface textures and internal structures of selected carbonate globules.

NOTE: Magnetite is a magnetic compound of iron and oxygen that can be found in bacteria and many other living creatures and left behind after they die. The vast bulk of magnetite is formed inorganically. Iron sulfide is similar. Life is not required to form either of these compounds. However, magnetite forms in oxygen, while iron sulfide forms where there is no oxygen. Therefore, researchers believe that finding these two elements together suggests an organic source.

The researchers concluded their Science magazine article by saying that "although there are alternative explanations for each of these phenomena taken individually, when they are considered collectively, particularly in view of their spatial association, we conclude that they are evidence for primitive life on earthly Mars."
Did these materials get into the rock through contamination on earth?

The scientists involved say it is unlikely because:

* The frozen meteorite was handled carefully in transport to the lab and examined using contamination procedures.
* The meteorite "appears to be essentially free of terrestrial weathering."
* The meteorite is sterile.
* No PAHs were found on the surface of the rock. The concentration PAHs increased deeper inside. (Consistent with the rock having burned on the surface as it sped through Earth's atmosphere. Possibly inconsistent with its having been contaminated while on Earth.)
* "Some of the carbonate globules were shock-faulted. This shock event occurred on Mars or in space, and thus rules out a terrestrial origin for the globules."
* "The isotopic composition of the carbon and oxygen associated with the carbonate globules also indicates that they are indigenous to the meteorite and were not formed during its 13,000-year residence in the Antarctic environment."
* Measurements obtained from the carbonate are interpreted as consistent with having been formed in the high CO2 atmosphere of Mars.

CONCLUSION

Are these materials clear indicators of prior life in this rock? Definitely not. Finding all four items together was merely suggestive of life, not a proof. As the researchers involved admitted, the presence of these materials (even altogether) could be explained by natural, inorganic processes. The research team also agreed that some of the material could have been deposited in the rock on Earth by living things or natural processes. Although Antarctica is harsh, there is life. Scientists never cease to be amazed at its tenacity and ability to surive incredibly harsh conditions. The research team claimed that these explanations were unlikely based on their inability to come up with a fully viable explanation for all of the evidence—based on what they believed to be true about Antarctica and its past.

The director of the Institute of Meteoritics (University of New Mexico), Jim Papike (a geochemist), revealed that the rock failed a key test for biological activity. When pyrite is subjected to bacteria the ratio of its sulfur istopes (32 and 34) change. "We wanted to know if these pyrites in Martian rocks would show this fingerprint of life that would be indicated by a specific type of ratio," says Papike. "When we looked at the ratio, there was no evidence that it was in a ratio for life forms." [For details, see Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, a scientific journal]

In the final analysis, extraterrestrial life researchers need to find something a lot more definitive than these materials in a rock to prove the existence of life on Mars. They need to find something like DNA or cells or tracks—something that can only come from living things—and they must link the find much more firmly to its source of origin. There is still no proof that any life ever existed on Mars or any other planet. In fact, all of the planets (except Earth) are highly inhospitable to life with vastly different atmospheres, concentrated poison gases, horrendous temperatures, deathly gravities, and the like.

Not unexpectedly, NASA has busily been spending millions (perhaps billions) of dollars to send a series of space craft to Mars. In one masterful stroke, they put Mars exploration on the front burner. Sometime after 1997, they intend to land the Mars Pathfinder on the Martian landscape to search for clearer evidences of past life. Of course, the robotic vehicle will not be capable of actually seeing nanobacteria or tiny fossils. The much-touted mission will merely try to determine if there are Martian rocks that could conceivably contain fossils. Previous missions have found nothing but absolute sterility. It is not until well after 2000 that a mission may be able to return rocks to Earth.

To our knowledge, the only life in the universe was created on this beautiful and abundantly provided for planet we call Earth.



Author: Paul S. Taylor of Eden Communications
Read More...

Are we alone, or is there life elsewhere in the universe?

For decades, speculation about extraterrestrial life[1] has been boosted by tales of flying saucers and encounters with aliens. In 1996, this was fueled from another source. NASA researchers claimed to have found evidence for simple life forms in a meteorite, allegedly from Mars, found in Antarctica.
Since then, this “proof” of life in the “Mars rock” has very much lost lost favor among the scientific community.[2] The supposed “nanofossils” were probably no more than magnetite whiskers plus artifacts of the experimental process.[3]

Despite this, the 2 kg rock ignited a new surge of “Mars fever.” In the next 20 years, the Americans, Europeans, Japanese, and Russians plan around 20 projects to explore our neighboring planet, which is about 34,580,000 miles (55,651,000 kilometers) away at its closest approach to Earth in 2729 (farthest distance is about 250 million miles or 401,300,000 kilometers).

Meanwhile, belief in extraterrestrial intelligence continues to grow with an almost religious fervor.
The UFO Wave

Harvard University psychiatry professor Dr. John E. Mack recently attracted worldwide attention with his collection of cases of people claiming they were “abducted by aliens.”

There was also the release of a film of an alleged autopsy on an alien from a crash in New Mexico close to the U.S. Air Force Base at Roswell. The blurry footage, which most have dismissed as an obvious and crude forgery, was nevertheless the main attraction at the 1995 UFO World Congress in Dusseldorf, Germany.

Then, of course, there was the “alien invasion” film “Independence Day,” which grossed more in its opening week than any other previous film.

A recent poll in Germany revealed that 17 percent of the population believe in visits by alien craft, while 31 percent believe there is intelligent life in other galaxies.

What should Christians think about UFO accounts?
Science

1.

Never a single contact with an “extraterrestrial”

In 1900, the French Academy of Science offered a prize of 100,000 francs for the first person to make contact with an alien civilization—so long as the alien was not from Mars, because the academy was convinced that Martian civilization was an established fact!

Since then, not a trace of “little green men,” or indeed any life, has been found on any of the planets that our probes have explored, including Mars.

Despite this, a great number of astronomers think that, since life supposedly evolved here on earth, it must have evolved near one of the many stars out there. Around the world SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) researchers have scanned the sky, looking in vain for signals from intelligent beings. Despite all the listening, on thousands of frequencies over many years, nothing indicating intelligent life has ever been heard.
2.

Conditions must be “just right”

Life on any planet can only survive provided a great number of very stringent requirements are met. For example, the planet must be at the right distance from its sun, so as to be neither too hot nor too cold. In particular, it must be in a very narrow temperature range so that liquid water exists.

Even if planets around other stars are confirmed, it is extremely improbable that any of them would fulfill all the requirements needed for life. Just having liquid water is completely insufficient, despite the excitement created when such was possibly detected on the surface of Jupiter's moon, Europa. (The fluid is now thought to be sulfuric acid.)
3.

Life cannot form spontaneously anyway

Without intelligent, creative input, lifeless chemicals cannot form themselves into living things.[4] This is the theory of spontaneous generation, disproved by the great creationist founder of microbiology, Louis Pasteur. Without unfounded evolutionary speculation, UFOlogy would not have its present grip on the public imagination.
4.

Vast distances

Even if we assumed life existed somewhere else in the universe, a visit by extraterrestrials to earth, such as is claimed in UFO reports, seems completely impracticable, if not impossible. The distances (and therefore the likely travel times) are unimaginably vast.

The closest star to the earth, Proxima Centauri (a-Centauri C) is 40.7 million million kilometers (approximately 25 million million miles) away. The Apollo flights took three days to get to the moon. At the same speed, one would need 870,000 years to get to the nearest star. Of course, one could accelerate (particularly unmanned) probes to a greater speed.

At the incredible speed of one-tenth the speed of light, the trip, one way would still take 43 years. However, one would need enormous amounts of energy for such an acceleration, roughly equivalent to the electricity consumption of the entire world's population for one month.

Furthermore, in every cubic kilometer of space, there are an estimated 100,000 dust particles (made up of silicates and ice) weighing only a tenth of a gram. At such a velocity, colliding with even one of these tiny objects could destroy a spaceship.[5]

So what about UFOs?

How then, should one understand the UFO phenomena and all the associate hype? In the German magazine Focus, it was recently stated “90% of UFO reports turn out to be a humbug, but there is a residual 10% which are not easy to dismiss.”[6]

The article quoted sociologist Gerald Eberlain as saying:

Research has shown that people who are not affiliated with any church, but who claim they are religious, are particularly susceptible to the possible existence of extraterrestrials. For them, UFOlogy is a substitute religion.[7]

The Bible gives a description of reality concerning all living things. The living God reveals himself as the Triune One—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In heaven, there are the angels, powerful created beings who also serve mankind on earth.

There is another kingdom—that of the devil and the demons.[8] Ephesians 2:2 talks about the “prince of the power of the air,” whose reign is on earth.

The devil has his own repertoire of deception in the form of various occult practices and a multitude of religious rites. It could be that behind those unexplainable UFO reports there is the work of the arch-deceiver.[9] UFO reports, by definition, remain nebulous and not identifiable. People who do not know Christ are easily fascinated by all sorts of phenomena that are difficult to explain. For Christians there is Jesus' warning in Matthew 24:4 to “Take heed that no man deceive you.” What is the best antidote to deception? Paul exhorts us, in 2 Timothy 2:15, “study” the Scripture, so we might “accurately handle the word of truth.”
Secret Bases?… Government Cover-ups?

Many UFO enthusiasts spread the “urban myth” of secret U.S. government experiments on aliens, etc.—an idea reinforced by the movie Independence Day. However, does a cover-up make sense when, under the inspiration of atheists like the late Carl Sagan, the U.S. government has spent millions of taxpayers' dollars listening “out there” for signs of intelligent extraterrestrial life? Many other evolutionary humanists, like Sagan, passionately believe that intelligent life has evolved “out there” in addition to earth, and would pounce on any hard evidence for this idea. Consider the media frenzy about the “life in Mars rock” fiasco. To imagine that a much more exciting discovery would be kept secret for decades defies credibility.
Feasibility of Inter-stellar Travel

The following calculations are given for the benefit of the more technically minded.

1. For a spacecraft to acquire a speed of c/10, the kinetic energy needed is given accurately enough by the non-relativistic formula of mv2. For a very small unmanned spacecraft of 10 kg, this is x 10 kg x (3 x 107 m/s)2 = 4.5 x 1015 J, or approximately the whole world's electricity production for a month.

For a manned spacecraft weighing several tons, the energy requirements would greatly exceed the world's annual electricity consumption. For the city-sized spacecraft in Independence Day, the energy requirements would be staggering. And when the spacecraft slowed again, it would use up to almost this amount of energy in braking.

If the spacecraft had to accelerate to c/10, slow down, and speed up many times, the energy needed would be many times greater.

It would probably be impossible for enough fuel to be carried without some sort of antimatter drive. If perfect annihilation—complete conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2)—where possible, 1 ton of antimatter could annihilate 1 ton of ordinary matter to produce: 2000 kg x (3 x 108 m/s)2, or 1.8 x 1020 J. And this is the absolute maximum amount of energy that could be produced from a given mass of fuel. A real spacecraft could be nowhere near this efficient.
2.

The kinetic energy of a speck of dust with a mass of just 0.1 gram impacting at a tenth the speed of light, calculated from the spacecraft's reference frame, is mv2, or…

x 10-4 kg x (3 x 107 m/s)2 = 4.5 x 1010 J.

The combustion energy of TNT is 4,520 kJ/kg, or 4.52 x 109 J/ton. So 4.5 x 1010 J is equivalent to 9.95 tons of TNT. Therefore, the impact energy of a 0.1 g object hitting a spacecraft traveling at c/10 would be equivalent to an explosion of about 10 tons of TNT.


References and Notes
1.Much of this page is based on an article by Dr. Werner Gitt published in Creation, 1997, 19(4):46-48.
2.J.D. Sarfati, “Life on Mars?” Creation, 1996, 19(1):18-20.
J.D. Sarfati, “Life from Mars?” CEN Technical Journal, 1996, 10(3):293-296.
Bob Holmes, “Death Knell for Martian Life,” New Scientist, 1996, 152(2061/2):4.
3.See Anon., “Another Blow to Mars 'Life' Claim,” Creation, 1998, 20(2):8.
4.Some recent creationist critiques of evolutionary origin of life theories are: S.E. Aw, “The Origin of Life: A Critique of Current Scientific Models,” CEN Technical Journal, 1996, 10(3):300-314; J.D. Sarfati, “Self-replicating Enzymes,” CEN Technical Journal, 1997, 11(1):4-6; C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin (New York: Philosophical Library Inc., 1984).
5.This means there is a very small chance of hitting one in each linear kilometer traveled, but over such vast distances, a hit is almost certain.
6.Hallo Erdling, “Ufologie,” Focus, 1995, 45:254.
7.Ibid., p. 252.
8.The devil and his evil angels are fallen created beings. Satan's kingdom will exist only as long as God permits.
9.William Alnor, cult expert and award-winning journalist, has studied UFO phenomenon for many years. His book, UFOs in the New Age (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992) documents his investigations that lead to the conclusion that some UFO phenomena have an occult source.


Author: Prof. Werner Gitt, Creation Ministries International, 19 (4):46-48, September-November 1997 / Supplied by Answers in Genesis
Read More...

What’s wrong with practicing astrology?

Astrology is a pseudo-science based on the view that the stars and planets exert a strong influence on human affairs. It claims that the relative positions of the heavenly bodies at an individual’s birth determine his or her basic makeup, and that changing astral positions can be used to predict the future. However, because the heavens were never intended for these purposes, astrology is a dangerous and wrongful practice. Stars were created for calendar keeping and for declaring God’s glory. To use them otherwise is idolatry, as warned against throughout Scripture (Deut. 4:19; 2 Kings 23:5; Isa. 47:13). Astrology should not even be consulted for amusement. It is connected with the forces of evil and can lead to other occult practices and bondage to sin.

Astrology has three major flaws, each of which cancels any claim to scientific validity.

1.First, astrology fails to succeed when tested against reality. For example, the distribution of the heavens at the moment of birth is supposed to determine one’s astrological sign and thus one’s personality and future. On that basis, twins should have nearly identical lives. However, twins often vary greatly in talent, personality, and the paths of life they choose. Remember Jacob and Esau (Gen. 25:19-34).
2.Second, one’s so-called astrological sign is no longer valid. Because of the precession of the earth’s axis, a person is actually born under a different star sign than is assigned by the outdated horoscopes in use today. Astrology is based on the former positions of stars (as they were 3,000 years ago in Babylonian times). Each year, the error in dating the zodiac signs grows greater.
3.Third, it is impossible for the stars to have an effect on a person, much less on world events. The gravity of stars and planets is the only force that acts through space distances, and its effect if negligible on Earth.

Author: Dr. Donald B. DeYoung - adapted from Astronomy and the Bible: Questions and Answers, 2nd Edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 176 pp.
Read More...

Can we explain the “long days” of Joshua and Hezekiah?

Joshua 10:13-14

In Joshua 10, the Bible tells the story of the day when the sun--and time--stopped. The Israelites were fighting the Amorites in Canaan. During the battle, Joshua prayed for the sun and moon to stop, so he would have extra daylight to finish the task. Scripture records that this prayer was answered: The sun "delayed going down about a full day" (v. 13). The very objects in the sky that the Amorites worshipped fought against them!

Several modern interpretations of the story have been suggested:

* Some say there was no actual miracle, but only the use of poetic language. The Israelites had fought so hard that it just seemed like two days of work in a row!

* Others propose that a cloud shaded the sun, keeping the day cool enough for the fighting to continue all through the afternoon. However, this relief from the heat would have benefited the enemy as much as Israel.
* Similarly, a solar eclipse has been suggested as causing reduced sunlight. But eclipses of the sun last for only a few minutes, not a whole day.

All of these explanations fall far short of the statement that there has never been another day like the one described (Joshua 10:14, cf. Habbakuk 3:11 - “…Sun and moon stood still in the heavens…”).

What really happened on that special day? As with all miracles, it is futile to speculate with scientific theories. The details are unclear, but we know that God could have refracted the light, or slowed the earth's rotation, or stopped the entire universe--all with equal ease!

Time stopped for Joshua, and it ran backwards for Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:9-11).

God used this event as a special sign to show Hezekiah that he would regain his health. The sun's shadow moved backwards by ten steps, probably five to six hours on the sundial. That is, the sun appeared to move eastward instead of westward. The conclusion is again the same, that such a miracle is beyond scientific explanation.

God may have temporarily reversed the earth's rotation, including all its inhabitants, or the miracle in Hezekiah's day could have been local instead of worldwide. The latter view is supported by 2 Chronicles 32:31, which describes envoys who traveled to the land where the miracle occurred.

Joshua and Hezekiah both made lofty requests of the Lord, that the very heavens might be altered. And God answered their prayers. The sun, moon, and stars obey the Creator who placed them in the sky by the power of his word.

Author: Dr. Donald DeYoung, Ph.D. (Physics) as excerpted from Astronomy and the Bible, pgs. 53-54, published by Baker Book House
Supplied by Eden Communications (used with permission)
Read More...

What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church?

What were Galileo Galilei's conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church? It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. Galileo expressed his scientific views supporting Copernicus as well as his biblical views in a 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany which became the basis of his first Church trial and censure. A major work published in 1632 resulted in Galileo's conviction on suspicion of heresy and a lifetime house arrest. The Galileo affair provides important lessons and applications to the Church and to science today.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) believed the universe is finite and spherical with a stationary earth at its center. Enclosing the whole universe is the sphere of the Prime Motion turned by the First Unmoved Mover. Inside that were transparent

spheres containing fixed and unchanging stars, planets, moon and sun.[1] Aristotle was also a renowned philosopher.

Clement and Origen (185-254 A.D.), both of Alexandria, sought to reconcile Greek wisdom (Aristotle's thoughts in philosophy and sciences) with scriptural wisdom. Origen imagined separate literal, moral, and spiritual senses of Bible passages (expanded to five senses in Concordism today).[2]

Van Bebber says, "This allegorical interpretation gave birth to a new brand of Christianity. Augustine (354-430 A.D.), although not as extreme as Clement or Origen, accepted this new approach. Through Augustine the mixing of philosophy, culture, and theology became inter-twined. And, since Catholic theology recognizes the traditions of the Church as equal in authority with written scripture, changing this trend became impossible. Eventually, the roots planted in Augustine took full bloom in Thomas Aquinas" (1224-1274 A.D.).[3]

The Renaissance Period (1300-1600 A.D.), the rebirth of Greek philosophy, reinforced Aristotle's philosophy and science, already embedded in Roman Catholic theology and tradition. The most serious scientific error was acceptance of an earth-centered cosmos. But this error fit well in the man-centered theme of the Renaissance.

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543 A.D.) was a Renaissance man educated in the classics, law, theology, mathematics, metaphysics, languages, and astronomy. Copernicus developed a cosmology with the sun at the center, the earth rotating about a polar axis, and the earth and planets circling the sun, essentially as we know it today.[4]

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642 A.D.) received a broad Renaissance education. Until 1610, when Galileo built his first telescope at age 46, he focused mainly on physics, not astronomy. He soon made discoveries which shook the foundations of the Aristotelian cosmos. He saw mountains, valleys and other features indicating change on the moon. He observed the motion of four of Jupiter's moons, now referred to as the Galilean moons. No longer could scientists say that heavenly bodies revolve exclusively around the earth. He also observed the phases of Venus, the only explanation of which is that Venus moves around the sun and not the earth.

Response to these discoveries ranged from enthusiastic to very hostile. Never fearing a fight, Galileo actively defended his evidence which supported the Copernican cosmos. Hummel states,

"He was a passionate, powerful character who could dominate any room or discussion. His talent and wit won a variety of illustrious friends in university, court and church circles, … At the same time his biting sarcasm against those whose arguments were vulnerable to his scientific discoveries made him some formidable enemies. Galileo thrived on debate… His professional life was spent not only in observing and calculating but also in arguing and convincing. His goal was to promote as well as develop a new scientific world view."[5]

Johnston, a Catholic defending the Church, wrote that Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the throat of Christendom. Johnston claims that Galileo's position and manner had alienated many and left the Church authorities no room to maneuver. While there is some truth in Johnston's assertion, it was a minor factor in the conflict.

The primary problem, as introduced earlier, was that Aristotle's science was going out of style; but the church was still attached to him. It could not make a distinction between Aristotle and Christian teachings; and in that era, there was no distinguishment or separation of science from philosophy. For the Church, if Aristotle was wrong, Christianity was wrong.[6]

Another background factor in Galileo's conflict with the Church was the influence of the Reformation. Because Martin Luther (1483-1546 A.D.) and the Protestant reformation (1517 A.D.) questioned Church authority, the Roman Church lost significant power and influence. It reacted with a list of literature forbidden to Catholics. Included were any writings challenging traditional Scripture interpretation.[7]
Letter to Madame Christina

In 1615 Galileo wrote a letter outlining his views to Madame Christina of Lorraine, the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, "Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science."[8] The tribunal used this letter against him in his first trial in 1616. They directed Galileo to relinquish Copernicanism and to abstain altogether from teaching or defending this opinion and doctrine, and even from discussing it.[9]

Excerpts from the letter to Madame Christina help to reveal Galileo's view of Scripture and that of his predecessors. He writes, "I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth—whenever its true meaning is understood."[10]

He cited Copernicus in the same vein: "He [Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood".[11] He quotes Augustine relating true reason to Scriptural truth.

"And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there'"[12]

The Church had no problem with these solid orthodox views. Galileo was a man of faith as well as science.

Two examples from Galileo's letter help to illustrate his interpretation of Scripture dealing with science. Some say he should have left Scripture alone and just stuck to science, but he was in a “no-win situation” whatever he did, for the Roman Catholic Church's Aristotelian views were being challenged.

Job 9:6 says, "Who moveth the earth from its place…" Galileo cites the Commentary on Job (1584) by Didacus a Stunica which concluded that the mobility of the earth is not contrary to Scripture.[13] Today, creationists would term this passage “observer true.” In Galileo's day, they used the equivalent phrase or expression "speaking according to appearances." That is, for us who live on the earth it does not appear to move under our feet. But Galileo's opponents would not accept this explanation.[14]

A second passage and Galileo's commentary illustrate that he felt Scripture dealing with science should not be interpreted literally. Job 26:7 states, "He stretcheth out the north over the void, and hangeth the earth above nothing." Galileo says, "St. Thomas Aquinas notes that the Bible calls 'void' or 'nothing' that space which we know to be not empty, but filled with air.

Nevertheless the Bible he says, in order to accommodate itself to the beliefs of the common people (who think there is nothing in that space), calls it 'void' or 'nothing'."[15] As a side note, today we know that this verse is literally and scientifically true as written. No accommodation needs to be made for the common or uneducated person. Space is a void except for a thin layer of air surrounding our earth.
A New Book and a Second Trial

In 1632, Galileo completed his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems—Ptolemaic & Copernican. This publication, a twelve year effort, presented all the arguments for and against the two great world systems--the Copernican (sun centered) and the Aristotelian or Ptolemaic (earth centered). Galileo also warned the Church of a trap they were walking into:

"Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of sun and earth you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the earth to stand still and the sun to change position--eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be physically or logically proved that the earth moves and the sun stands still."[16]

The Roman Catholic hierarchy and their Aristotlean-Ptolemaic advisors did not heed this advice. The Roman Curia promptly banned and confiscated Galileo's monumental work; and it became the basis for his second trial, censure, and lifetime house arrest by the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1633. The Roman Catholic Church convicted him of breaking his agreement of 1616 and of teaching the Copernican theory as a truth and not a hypothesis. They suspected him of holding heretical opinions condemned by the Church, which they ordered him to abjure [abandon a false opinion]. Seven of the ten Cardinals presiding signed his condemnation.[17]

The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: "The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith."[18]
Historical Aftermath of the Galileo Affair

As new observations poured in, evidence grew supporting a Copernican view. The Roman Catholic Church leadership looked like fools, opening a wedge between science and religion that has increasingly widened to today.
As Johnston put it, "To the popular mind, the Galileo affair is prima facie evidence that the free pursuit of truth became possible only after science 'Liberated' itself from the theological shackles of the Middle Ages. …the Galileo case is one of the historic bludgeons that are used to beat on the Church—the other two being the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition."[19]
Applications and Lessons Today

Application to Science

Today, Science views Galileo's conflict with Church hierarchy as a great triumph of science over religion. Today Science is king, Nature is the Creator, and God (if He exists) is irrelevant. Galileo would not have viewed it thus, for his faith in the truth of God's Word remained strong. He recognized that God is King and Creator, not Nature.

Misapplication by Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists

Theistic evolutionists and Progressive Creationists often use a “Two Book” concept to reconcile or compromise the Bible with Science. They claim both the “Book of Nature” and the “Book of Scripture” are true or applicable in their own realm. But today, Science is always put first. Thus, religion must bow to scientific findings. The “Book of Scripture” must yield to and accommodate the “Book of Nature”. Theologians must reinterpret or compromise Scripture to accommodate whatever today's Science says is true. When new scientific theories come along, Biblical interpretations must change accordingly.

The Two-Book concept was encouraged by Galileo's view that scientific descriptions in the Bible were not important, for the common man could not understand them. Galileo used the same terminology.
For example, Galileo said, "The Book of Nature is written in (clearly-understood) mathematics."[20] Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[21]

Lessons to Religious Authority

The Roman Curia, the religious authorities, imposed Aristotle's view upon the Bible, allowing Greek philosophy to influence its theology. They steadfastly maintained their traditions and erroneous interpretations of Scripture[22] above increasing scientific observations to the contrary. Galileo's published works remained on the Roman Church's Index of Prohibited Books until 1835. Not until 1981 did the Roman Catholic Church officially forgive Galileo.[23]

Van Bebber aptly states, "The Bible is the only infallible, inspired revelation of God. Motivated by a love for the Creator and His word, the believer must carefully weigh his every thought against the standard of the Bible. Those ideas which oppose sound Biblical teachings must be abandoned.
Had this been achieved during the days of Galileo, a peaceful and reasonable solution would have helped to strip the Catholic Church of traditional, non-Christian philosophies which proved to hinder its effectiveness."[24]
Lesson to All

A final lesson and warning applies to the Church, Science, and the modern Creationist movement today. Beware of holding steadfastly to a particular interpretation of Scripture and/or a scientific model, which may be in error. For instance, there are various scientific challenges to the Young-Earth Creationist position. We should hold many of our scientific views and their corresponding Biblical interpretations loosely. For we will never have all the right answers this side of heaven.

What is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo? [Read]
References

1. Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection (InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp. 27-29. [up]
2. Mark Van Bebber, "What is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo?", Christian Answers Network (www.ChristianAnswers.Net: Christian Answers Network, 1995), and Hummel, pp. 173, 259. [up]
3. Mark Van Bebber, E-mail communication to Tom Henderson, December 19, 1996. [up]
4. Hummel, pp. 43-45. [up]
5. Hummel, p. 82. [up]
6. Keith Bower, “Western Civilization” (class lecture) (College Of Biblical Studies, Fall 1996). [up]
7. Mark Van Bebber, "What is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo?", Christian Answers Network (www.ChristianAnswers.Net: Christian Answers Network, 1995), and Hummel, pp. 173, 259. [up]
8. Stillman Drake, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957), pp. 173-216. [up]
9. George Sim Johnston, The Galileo Affair (P.O. Box 1270, Princeton, New Jersey 08542: Scepter Press). [up]
10. Galileo, in Drake, p. 181. [up]
11. Ibid., pp.179-180. [up]
12. Ibid., p. 186. [up]
13. Ibid., p. 203. [up]
14. Ibid., p. 164. [up]
15. Ibid., p. 201. [up]
16. Galileo, 1632, in Janelle Rohr, editor, Science & Religion--Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven Press, 1988), p. 21. [up]
17. Rikva Feldhav, Galileo and the Church: Political Inquisition or Critical Dialogue? (Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 15-16; “Condemnation of Galileo,” etc. (Institute and Museum of the History of Science of Florence, Italy (IMSS): galileo.imss.firenze.it/museo/a/esenten.html); Robert Hutchins, editor, "Great Books of the Western World," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 28 (1952), p. 126. [up]
18. Janelle Rohr, editor, Science & Religion--Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven Press, 1988), p. 24. [up]
19. George Sim Johnston, The Galileo Affair (P.O. Box 1270, Princeton, New Jersey 08542: Scepter Press). [up]
20. Charles van Doren, A History of Knowledge (Ballentine Books, 1991), p. 200. [up]
21. Drake, p. 186; Rohr, p. 13. [up]
22. Van Bebber (1995). [up]
23. Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God (Promise Publishing, 1989), p. 21. [up]
24. Van Bebber (1995). [up]



Author: Thomas H. Henderson, Christian Answers Network.
Read More...