via: Reasons to Believe by Hugh Ross

When human beings first arrived on the terrestrial scene, more than 8,000 species of mammals and more than 21,000 species of birds existed. Today, the number of extant species of mammals stands at 5,020 and fewer than 11,000 species of birds remain.

Ecologists have long known that birds and mammals face high extinction risks. Much evidence indicates that most, though not all, of the recent mammal and bird annihilations are caused by human activity. By examining what specific human activity resulted in extinction events, ecologists can gain an increased understanding of the natural (nonhuman) environmental processes that lead to extinction and the time scale over which such processes generate extinction events. This kind of research can determine whether or not evolutionary mechanisms are capable of generating new species at a rate adequate to compensate for extinctions. In this manner, competing creation/evolution models can be put to the test.

Three European evolutionary biologists examined geographical variation as a predictor of mammalian extermination risk.¹ They showed that extinctions were highest where large-scale land conversion (development) occurred, especially for high body mass species. In the process of their research, they found evidence for two correlations. First, the greater the degree and size of the land conversion the higher the rate of extinction. Second, the greater the body mass the higher the extinction rate. The biologists also discovered that the smaller the habitat size for a particular species, the higher its risk of imminent extinction. In terms of the immediate ecological situation, the researchers found that large body mass species “are at higher risk only in tropical regions.”² There are three obvious reasons for this result. First, land conversion as a result of human activity occurred decades and centuries ago in Earth’s temperate zones, whereas presently such conversion is most aggressive in the tropics. Second, habitat sizes for mammals tend to be smaller in the tropics than they are in temperate regions. Third, mammals follow Bergmann’s Rule, which states that the number of large-bodied animals and the average weight of those animals increases with higher latitudes.

The three evolutionary biologists concluded that “the interactions we describe between biological traits and anthropogenic threats increase understanding of the processes determining extinction risk.”³ In their paper the three decline to comment on exactly what strictly natural extinction risks are implied or on how these risks challenge evolutionary models.

In biology there is no agreed upon definition of a species. Some definitions are so narrow that the different breeds of dogs and cows would qualify as distinct species. If such extremely narrow definitions are discounted (as is the case for the species numbers quoted above), then it is true that humans have never directly observed the appearance of a new mammalian species. That is, during the human era, 3,000 species of mammals have gone extinct but no new ones have appeared.

While the rates at which strictly natural land conversion occurs are typically slower than the those generated by modern human activities, they are not so slow as to give even the most optimistic evolutionary models opportunities to produce enough new species to counterbalance the animals driven to extinction. For example, ice ages occur every hundred thousand years, super-volcanoes every half million years, and super-wildfires every thousand years. As for the degree of land conversion change, human impact is certainly no greater than the impact produced by strictly natural causes.

Thus, at least for mammals, some kind, or kinds, of supernatural interventions are needed to explain how thousands of different species have been maintained upon Earth for the past sixty-five million years. As for the lack of such maintenance over the past fifty thousand years, Genesis 1 explains that after God created Adam and Eve He rested, that is ceased, from His work of physical creation.

References:

1. . Susanne A. Fritz et al., “Geographical Variation in Predictors of Mammalian Extinction Risk: Big is Bad, But Only in the Tropics,” Ecology Letters 12 (June 2009): 538–49.
2. Fritz et al., 538.
3. Ibid.

Eileen Fisher’s prophetic words always minister to many people. I found more often that her prophetic messages are centered around “the Bride” of Christ. She is speaking words of knowledge and revelation from God’s heart to prepare His Bride…and all He has for us. I hope it encourages you on your journey of Bridal preparation with the Lord.

The following prophetic word was given by Eileen Fisher on August 11, 2009 during her weekly Prophetic School of the Holy Spirit meeting in Colorado Springs, Colorado:

“You are to fix your eyes upon Me like that of a servant on the hand of the one they serve; you are to lock hearts with Me so I can heal and protect your hearts, for these days would bring trouble and fear. I say, give Me your ears so I can put the piercing of My hands on them to where you can hear Me plain and clear. I would say, give Me your feet, so I can press fresh oil on your feet; as I oil your feet, this will allow you to slip into the positions I have created for you.

“Your heart has already made the choice to follow Me, your will has already been given to Me. But I say: Now My will shall be given unto you.

“For I am looking for a Bride who is hungry and thirsty. For I am looking for a Bride who, at all costs, will press in until she herself plants kisses of hope upon My cheek and feels the embrace of My arms around her.

“For I am looking for a Bride who will not look for anyone else but her Beloved. For I am looking for a Bride that is so fixed upon Me, she ignores all else around her. Whether it is ugly or whether it is beauty, she has fixed her eyes and has locked her eyes with My eyes.”

“You Will Be Crowned With My Glory”

“Tonight I look upon you, and I look upon you with favor and approval. I look upon you, those who are thirsty and who have come to drink of My Spirit. I have looked upon you as those who have said, ‘Lord, I want You above all else.’” He replies, “I have found pleasure in your presence.

“Be not quick to quench My Spirit but be quick to flow with Him. For He will take you into places you have only heard about. He will take you places you have only dreamed about. I will burst into your slumber and give you sweet dreams of My presence.

“I will meet you in the marketplaces, and you will find favor, for they will shake their heads “No,” yet their mouths will say, ‘Yes.’ You will find Me in those who are forsaken and abandoned; you will see Me within them pleading for the answers of mercy. You will be the ones I will send with a heart full of mercy.

“My Bride is getting prepared, and you are My Bride. You are going to be filled with My Glory, you will carry My Glory and you will be recognized by My Glory, for you will be crowned with My Glory. When others come and try to put a crown on you, a counterfeit crown, you will cast down that crown, for it would tarnish what is pure and right,” says the Lord your God.

“I Am Taking My People into the Secret Places, and They Will Hear the Secrets of My Heart”

“I am taking My people unto Myself into the secret places of the Most High, and as I hide them in this secret place, they will hear the secrets of My heart. In turn, I will give them revelation knowledge of the secrets of their own heart.

“For tonight I am going to grant unto you graciousness,” says the Lord. “For I am a God of gracefulness, full of grace, full of mercy, full of purity and power; I am pouring grace into your hearts right now.

“Do not let your hearts be troubled; I am filling it (your heart), letting it be burnt by My fire for divine ownership. For I am branding your hearts tonight,” says the Lord. “You will not be given to another, for you have been called by My name. In My name you will live and move. Cry out, and I will show you great and mighty things, for I am not only your Beloved, but I am the Great I Am.”

Eileen Fisher
Eileen Fisher Ministries
Email: Eileen@eileenfisher.org

via: biblicalhebrew.com

Just where is that gate in Jerusalem?

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)

For the last two centuries it has been common teaching in Sunday School that there is a gate in Jerusalem called the eye of the needle through which a camel could not pass unless it stooped and first had all its baggage first removed. After dark, when the main gates were shut, travellers or merchants would have to use this smaller gate, through which the camel could only enter unencumbered and crawling on its knees! Great sermon material, with the parallels of coming to God on our knees without all our baggage. A lovely story and an excellent parable for preaching but unfortunately unfounded! From at least the 15th century, and possibly as early as the 9th but not earlier, this story has been put forth, however, there is no evidence for such a gate, nor record of reprimand of the architect who may have forgotten to make a gate big enough for the camel and rider to pass through unhindered.

Variations on this theme include that of ancient inns having small entrances to thwart thieves, or the story of an old mountain pass known as the “eye of the needle”, so narrow that merchants would have to dismount from their camels and were thus easier prey for brigands lying in wait.

Mangled Greek maybe?

There are some differences in the transmitted Greek. The needle in Matthew and Mark is a rafic. In Luke it is a belone. But both are synonyms for needles used in sewing, but Luke’s is more likely to be used by a surgeon than a seamstress.

Another possible solution comes from the possibility of a Greek misprint. The suggestion is that the Greek word kamilos (‘camel’) should really be kamêlos, meaning ‘cable, rope’, as some late New Testament manuscripts¹ actually have here. Hence it is easier to thread a needle with a rope rather than a strand of cotton than for a rich man to enter the kingdom. A neat but unnecessary solution!

A variation on all of the above is that the needle was a 6 inch carpet needle and the rope was made of camel hair- but this is again clutching at straws or camel hair, and is an unnecessary emendation.

Makes sense in Aramaic

An alternative linguistic explanation is taken from George M Lamsa’s Syriac-Aramaic Peshitta translation² which has the word ‘rope’ in the main text but a footnote on Matthew 19:24 which states that the Aramaic word gamla means rope and camel, possibly because the ropes were made from camel hair. Evidence for this also comes from the 10th century Aramaic lexicographer Mar Bahlul who gives the meaning as a “a large rope used to bind ships”. (cf. http://www.aramaicnt.org/HTML/LUKE/evidences/Camel.html)

Some have even suggested a pun in Aramaic between camel and gnat or louse from the Aramaic kalma ‘vermin, louse’.

Just as the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Andrew³ refers the saying to a literal camel and needle, so we are not meant to reason away the apparent difficulty of getting a camel through a needle’s eye. For the difficulty is not apparent it is real, and not be solved by textual trickery but by taking the ludicrous language at face value.

What we have instead then, I believe, is a beautiful Hebrew hyperbole, as in the tree sticking out of one’s eye whilst one is removing a speck in another’s eye! Indeed, Jewish Talmudic literature uses a similar aphorism about an elephant passing through the eye of a needle as a figure of speech implying the unlikely or impossible:

“They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle.”⁴

This first instance concerned dreams and their interpretation and suggested that men only dream that which is natural or possible, not that which is unlikely ever to have occurred to them.

“… who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle.”⁵

In this case, the illustration concerns a dispute between two rabbis, one of whom suggests that the other is speaking “things which are impossible”.

The camel was the largest animal seen regularly in Israel, whereas in regions where the Babylonian Talmud was written, the elephant was the biggest animal. Thus the aphorism is culturally translated from a camel to an elephant in regions outside of Israel.

The aim is not, then, to explain away the paradox and make the needle a huge carpet needle for, elsewhere, the Jewish writings use the “eye of the needle” as a picture of a very small place, “A needle’s eye is not too narrow for two friends, but the world is not wide enough for two enemies.”⁶ . The ludicrous contrast between the small size of the needle’s eye and the largest indigenous animal is to be preserved for its very improbability.

Jesus’ hearers believed that wealth and prosperity were a sign of God’s blessing (cf. Leviticus and Deuteronomy). So their incredulity is more along the lines that, “if the rich, who must be seen as righteous by God by dint of their evident blessing, can’t be saved, who can be?”. Later Christians have turned this around to portray wealth as a hindrance to salvation, which it can be – but no more so than many other things, when the message is that salvation is impossible for all men for it comes from God alone.

But beyond impossibility is possibility with God for, elsewhere, a Jewish midrash records:

“The Holy One said, open for me a door as big as a needle’s eye and I will open for you a door through which may enter tents and [camels?]“⁷

In other words God only needs the sinner to open up just a crack for him and God will come pouring in and set up room for an oasis. God only needs a ‘foot in the door’, so to speak.

This is similar to the Talmudic use of two Hebrew letters, one which represents God holiness (‘Q’ Qoph, as in qadôsh ‘holy’) and another representing evil (‘R’ Resh, as in ra’ ‘evil’), in a story told for the purpose of teaching the Hebrew alphabet and Jewish morals. It is said that ‘q’ has a separated opening in order that should ‘r’ repent he may enter into God’s holiness through the small opening.

A brief survey of sermons or search on the Internet reveals how many perpetuate the myth of the small gate in Jerusalem. Victorian travellers to the Holy Land even claim to have been shown it. The inaccuracy may appear harmless but it is neither good scholarship nor good exposition. The exaggerated and contrasted size is deliberate and is not an overt judgement on riches or poverty. Jesus reflects on how hard it often is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. The riches are a distraction and hard to share if one is too attached to them. The disciples’ incredulity is that if even the rich cannot be saved, who can? But the verdict is that even the rich, not only the rich, will find it impossible to save themselves – but with God all things are possible.

Notes

1. Mainly 11th century or later, and in one 9th/10th century manuscript, however all early manuscripts and quotations in the church fathers from the 3rd through to the 8th centuries have ‘camel’ not ‘rope’.

The New Testament according to the Eastern Text, George M Lamsa, 1940, p.xxiv and note on Matthew 19:24.

“13 There was a rich man named Onesiphorus who said: If I believe, shall I be able to do wonders? Andrew said: Yes, if you forsake your wife and all your possessions. He was angry and put his garment about Andrew’s neck and began to beat him, saying: You are a wizard, why should I do so? 14 Peter saw it and told him to leave off. He said: I see you are wiser than he. What do you say? Peter said: I tell you this: it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Onesiphorus was yet more angry and took his garment off Andrew’s neck and cast it on Peter’s and haled him along, saying: You are worse than the other. If you show me this sign, I and the whole city will believe but if not you shall be punished. 15 Peter was troubled and stood and prayed: Lord, help us at this hour, for thou hast entrapped us by thy words. 16 The Saviour appeared in the form of a boy of twelve years, wearing a linen garment ’smooth within and without’, and said; Fear not: let the needle and the camel be brought. There was a huckster in the town who had been converted by Philip; and he heard of it, and looked for a needle with a large eye, but Peter said: Nothing is impossible with God rather bring a needle with a small eye. 17 When it was brought, Peter saw a camel coming and stuck the needle in the ground and cried: In the name of Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate I command thee, camel, to go through the eye of the needle. The eye opened like a gate and the camel passed through; and yet again, at Peter’s bidding. 18 Onesiphorus said: You are a great sorcerer: but I shall not believe unless I may send for a needle and a camel. And he said secretly to a servant: Bring a camel and a needle, and find a defiled woman and some swine’s flesh and bring them too. And Peter heard it in the spirit and said: O slow to believe, bring your camel and woman and needle and flesh. 19 When they were brought Peter stuck the needle in the ground, with the flesh, the woman was on the camel. He commanded it as before, and the camel went through, and back again. 20 Onesiphorus cried out, convinced and said: Listen. I have lands and vineyards and 27 litrae of gold and 50 of silver, and many slaves: I will give my goods to the poor and free my slaves if I may do a wonders like you. Peter said: If you believe, you shall. 21 Yet he was afraid he might not be able, because he was not baptized, but a voice came: Let him do what he will. So Onesiphorus stood before the needle and camel and commanded it to go through and it went as far as the neck and stopped. And he asked why. ‘Because you are not yet baptized.’ He was content, and the apostles went to his house, and 1,000 souls were baptized that night.” (Acts of Peter and Andrew vv.14-21, The Apocryphal New Testament, M R James, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924, p459).

Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth, 55b

Babylonian Talmud, Baba Mezi’a, 38b

Source not traced but cf. Midrash Rabbah, Genesis 1.3

Midrash Rabbah, The Song of Songs, 5.3; cf. Pesiqta R., 15, ed. Friedmann, p.70a; Soncino Zohar, Vayikra 3, p95a

In the time that it takes you to watch this video 2 Christians will have been killed for their belief in Jesus. Please pray for our brothers and sisters enduring tribulation around the world. Words can neither describe nor do justice to these images. May God and Christ be glorfied in their sacrifice.

“Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated. The world was not worthy of them.”
Hebrews 11:36-38

via: Reasons to Believe Posted by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D.

Are Scientific Miscues Valid Challenges to Biological Evolution?

The recent discovery of a four-winged dinosaur has received a lot of media attention. Evolutionary biologists claim that this specimen resolves the temporal paradox and provides compelling evidence that birds evolved from theropods.

(I’m not convinced that this is the case. Go here to listen to a Science News Flash podcast that addresses this fossil discovery and the claims associated with it.)

One interesting aspect about this find: it wasn’t unearthed by paleontologists. Rather a farmer from the Liaoning province of China discovered the specimen and turned it over to the scientists for characterization. The farmer also pointed out to them where thought he found the fossil.

This situation represents a potential problem. The age of the fossil is critical if it is to provide data relevant to the temporal paradox, but determining the age depends on knowing from where in the geological layer the fossil was recovered. Scientists need to document the specimen’s province carefully. But if accurate information about the recovery site isn’t known with a high degree of certainty, then it’s impossible to date the specimen with a high measure of confidence.

The discovery of a key feathered dinosaur fossil by a Chinese farmer reminds me of a similar discovery made about eight years ago. This fossil, named Archeoraptor, was also discovered by a farmer and interpreted by scientists as a key transitional intermediate documenting the change from dinosaurs to birds. Unfortunately, it turns out that this fossil was fabricated for monetary gain by the farmer who “recovered” it. When recognized by the scientific community, this fraudulent behavior resulted in a retraction by the National Geographic Society. In response, Christian apologists asserted that evolutionary biologists and the evidence for biological evolution are not trustworthy because these scientists make things up to support the naturalistic paradigm.

I am uncomfortable with this approach to Christian apologetics. My discomfort led to an editorial piece published in our now discontinued magazine, Facts for Faith. This week I’d like to reprise that article.

What seemed almost too good to be true for proponents of the dinosaur-bird model for avian origins turned out to be just that— too good to be true. Shortly after describing the Archaeoraptor fossil in National Geographic, the National Geographic Society retracted the discovery. National Geographic reported that Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was not an authentic fossil, but rather a composite pieced together from separate bird and theropod fossils.

Along with the retraction, came the colorful account of how the Archaeoraptor debacle unfurled. Stephen Czerkas, the owner of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, purchased Archaeoraptor liaoningensis at a Fossil and Gem Show in Tucson, Arizona for $80,000. Archaeoraptor was imported into the United States from China. Recognizing its potential value, Czerkas made a deal with the National Geographic Society to publicize and help characterize the fossil. After this, the Archaeoraptor specimen was to be returned to China.

The team of paleontologists that examined the fossil, initially, had some concern that it may not be authentic, but these notes of caution were ignored and the team characterized the fossil and submitted papers to both Science and Nature.

Both Science and Nature rejected the submitted manuscript. It is not fully clear all the reasons why the manuscript was rejected, but, in part, it was due to concerns by reviewers that the fossil was possibly contraband and non-authentic. Without peer review, National Geographic went ahead and published the Archaeoraptor liaoningensis find. Still, at the time the November issue went to press, the National Geographic Society had assurances from the author team that a scientific paper on Archaeoraptor would be published.

What motivated the National Geographic Society to do this? No doubt it was the allure of the acclaim that would come to the National Geographic Society being the first to describe an important fossil that would have played a central role in supporting the dinosaur-bird evolutionary model. In retrospect, the National Geographic Society acknowledged that their marketing efforts got ahead of scientific process.

Shortly after publication, Xu Xing, a paleontologist at Beijing’s Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleonanthropology and a member of the team that characterized Archaeoraptor returned to China. After examining several fossils that came from the same site as Archaeoraptor first hand, Xu Xing became concerned that Archaeoraptor was a composite of a bird and a theropod. Upon learning this, the National Geographic Society and the team that characterized Archaeoraptor retracted their claims about the fossil. In retrospect, it is believed that a peasant in the Liaoning province of China, pieced together the fossils and sold them to a dealer who imported it into the United States. The dealer never intended for the fossil to be made available for scientific research, but rather was interested in selling it to a private collector.

What has been the response of the Christian community, to the Archaeoraptor debacle? By and large, it has been to use Archaeoraptor as an apologetic argument against Darwinism.

I find this to be unnecessary. The case for the dinosaur-bird evolutionary link does not rise or fall on the status of Archaeoraptor. In fact, apart from Archaeoraptor, a potent case can be made against the dinosaur-bird link using well-established scientific facts.

What has been most disturbing to me, is the way that many Christian apologists have used the Archaeoraptor debacle to intimate that evolutionists are either grossly incompetent or are involved in a vast conspiracy designed to perpetuate evolutionism on the unsuspecting public. Evolutionists are portrayed as idiots or as individuals who will go to any lengths, including fraudulent and contraband activity, to promote the Darwinian paradigm. To these apologists and many Christians, Archaeoraptor is just one of many examples of the evolutionary conspiracy. Also included in the list are the Nebraska Man, the Piltdown Man, the Peppered Moths—the list goes on and on.

Christians often times seem so very willing to view evolutionists as dishonest, immoral, and even evil individuals. This is simply not the case. Just because someone is committed to naturalism and evolutionism doesn’t make them “bad”. In fact, many of the scientists I have had the pleasure of knowing, learning from, and working with throughout my career have been committed to the evolutionary paradigm, yet at the same time have displayed the highest degree of professional and personal integrity. Most scientists I know regardless of their religious views possess sound moral character and a commitment to their family and the community that they live in and serve.

Personal and professional integrity are at the heart of science. While numerous high profile cases of fraud in science can be pointed to, scholarly integrity is the matter of course in the scientific enterprise. For most scientists, their professional integrity is the one thing they value above all else. If a scientist is not viewed by his or her peers as someone of integrity, then he or she cannot function as a scientist. No one will have confidence in anything he or she reports. Scientists can be wrong, as long as they are wrong in the right sort of way.

As for the Archaeoraptor debacle, there is much we can point to in the way of honorable behavior:

• Science and Nature refused to publish the manuscript from the National Geographic team, in part, because of their concern that Archaeoraptor may have been contraband and should be returned to China as part of the country’s national treasure.
• The team of paleontologists that first reported on Archaeoraptor was the first to disclose the possibility that this fossil was not authentic.
• The National Geographic Society funded the CAT scan study that unequivocally demonstrated Archaeoraptor liaoningensis as a composite.
• The National Geographic Society retracted their report and acknowledged their mistake.

The National Geographic Society was guilty of misplaced trust, poor scientific judgment, and failure to adhere to the peer review process. The National Geographic Society took its “lumps” for this and deservedly so. However, there was never any intent on their part to deceive anyone. They should not be condemned for attempting to do so.

How then should we have responded as Christians to the Archaeoraptor fiasco?

We should have reacted in such a way that would have built bridges with evolutionary biologists and those they influence, while at the same time conveying the overwhelming scientific support for the creation paradigm.

We should have readily acknowledged and even complimented the scientists involved in the Archaeoraptor debacle for their honorable behavior in admitting their mistake, poor judgment and rash actions. We should have even extended compassion to these scientists. It is difficult to admit an error, particularly one that involves poor judgment. To put it in Christian terms, the National Geographic Society and those involved in the Archaeoraptor “mess” confessed their “sin” and “repented.” As Christians, we should have been the first in line to offer “forgiveness.” Having done this, we are now in a much better position to be heard when we point out the absence of compelling evidence for the dinosaur-bird link and the evidence for the supernatural creation of birds as described in Genesis 1.

Our goal in apologetics is not to win the creation/evolution debate, but to remove barriers that keep scientists and others from being open to the Christian faith. It is impossible to do this if, in the process of winning the argument, we alienate those who hold an opposing view.

There is a final lesson for us to learn from the Archaeoraptor escapade. The action of the National Geographic Society paleontologists challenges us to display humility in our apologetic efforts. The willingness of the National Geographic Society to acknowledge and correct their mistake challenges us as Christians to display the same humility in our apologetics efforts. There will be times when we overstate our case (and times when we understate our case). When this happens we need to acknowledge this as being the case and correct our mistakes. We can be confident that though individual pieces of evidence may rise and fall, if as Christians we are correct, then the trend line should demonstrate ever-increasing support for God’s existence and the reliability of Scripture.

Our willingness to display scholarly integrity will also serve to build bridges with not only the scientists we desire to reach with the truth of the Christian faith, but also those watching the debate from the sidelines.

via: Reasons to Believe by Jeff Zweerink 

I want to start this entry with a huge apology. In the last week, our tech support staff realized that the emails sent to the address below were not reaching my inbox. The problem is now fixed. I have received all the past emails and am working to respond to each. I address one here.

John from Ann Arbor asks:

How does the concept of multiverse fit with the conclusion that time and space were created in the big bang? Does that time and space apply only to our observable universe?

The answer to that question varies depending on the specific multiverse models. In terms of the most prevalent models (those incorporating inflationary cosmology), the answer requires a bit of background. Most people typically envision this scenario when thinking about big bang cosmology:

1. Space-time created at the start of the big bang.
2. The universe expands, undergoing a period of inflationary expansion in the first fraction of a second. During this inflationary epoch, the universe expands by an enormous factor (25 to 100 orders of magnitude) in a time less than 10^-34 seconds.
3. The universe cools down, eventually emitting the cosmic microwave background radiation, forming stars and galaxies. Almost 14 billion years later, human beings arrive on planet Earth.

In most inflationary big bang models, the scenario differs in these ways:

1. Some pre-existing “space” continually undergoes inflation.
2. Our universe begins when inflation stops in some region of this “space”
3. If viewed from outside our universe, this bubble region where inflation ceased grows larger as time progresses. The boundary between the inflating region outside the bubble and the non-inflating region inside the bubble represents the big bang. Those inside the bubble cannot see out; those outside the bubble cannot see in.
4. The region inside the bubble cools down, eventually emitting the cosmic microwave background radiation, forming stars and galaxies. Almost 14 billion years later, human beings arrive on planet Earth.

In this scenario the big bang no longer represents the creation of space-time. Additionally, it may seem that this multiverse model seriously undermines one of the strongest arguments for God’s existence, namely the Kalam cosmological argument. However, as addressed in a previous TNRTB, theBVG theorem developed by Arvind Borde, Alex Vilenkin, and Alan Guth demonstrates that this pre-existing inflating space must have a beginning.

In a stand-alone big bang universe, the creation of space-time relies on the validity of general relativity at the moment of creation. Yet, that is precisely the moment when scientists expect it to break down. The broader BVG theory applies to any inflationary theory capable of explaining this universe. Thus, this research into an inflationary multiverse makes the cosmological argument more robust (at the expense of making it more nuanced).

John goes on to ask:

In that regard, in a recent Message of the Month, you repeatedly said the universe is “flat”. What does that mean?

Cosmologists use the term “flat,” as opposed to “closed” or “open,” to describe the geometry of the spatial dimensions of the universe. By analogy, a piece of paper is flat whereas a ball (closed geometry) and a saddle (open geometry) are both curved. Since astronomers cannot view the universe from the outside, a more observationally useful definition involves how two parallel laser beams travel through space. The distance between the beams as they travel falls into one of three categories: (1) in a closed geometry the beams move closer together; (2) in an open geometry they move farther apart; (3) in a geometrically flat universe, two parallel beams remain separated by the same distance, never intersecting regardless of how far they travel.

If you would like to see a question about the multiverse addressed in this forum, send it to multiverse@reasons.org.

Images Credit: Aaron Garcia

I always enjoy reading Al Thomas’ words and I know many of our readers do too. Al often shows his sense of humor while giving a great teaching and prophetic word…at the same time. This is a great word about “walking on the water” out to Jesus, as Peter did..and as Al shares, “Peter did not have a life jacket.” It’s a great faith message.

Also remember to lift up Al Thomas and his family in prayer. Al was diagnosed with Esophagus Cancer, but recently had surgery and it went well for him. Info about his health updates are at the bottom of his article.

Peter answered Him and said, “Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee…” And He said, “Come.” And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.—Matthew 14:28-29

Dan Weber, a prophet who recently was promoted to Heaven, related this statement to me before he entered glory: “Peter did not have a life jacket.” Here’s how to make sure you’re not wearing one:

1. Be Willing to Clean the Toilets

By the time Jesus got through training and purging the soul of Peter, he was willing to do anything for Jesus. During that training the “walk on water incident” was early evidence to Jesus that Peter was extremely desperate to please his Master. You can bet if he was willing to put his life on the line, he’d wash toilets and even the city dump if asked. Some need to show up Saturday night when the janitor is scheduled to clean the church and get down on their knees and (not pray) scrub the bathroom floors and clean the toilets. No preaching, no ministering or praying for people, just get “spiritually janitorial.”

Beware of “spiritually loitering” with the wrong intent. Once I was in a church and felt the Lord wanted me to wash the feet of the church staff in front of the congregation. Then the Holy Spirit spoke to me and said, “Wash your own feet first, you need it more than them.” He was saying I had false humility and wanted to show it off. Peter had that when Jesus started to wash the disciples’ feet and he said, “No, Lord.” And, only after Jesus insisted with the threat that Peter could have nothing to do with Him unless he let Jesus go forth (John 13:4-9) did Peter allow Him. I advise every minister to occasionally minister physically (or do something that offends them and isn’t spiritual) in their next church before they lay hands on any person.

2. Concentrate on Your Mission

Rare is it when Jesus tells you one day, when you get older, that you will die a not so pleasant death for Him. Peter had that kind of day (John 21:18-19). Peter didn’t take it well and started to look around the crowd, wondering about John’s future. Jesus must have thought quite highly of Peter to actually give him that kind of personal prophetic information. What would you have done if you knew nothing but persecution and a horrible death at an old age awaited you? Quit? I might have thought about it. “That’s my future?”

After Jesus basically told Peter to mind his own business, Peter resolved in his heart he was in for the long haul, good or bad. Are you? No matter what? You may be willing to do anything for God, but make sure it’s for the right motive.

Example: Once I was on a mission trip with a pastor and his church team. The teaching and ministry went well. But I’d be dishonest if I said I liked the food, the accommodations, the heat and various other things. I know what Jesus said, “Eat what’s before you, don’t complain,” etc, and I have always sought to do what Jesus said. This time however, just as the last day rolled around and we were packed up to go in the early morning, we stopped by the church and the pastor urged us to stay for the rest of the day—still in time for our flight later that day. They all looked at me and, as I beamed on the outside (and was disappointed on the inside), then said, “Of course, we would love to!”

I excused myself, walked outside and confessed to the Lord my stinking, hidden attitude. Then, the Holy Spirit very gently said to me, “Al, you have worked hard and ministered as I have led you so far. You are doing the right thing by staying a little longer, but remember this: Always finish well.”

Those words resonated in my spirit: “Always finish well.” I knew what He meant. Having ministered in thousands of meetings, pouring myself out for one or five meetings, staying until the last person needed prayer, there were times I just wanted to go back to the hotel too quickly and rest…but I stayed. In other words, concentrate on the mission from the moment you arrive to the moment you leave. That last meeting was extremely fruitful and they so appreciated our staying longer. What if we didn’t stay? Some would not have been ministered to. Some would have still been in bondage. Finish the job.

3. Have Nothing to Fall Back On—God is Calling Many to Walk on the Water

In other words, it’s God or nothing. Many already have permission to walk on the water. Walking on the water means that “thing” that Jesus called you to do (whether it was many years ago or just yesterday); it is still valid, it is real and it is not a dream (see Philippians 3:13).

Jesus would have wanted all of the disciples to say, “Lord, if it is You, invite me to come to You on the water.” Once he got the go-ahead, either Peter was going to walk on water or he was going to drown, period. But he had no advance agreement that Jesus was going to grab him. This wasn’t play-acting; this was a real storm, real waves and real danger.

But be of good cheer! Many are getting older now and thinking they have missed it. I don’t think so. And here’s the good news: the majority have been on GPS (God’s Positioning Schedule) and are ready to be called out of the boat…and you will not sink. You will not swim or sink; you will walk to Jesus. Your feet may get a little wet (but they need washing anyway). Put your sailor’s hat on, you crusty old mate, and get ready to hear, “Come.” The Master is calling you to get out of the boat…and put that life jacket down (see 2 Timothy 1:7).

Al Thomas’ Health Update: I have come through my surgery (September 17th); it went well, and I am now home recovering. My progress may be followed on my blog: www.althomas.blogspot.com.

Thanks for all who prayed and are supporting us.

Much love,

Al Thomas
Celebrating His Life Ministries
Email: a.thomas@myactv.net

via: Reason to Believe by Kenneth Richard Samples 

Ever heard the expression “the joke’s on you”?

I once attended a debate between two biblical scholars where one scholar held liberal views of Scripture and Christianity, while the other was an evangelical and quite conservative both biblically and theologically. The liberal scholar came across as personable and humorous; his arguments, however, were less than cogent. In contrast, the evangelical theologian presented stronger arguments, but seemed stiff in his mannerisms and verbal expression. Guess who most people thought won the debate?

Humor and rhetorical skills engage audiences. Good speakers are wise to incorporate both in their public speaking. Yet, Christian thinker Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430) once said that flowery speech is not necessarily the sign of a careful mind. A clever and well-delivered joke can draw people in, but it can also serve as a powerful diversion. In dialogue, humor should not be used as a replacement for cogent reasoning.

Diversionary Humor or Ridicule Fallacy

Inappropriate humor or ridicule takes place often in public debates. Logician T. Edward Damer describes this fallacious form of reasoning in his excellent critical thinking primer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments:

This fallacy consists in injecting humor or ridicule into an argument in an effort to cover up an inability or unwillingness to respond appropriately to an opponent’s criticism or counterargument.

At times, telling jokes or mocking your opponent serves to win an audience’s approval. Yet in reality this tactic is just an attempt to ignore or discredit one’s opponent and the arguments he or she presents. It is an effort at diversion and is logically fallacious because a public speaker has an intellectual responsibility to respond to the content of his opponent’s argument.

Humor and even ridicule (when it is done in fun and good taste) are not always out of bounds in a public debate, but they should never take the place of good reasoning. Logic is all about presenting sound and cogent arguments for one’s positions and beliefs.

If you find yourself the target of diversionary humor or ridicule during a debate, I suggest telling your opponent that you appreciate their sense of humor, but now that the jokes are out of the way, you are still waiting for a serious answer to your argument.

For more about the importance of logic and critical thinking, see my book A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.

For a great handbook in dealing with logical fallacies, see Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments by T. Edward Damer.

Our Unchangeable God

The day was supposed to be bright and sunny and everyone was ready for a day at the beach. Suddenly it clouded over and then the rain came. The weather is unpredictable and changeable and plans change.

You planned to go to lunch with a friend and spend the afternoon together. She called and cancelled the luncheon date. She changed her mind for whatever reason. So many things in life are unpredictable and changeable. People make commitments and then fail to keep them. We want people around us we can depend on – someone who will keep their word. God is that someone! He is unchangeable. “For I am the LORD, I change not;… ” (Malachi 3:6a)

God is faithful and His Word is faithful. God’s Word is for us and to us. We have the right to all that God promises us because we’re His sons and daughters. He has made so much available to us. “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.  Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (I John 3:1-2)

Isn’t it great to know that His love doesn’t change! He has bestowed His love upon us. He gave His only begotten Son to die for us, even when we were unloveable. He did this for us because of His great love for us. “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

Our God is unchangeable. His love for us is constant – something we can count on. Isn’t that great to know? Remember some of the things that are recorded in the Old Testament. Let’s look at a couple specific incidents. Shadrach, Meshack and Abednigo refused to serve the king’s gods or worship the golden image which he had made. As punishment for disobeying the decree they were cast into a burning, fiery furnace. Did they back down? Or did they trust their God to deliver them? Daniel 3:16-17 tells us: “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.”

God was faithful and He did deliver them. In verse 27 it says, “And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king’s counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.” They didn’t even smell of smoke! God hasn’t changed. He’s as ready to deliver us from our challenging situations today as He was to deliver these three believers of Old Testament times. He was and is a faithful God. God’s attributes are manifested in the life of His Son, our lord and savior. His power was always available to Jesus Christ and his disciples. That same power is available to the believer today. It hasn’t changed.

Jesus was concerned about the people who were following after him. He knew they were tired and hungry. He didn’t want to send them away in that condition. He took seven loaves and a few little fishes and blessed them and fed the multitude (four thousand men, besides the women and children). You can read the account in Matthew 15:32-39. Are we concerned about “what shall we eat?” God hasn’t changed and He fed thousands. Why are we so anxious about our needs? God is the same today, to work in us as He did in Jesus Christ.

God’s power and His love are unchangeable. We just have to believe to manifest that power and love in our lives. We can walk out today knowing that the same God who delivered Shadrach, Meshack and Abednigo will also deliver us. God, who fed thousands with a few loaves and fishes will certainly meet our need. “For I am the LORD, I change not.” (Malachi 3:6a)

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

“PRAISE AND POWER” is an independent ministry of Betty Bowen. 2010 Brownstone Lane, Charlottesville, VA 22901. There is no charge for “Praise and Power.” It is supported by your gifts and your prayers. My prayer is that you will be edified as you apply the principles of God’s Word in a practical way in your life. 100609

via: Reasons to Believe by Hugh Ross

Bergmann’s Rule asserts that the body mass of warm-blooded animals increases with latitude. The rule is named after the German biologist, Christian Bergmann, who first developed it in 1847. He reasoned that large-bodied warm-blooded animals, having smaller skin surface area to body mass ratio, would radiate less body heat per unit of mass. Thus, they would more easily keep warm in cold climates, but have difficulty staying cool in warm climates.

While Bergmann’s Rule appears theoretically sound and consistent with an all-caring, all-powerful, all-wise Creator optimally creating life for its specific habitats, it has never been confirmed by comprehensive geographic observations of body-size variations. Now a team of nine British biologists has published detailed global maps of body-size variations for birds.¹

These researchers conclusively “demonstrate a general pattern of larger body sizes at high latitudes.”² They also found a “strong pattern of decreasing body size with increasing species richness”³ and that median body sizes were larger on islands. High species diversity implies greater competition for limited resources, which favors animals with smaller body sizes. This explains the observed decreasing body size with increasing species richness. Likewise, the larger body sizes on islands can be explained by the observation that there is less species diversity on islands.

The objective of the British biologists was simply to test the validity of Bergmann’s Rule for one class of warm-blooded animals through reasonably exhaustive field observations. However, by verifying that the rule was “remarkably accurate” and by uncovering body-size correlations the team also provided evidence for the Creator’s wisdom in optimally designing each life-form to fit its earthly habitat.

References:

1. Valerie A. Olson et al., “Global Biogeography and Ecology of Body Size in Birds,” Ecology Letters 12 (March 2009): 249-59.
2. Valerie A. Olson et al.: 249.
3. Ibid.