God as a Trinity

1. God

1. God is the only Supreme Being in all existence, places, and time. He is Holy (Rev. 4:8), Eternal (Isaiah 57:15), Omnipotent (Jer. 32:17,27), Omnipresent (Psalm 119:7-12), Omniscient (1 John 3:20); etc.
   
2. He is Love (1 John 4:8,16); Light (1 John 1:5); Spirit (John 4:24); Truth (Psalm 117:2); Creator (Isaiah 40:12,22,26), etc.
3. He is to be worshiped (Gen. 24:26; Exodus 4:31; 2 Chron. 29:28; 1 Cor. 14:25; Rev. 7:11).
4. Christianity is monotheistic - Only one God in existence, anywhere, anytime. See Isaiah Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9 for verses that teach monotheism.
5. One God verses

• Isaiah 43:10, "You are My witnesses, declares the Lord, And My servant whom I have chosen, in order that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me."
• Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me."
• Isaiah 44:8, "Do not tremble and do not be afraid; have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
• Isaiah 45:5, "I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God."

2. Trinity

1. The Trinity is one God who exists simultaneously in three persons. Each is coequal, copowerful, and coeternal with the other. Each person, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is not the other. Without either there is no God; all comprise the one God.
2. Analogy of the Trinity: With time, for example, the past is distinct from the present, which is distinct from the future. Each is simultaneous. Yet, they are not three 'times,' but one. That is, they all share the same nature: time
3. Trinitarian Verses

• Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
• 1 Cor. 12:4-6, "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons."
• 2 Cor. 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."

3. Objections to the Trinity answered

• The Word Trinity is not in the Bible

Just because the word trinity is not in the Bible doesn't mean that the concept is not taught. The word monotheism is not in the Bible, yet the Bible teaches it (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8). Therefore, your criticism is invalid.

• The Trinity is illogical

What law of logic is it that the doctrine of the Trinity violates? If you cannot tell me, then your statement is meaningless. Saying it is illogical does not mean it is.

• The Trinity is pagan

1. Saying it is pagan means nothing. The question is whether or not it is biblical. Are there verses that show that the F., S., & H.S. are each God, each indwell, each have a will, each loves, etc.? Yes there are.
2. The F., S., & H.S. are each called God (F., Phil. 1:2), (S., John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), (H.S., Acts 5:3-4). Each has a will (F., Luke 22:42), (S., Luke 22:42), H.S., (1 Cor. 12:11). Each is all knowing (F., 1 John 3:20), (S., John 16:30; 21:17), (H.S., 1 Cor. 2:10-11), etc.
3. Regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each has a will (F., Luke 22:42), (S., Luke 22:42), H.S., (1 Cor. 12:11). Each speaks (F., Matt. 3:17), (S., Luke 5:20., (HS., Acts 8:29; 13:2).

4. The Trinity came from pagan trinities.

• There are no trinities in pagan theology. There are triads (three gods), but no trinities (one God in three persons). Therefore, your statement is inaccurate.

5. The Bible does not say that God is three who's and one what

• That is correct. But the Trinity is a doctrine arrived at systematically (by looking at the whole of scripture), not by looking at a single verse. Therefore, your complaint is misdirected and shows you don't understand the Trinity.

6. Show me one verse in the Bible that says that God is three persons.

• The Trinity doctrine is arrived at systematically (by looking at the whole of scripture), not by looking at a single verse. Therefore, you won't see a single verse that says it. Also, this demonstrates that you don't understand the Trinity, otherwise you would not have asked that question.

Readmore...

"God is not a trinity!" (Oh yes He is.)

trinity, triune God

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and THESE THREE ARE ONE. I John 5:7

It is amazing how much error there is in this world. Yesterday I got an e-mail from a Pentecostal who asked if I was a "Trinitarian". The question prompted me to write this article on the tri-unity (aka the trinity) of God (I prefer the Bible word "Godhead"). This is something I've been meaning to do for a long while. A measure of fear came upon me as I sought to write this treatise because herein I am seeking to describe the very nature of the Most High, magnificent, dread LORD God. Nevertheless, upon careful Bible study, I can write...

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20

I've heard people say that belief in the trinity means that we worship three gods. This simply reflects ignorance of the word of God. Any Christian willing to read their King James Bible with some clear eyeballs will see the truth. The LORD our God is one LORD (Deuteronomy 6:4) but He does exist in three Persons, a trinity.

If there were no other verse of the Bible testifying of the trinity, I John 5:7 would be enough for any Bible-believer to see that God consists of three Persons--the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost [1]. But this article was not written because of Bible believers. It was written to counteract the error of those who say that there is no Godhead consisting of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. A few groups come to my mind as I think of "anti-trinitarians"--

1. Folks like the "Jesus Only" group say that only Jesus is God. They say that the Father and the Holy Ghost are only titles. Later in this treatise, we will show how each person of the Godhead (a Bible word) actually speaks in the scriptures. A "title" cannot speak. The Jesus Only people will only baptize in the name of Jesus directly contradicting Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19,

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

2. A Pentecostal sect (I'm not talking about all Pentecostals) represented at the Isaiah 58 website denies the trinity saying that God created Jesus and then Jesus created everything else (close to JW theology). This is the error of Arianism, i.e., saying that Jesus is a created being.

In one article on their website, The Influence of Trinitarian Doctrine on Translations of the Bible by John David Clark, Sr., there are number of blasphemies...the author says Jesus was sinless NOT because He was God but because He was obedient. Remember that Jesus was born as a baby--how many two year olds do you know that are willingly obedient 100% of the time? I have yet to meet a sinless person and I never will. Jesus was sinless from birth, no one else can accomplish that feat. He was not an ordinary man. He is God come in the flesh. The article also says that the Father can make anybody a god and that is what He did with Jesus (reminiscent of Mormon theology). The author further attempts to destroy the truth of the word of God by saying that Bible translators purposely mistranslated "the Greek" pronouns for the Persons of the Godhead.

People who spread false doctrine can make it sound correct because they wrest with the scriptures to their own destruction. We've got to know our Bibles intimately. The Bible is the only standard of truth. The Isaiah 58 folks wrongly divide a lot of things including what they call "speaking in tongues".

3. Then you have the Jehovah's (false) Witnesses. The JWs are infamous anti-trinitarians who deny that Jesus is God. This cult follows the teachings of heretick Charles Taze Russell.

all of these groups are dead wrong.

How can one God exist in three persons?

The Bible says that God made man in His image--but it also says that God is not a man. How then are we in His image? In many ways, one of which is we ourselves are tri-partite. Look at your own self. YOU exist in three distinct persons yet you remain one man.

1. You have a body/flesh which is the part of you that others can see.

2. You have a mind where you think your thoughts and make your plans.

Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind...

3. You have a spirit where you feel and where your essence lies.

I Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Your body, mind and spirit are separate and distinct. My hand is a part of me, but it is not my intellect, my mind. My thoughts are a part of me, but they are not my spirit. I'll give an example. There have been times where I've seen my mind and my spirit in conflict. I'm hurt. My spirit is wounded. I'm crying and my mind says "Stop crying!" but I can't because my spirit has been wounded. Sometimes our mind and our flesh are in conflict. We know something is wrong but we are so weak and powerless that we let the flesh have its way. Paul talks about how his mind and flesh were in conflict--

Romans ...7:25 So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

You are undoubtedly tripartite (body, mind, spirit) yet you remain one entity. If you and I were in the same room and I looked at you, I would only see your flesh. I could not see what you were thinking or what you were feeling. I could not see who you really are.

We bear the image of God in that we are tripartite. One of the most direct scriptures testifying of the triunity of God is 1 John 5:7:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and THESE THREE ARE ONE.

The Godhead and our salvation.

Let's take a look at the Godhead (a Bible word) and what each Person did in our salvation (for those of us who are saved).

1. God the Father sent the Son.

John 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

2. The Son was the propitiation (payment) for our sins.

I John 4:10, Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

3. The Holy Ghost reproves us, teaches us, guides us and testifies of Jesus Christ.

John 14:26, But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

"But Jesus is subject to the Father! How can He be God?"

1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Jesus is no less God because He is subject to the Father. Even as a human being, my body is subject to my mind. A signal must go from my brain to my hand in order for me to move it. Does that mean that my hand is not a part of me because it has to do what my mind tells it to? Nay. It is still a part of me even though it is in subjection to my mind.

When I meditate...

When I meditate on the triunity of God I liken,
* the Father to the mind (The plan originates and emanates from Him. He sent the Son and told Him what to speak. John 12:49, "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.")
* the Son to the body (Colossians 2:9, ...in him dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead BODILY 2 Corinthians 4:6, "...the light of the knowledge of the glory of God IN THE FACE OF JESUS CHRIST."); and,
* the Holy Ghost to the spirit (John 14:26, 15:26, "...the Holy Ghost...the Spirit of truth.").
The breakdown.

The scriptures call each Person of the Godhead, God. In fact, the word "Godhead" is a Bible word (Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9).
1. The Father is called God--

Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2. Jesus is called God (see this article for more)--

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he [God] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

For in him [Jesus] dwelleth ALL the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:9

3. The Holy Ghost is called God--

Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? ...thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS manifest in the flesh, JUSTIFIED IN THE SPIRIT, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

Each Person of the Godhead SPEAKS AUDIBLY in the Bible--
1. God the Father SAID of Jesus in Matthew 3:17 ..."This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
2. Jesus SAID in John 10:30, " I and my Father are one."
3. The Holy Ghost SAID in Acts 13:2, ..."Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them."

Each Person of the Godhead was operative in the Old Testament--
1. The Father--Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
2. Jesus--1 Corinthians 10:1-4, 9 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: AND THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
3. The Holy Ghost--Hebrews 3:7-11 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved ME, and saw MY WORKS forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

From the very first chapter in the Bible, God makes it known that He consists of more than one Person--

Genesis 1:26-27, And God said, LET US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God [not angels. the "us" can only refer to God.] created he him;

How about Genesis 3:22?

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...

When Isaiah had a vision of the Lord sitting upon a throne, the Lord asked him a question,

Isaiah 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for US? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

In the Old Testament, we find that God has a Son (Proverbs 30:4, Psalm 2:7-12) and a Spirit (Isaiah 40:13, 2 Samuel 23:2, Judges 3:10, etc.). We also find that the LORD said that the LORD would send Him to the earth (Zechariah 2:10,11).

In closing...

The modern Bible perversions take out the word, "Godhead" and they attack the deity of Jesus Christ. One man told me that it was difficult for him to understand the deity of Jesus Christ while he read the NIV. Once he changed over to the King James Bible, it was abundantly clear. This is no surprise to me. Remarkably, the NIV oftentimes agrees with the Jehovah's (false) Witness "Bible" in the verses it deletes. In fact, EVERY complete verse that the NIV deletes is deleted in the New World Translation (the JW version). It also deletes many of the same words and phrases including important portions of our theme verse in I John 5:7. I know this for a fact as I have copies of both contemptible books.

Dear reader, if you are still confused about this issue, you need to pick up your King James Bible and keep reading it and talking to Jesus until you get some satisfaction. There is only one truth and the Lord Jesus will not withhold it from anybody who wants to know it.

[1] Of course, many (if not most) modern Bible versions do not have this complete verse. In this, they agree with the Jehovah's (false) Witness "Bible" called The New World Translation.

Readmore...

CARBON TRADING: THE HYPOCRISY AND THE FOOLISHNESS

Jan/21/09 08:15 Filed in: Environmentalism
January 21, 2009 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org)

Carbon trading and carbon offsetting are similar schemes. Carbon offsetting is done voluntarily by individuals and companies that have bought into the global warming myth, whereas carbon trading is done by companies that are forced to do so by their governments (e.g., the members of the European Union) under treaties such as Kyoto, which sets limits in the production of carbon emissions (the so-called green house gas emissions).

For the purposes of this article and for the sake of simplicity, we will use the term “carbon trading” to refer to both trading and offsetting.

Carbon trading begins by determining one’s “carbon footprint” via various formulas. (For example, a jumbo jet flying round trip from London to Miami is said to release the equivalent of 1420 tons of “green house emissions.”)


To “neutralize” the carbon footprint, “carbon offsets” (priced per metric ton of carbon dioxide emission) are purchased from “carbon brokers” who, after taking their cuts, promise to reduce carbon emissions somewhere in the world. This can be done by such things as planting trees, averting deforestation, cleaning up carbon emitting factories and plants, reduction of methane produced by landfills and agriculture, increasing the efficiency of buildings and transportation, or the building of alternative energy projects such as solar and wind.

Carbon trading is big business. Currently $30 billion a year, it is expected to rise to $72 billion by 2010. The World Bank has a $2 billion “carbon finance portfolio.” The European Climate Exchange (ECE) is the world’s largest marketplace for carbon trading. There is also the Chicago Climate Exchange in America. In the spring of 2009 the San Francisco airport is opening a series of kiosks at which travelers can purchase “certified carbon offsets.” Delta Airlines already sells carbon offsets at its web site.

Carbon trading is a scam; it is hocus pocus; it is a shell game; it is a vast swindle. Even assuming that the global warming theory is based on reality, carbon trading accomplishes pretty much nothing. Wikipedia admits that “... the actual amount of carbon reduction (if any) from an offset project is difficult to measure, largely unregulated, and vulnerable to misrepresentation.” China, for example, is building new monstrously-polluting coal-fired power plants every week. “You could build a particularly dirty power plant, then sell hundreds of millions in carbon credits to reduce it to a normal rate of pollution” (“Limousine Liberal Hypocrisy,” Time, March 16, 2007). And in China the “normal rate of pollution” is still outrageous. Air and water pollution almost derailed the recent Olympic Games in Beijing.

Much of the carbon trading money goes down the same rat hole that swallows up billions of dollars in foreign aid, lining the pockets of corrupt third world citizens. Promises from a business owner in such countries that money will be used to reduce pollution typically amounts to so much hot air.

The London Times described one carbon trading scandal in India. The Indian company, SRF, which produces refrigeration in Rajasthan, is set to rake in a half billion dollars to cut pollution in a chemical plant, even while planning to invest the money to build a new plant producing a gas that is hundreds of times more damaging than carbon dioxide (“Another Day Another Carbon Trading Scandal,” Gristmill, April 22, 2007).

Thomas Heller, a Stanford law professor that helped design parts of the Kyoto agreement, said: “I spent years developing that mechanism. And now it’s completely screwed up because I didn’t realize how it was going to be gamed by people who are willing to work their way around the rules” (“Carbon Trading Is Worthless,” http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/carbontrading.html).

Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank, said he found “serious credibility concerns” in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months (Ibid.)

BBC Radio 4s’ “File on 4” program found that the European Union’s carbon trading scheme has increased electricity bills, given a windfall to power companies, and failed to cut greenhouse gases (“BBC: Carbon Trading a Scam,” June 6, 2007, http://www.ww4report.com/node/4022). In other words, it has only increased the price of energy and enhanced the power of politicians.

A 2007 study by the Financial Times discovered the following:

* Widespread instances of people and organizations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
* Industrial companies profiting from doing very little--or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
* Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
* A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits (“Industry Caught in Carbon Smokescreen,” Financial Times, April 25, 2007).

Consider tree planting, one of the major planks of the carbon trading scheme. George Monbiot writes:

“While they have a pretty good idea of how much carbon our factories and planes and cars are releasing, scientists are much less certain about the amount of carbon tree-planting will absorb. When you drain or clear the soil to plant trees, for example, you are likely to release some carbon, but it is hard to tell how much. Planting trees in one place might stunt trees elsewhere, as they could dry up a river that was feeding a forest downstream. Or by protecting your forest against loggers, you might be driving them into another forest. As global temperatures rise, trees in many places will begin to die back, releasing the carbon they contain. Forest fires could wipe them out completely. The timing is also critical: emissions saved today are far more valuable, in terms of reducing climate change, than emissions saved in 10 years’ time, yet the trees you plant start absorbing carbon long after your factories released it. All this made the figures speculative, but the new findings, with their massive uncertainty range (plants, the researchers say, produce somewhere between 10% and 30% of the planet's methane) make an honest sum impossible. In other words, you cannot reasonably claim to have swapped the carbon stored in oil or coal for carbon absorbed by trees” (Monbiot, “Methane Findings Highlight the Scam of Carbon Trading,” The Guardian, Jan. 22, 2006).

Another study suggested that trees outside the tropics do little to mitigate climate change, because their absorption of sunlight creates a warming effect that balances out their absorption of carbon dioxide (“Carbon Offset,” Wikipedia).

Carbon trading is the equivalent of a Roman Catholic indulgence. It allows wealthy greenies to live as they please while salving their conscience.

Al Gore’s mansion in Tennessee consumes 20 times the electricity used by the average American home, but he absolves himself by purchasing carbon credits (from his own company, Generation Investment Management).

Sergey Brin, founder of Google, buys carbon credits to “offset” the carbon dioxide emissions of the company’s private Boeing 767.

Rock groups Coldplay and Pink Floyd produce “carbon neutral” albums. (A small grove of mango trees in India purchased by Coldplay’s offsets died, thus accomplishing absolutely nothing except to give the rockers a chance to parade their environmental consciousness.)

Hollywood star Leonardo DeCaprio announced in 2007 that the Academy Awards were “carbon neutral.” Attendees were urged to use mass transit, as if DeCaprio and his Hollywood cohorts typically use subways and trains

Readmore...

Why Did God Make Viruses

There are some fundamental differences in how creationists and evolutionists view life. Biblical creationists believe that God created life according to their kinds with the ability to reproduce and fill the earth.1 This view includes the concepts that God had purpose in what He created and that it originally was very good.2

In contrast, evolutionists view life as all descending from a single common ancestor by chance processes. Evolutionary arguments tend to imply that life isn’t really very complex or well designed. For example, 100 years ago a cell was promoted as being nothing more than a blob of protoplasm, implying that it wouldn’t be difficult for it to arise by chance. This proved to be wrong; cells are incredibly complex structures.3 At one time evolutionists argued that organs or structures with no known function actually had no function; at the time this included hundreds of organs and structures in the human body. Instead these were believed to be vestiges of evolution. This argument has become rather vestigial itself, as these organs have been found to have function.4

Yet, this argument reappeared in genetics. Most of the DNA in our bodies does not code for proteins, so it was labeled “junk DNA” by evolutionists that assumed it has no function. As research continues it is becoming clear that this DNA has numerous essential functions.5 The evolutionary worldview has a dismal track record for anticipating the astounding complexity in life uncovered by scientific research.

If God created everything good and with a purpose, why are there disease-causing bacteria and viruses in the world? It is true that we first learned about bacteria and viruses because of the problems they cause. Bacteria have been studied in considerable detail and are now recognized to be mainly helpful and absolutely essential for life on earth; bacteria that cause disease (which occurred as a result of the Fall) are the exceptions, not the rule. But what about viruses: what purpose could they possibly have?

What Is a Virus?

Viruses are a bit of an enigma. They contain DNA or RNA which are found in all living things. This is packaged in a protein coat. Despite this, viruses are not usually considered living because they are not made up of cells and cannot reproduce by themselves. Instead, the virus will inject the DNA or RNA into a living cell, and the cell will make copies of the virus and assemble them so they can spread.6

Viruses vary considerably in their ability to cause disease. Many known viruses are not associated with disease at all. Others cause mild symptoms that may often go undetected. Some, like the HIV virus that causes AIDS in people, appear to have come from another species where they do not cause disease. Given our current knowledge of viruses, it is quite reasonable to believe that disease-causing viruses are descended from viruses that were once not harmful.7 It has been suggested that they have played an important role in maintaining life on earth—somewhat similar to the way bacteria do.8 In fact, they may play a role in solving an intriguing puzzle that faces creationists.

A Creationist Puzzle

The biblical record tells of a global Flood when all created kinds of unclean9 land animals were reduced to a population of two, the pair that was preserved with Noah on the Ark.10 After the Flood, these animals reproduced and filled the earth again.11 Today many of these kinds are represented by whole families. For example, the dog family (Canidae) is believed to represent a created kind.12 However, this is a very diverse group of animals. There are foxes that are adapted to living in the arctic, and others that live in the desert. There is incredible variety seen in modern domestic dog breeds. Where did all this variety come from? And how could it arise so quickly given that the Flood occurred around 4300 years ago?13

The answer to this puzzle is probably quite complex. Some of the variety would have been carried by the pair of animals on the Ark. When parents pass traits on to their offspring, these traits can appear in new combinations in the offspring (Mendelian genetics). Natural selection can weed some existing traits out of a population. However, a close examination reveals that genetic changes have also arisen in this time.14 Many of these changes do not appear accidental and do not directly cause disease. For this reason, some creationists have proposed that God “designed animals to be able to undergo genetic mutations which would enable them to adapt to a wide range of environmental challenges while minimizing risk.”15

Isn’t That Evolution?

It is important to recognize that biologists use several distinct definitions for evolution that are often blurred together as if they are synonymous.16 Evolution is sometimes defined as “change in the genetic makeup (or gene frequency) of a population over time.” This has been observed; both creationists and evolutionists recognize this as important in building models to help us understand what likely happened in the past. A second definition of evolution involves the idea that all life descended from a common ancestor over millions of years through naturalistic processes. This has not been observed. In fact, it is in direct opposition to the testimony God (the eyewitness to creation) gives us in the Bible. The idea that all life has a common ancestor requires the assumption that the Bible’s history is false, and the assumption that changes which do occur could produce the variety of life we see today from a single-celled ancestor.17

With regard to the first definition of evolution, creationists and evolutionists differ in the pattern of genetic changes they should expect to see. The creation model predicts that degenerative changes can occur because mankind sinned and brought death into the world.18 It also predicts that adaptive changes could occur because God cares for His creation and intends for the earth to be inhabited.19 Both types of changes have been observed. The fact that some foxes are adapted to live in the arctic while others are adapted to live in the desert fits perfectly with this biblical teaching. While evolutionists accept that these types of changes occur, their model requires that most genetic changes add information to the genome. This pattern has not been observed. Without this pattern they cannot account for the many organs and complex biochemical pathways that exist in animals today.20 Scientific observations show that there is an overall pattern of decay seen in the genome which is the opposite of what the evolutionary model would predict.21

Another difference is the source of the genetic change. Evolutionists assume that random mutations and natural selection can account for the genetic changes that are seen. Since the underlying mechanism is naturalistic, changes were expected to be very slow. Contrary to their expectations, rapid adaptation has been observed, and evolutionists have had to adjust their thinking to accept this. Furthermore, detailed studies of the pattern in genetic differences within related animals don’t make sense if mutations are assumed to always be essentially random events.22 Something else is clearly going on here. It appears that God has placed some incredible programming into the genomes of the animals he created, and viruses may play some role in this.

Evidence of Horizontal Gene Transfer

Interestingly, there are some portions of DNA in animals that look like they came from a virus. While some of these were likely originally present in the genome since they have essential functions, others may have been introduced by viruses.23 A number of years ago, one creationist proposed that horizontal gene flow (genes picked up from somewhere in the environment rather than inherited from parents) may help to explain rapid adaptation and the interesting pattern of DNA in animals. In fact, the author lists 13 different biological phenomena that might be explained by horizontal gene flow.24 Since viruses carry genetic material (DNA or RNA), they are the most logical agents to suspect in transferring genes. While horizontal gene transfer would not change the identity of an animal (i.e., it would still belong to the same kind), it could rapidly provide a source of genetic variability that allows for rapid adaptation. If this is the case, then viruses were created “good” (as in Genesis 1) with a support role much like bacteria are known to have.

While the evidence is largely circumstantial, further scientific investigation does seem to support these ideas.25 In fact, a recent PNAS article has brought some new information to light. Previous studies had suggested horizontal transfer between closely related species. This study identified a large section of DNA (~2.9 kb) that was approximately 96% identical in a marsupial (opossum), several placentals (mouse, rat, bushbaby, tenrec, and little brown bat), a reptile (anole lizard), and an amphibian (African clawed frog). It was absent from the 27 other animals surveyed (which included human and Jamaican fruit bat). This sequence appears to have been incorporated into an existing functional gene in rats and mice, although its specific function is not yet known.26 Because of the pattern observed, it appears that horizontal gene transfer was concentrated at some time in the past and perhaps occurred via a DNA virus.27 Interestingly, several species (anole and opossum) are from Central/South America, several are restricted to Africa (bushbay, tenrec), and the others have a wider geographical distribution.28 This suggests that the transfer may have occurred early post-Flood or been intercontinental in scope.29

Since most scientists are heavily influenced by the evolutionary worldview, they often miss indicators of purpose. For example, the section of DNA discussed above is a transposon (a type of mobile genetic element or transposable element). After the putative transfer, it was copied and integrated into several different parts of the genome in the various species. This requires that the proper tools (e.g., enzymes) be in place so that the section of DNA can be incorporated into the genome initially, then modified and copied appropriately. Given that decay has occurred over time, it is not surprising to creationists that there are examples of transposons where this process doesn’t work properly and disease occurs.

Diseases draw attention and research dollars, so the problems associated with transposons have been recognized before the benefits are understood (much like was true of bacteria). Many people still view these mobile genetic elements as “parasitic” or “selfish.” However, they are quite widespread in the genome of plants, animals, and man. If their insertion was always purely “random,” it seems they should more consistently cause problems in a complex system such as the genome.30 Therefore, it seems more logical to believe that transposons have purpose and were designed in a way to benefit their possessor.

The Bible Explains the Paradox

The biblical view explains an important paradox we see in the world around us. It anticipates the complexity that is constantly being uncovered by scientific research; God is an all-wise Creator and would be expected to use awesome design patterns and programming. It also explains the decay observed because mankind sinned and brought death into the world; the world is now in bondage to decay.31 This is an exciting time to be a creationist researcher, as the tremendous volume of scientific research is helping to provide answers to questions that have been asked for decades.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

1. Genesis 1:21, 22, 24-28. Back
2. Isaiah 45:18; Genesis 1:31. Back
3. C. Wieland, “Chemical Soup Is Not Your Ancestor!” Creation 16 no. 2 (1994):46–47; Harvard video, Inner life of a Cell. Back
4. D. DeWitt, Setting the Record Straight on Vestigial Organs, AiD 3 (2008). Back
5. G. Purdom, “Junk” DNA—past, present, and future, part 1 AiD 2 (2007); J. Lightner, The Smell of Change in Our Understanding of Pseudogenes, AiD 3 (2008). Back
6. J. Bergman, Did God Make Pathogenic Viruses? Technical Journal 13 no. 1 (1999):115–125. Back
7. J.R. Lucas and T.C. Wood, “The Origin of Viral Disease: A Foray into Creationist Virology,” in Exploring the History of Life: Proceedings of the Fifth BSG Conference and Occasional Papers of the BSG 8 (2006):13. Back
8. J. Francis, The Matrix, Answers, July–September 2008, pp. 42–43, 52–54; Bergman ref. 6. Back
9. Unclean animals probably included all non-ruminants. See Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14:1–8. Back
10. Genesis 7. Back
11. Genesis 8:15–19. Back
12. T.C. Wood, “The Current Status of Baraminology,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 43 no. 3 (2006):149–158. Back
13. J. Ussher, The Annals of the World, trans. and ed. L. and M. Pierce (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2003). Back
14. This is clear because the two animals on the Ark could carry up to four alleles for any one gene. Today there are some genes where considerably more than four alleles exist in animals from the same created kind. Back
15. J.K. Lightner, “Karyotypic and Allelic Diversity in the Canid Baramin (Canidae),” Journal of Creation 23 no. 1 (in press). Back
16. Understanding Evolution, “An Introduction to Evolution.” Back
17. Understanding Evolution, “Misconceptions about Evolution and the Mechanisms of Evolution: Evolution and Religion Are Incompatible.” Note how religious beliefs are said to have nothing to do with the real (material) world; this is in stark contrast with the biblical teaching that God, as the Creator of all, is relevant to every aspect of life. Back
18. Genesis 3. Back
19. Psalm 147:8, 9; Matthew 6:25–34; Isaiah 45:18. Back
20. L. Spetner, Not By Chance! (The Judaica Press, 1998). Back
21. J. Sanford, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome (Elim Publishing, 2005). Back
22. J.K. Lightner, Karyotype Variability within the Cattle Monobaramin, Answers Research Journal 1 (2008):77–88; J.K. Lightner, Genetics of Coat Color I: The Melanocortin 1 Receptor (MC1R), Answers Research Journal 1 (2008):109–166. Back
23. Y. Liu, Were Retroviruses Created Good? Answers, October–December 2006, bonus content. Back
24. T. Wood, The Ageing Process: Rapid Post-Flood Intrabaraminic Diversification Caused by Altruisitc Genetic Elements (AGES), Origins 54 (2002). Back
25. T. Wood, Perspectives on Ageing: A Young Earth Creation Diversification Model, in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. Robert L. Ivey, Jr. (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 479–489. Back
26. J.K. Pace II, C. Gilbert, M.S. Clark, C. and Feschotte, “Repeated Horizontal Transfer of a DNA Transposon in Mammals and Other Tetrapods,” PNAS 105 no. 44:17023–17028. Back
27. The authors are evolutionists who carry in the assumption of common ancestry. Although creationists could argue that some kinds were created with these sequences and others were not, it appears more likely that they result from horizontal gene transfer. Also, the authors used evolutionary assumptions to estimate the time the horizontal transfer occurred (which was essentially the same for all species). When this type of estimate was done with mitochondrial DNA, the estimated mutation rate was significantly off compared to actual measured mutation rates. A. Gibbons, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” Science 279 no. 5347 (1998):28–29. Retrieved from http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/reference_romanovs.pdf on October 24, 2008. Back
28. See comment by Cedric, one of the authors of the PNAS article on Space Invader DNA Jumped Across Mammalian Genomes. Back
29. The creation model predicts a high concentration of horizontal gene transfer post-Flood as animals were migrating out and filling various ecological niches. There is also a chance that animals on the Ark may have already carried these sequences. Further intrabaraminic comparisons may help to clarify the timing of horizontal gene flow for this particular case. Back
30. Some accidental insertions may not cause obvious problems because the genome contains a high amount of redundancy. Redundancy is a hallmark of excellent design that militates against system failure. It is also inconsistent with the notion that life arose by chance. Such accidental insertions do, however, contribute to the deterioration of the genome. Back
31. Romans 8:20–21. Back


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/why-did-god-make-viruses

Readmore...

Genesis 1:28

Contradiction Type: Translational issue

Genesis 1:28, KJV


And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

According to some, this verse in the King James Version indicates that Adam and Eve were to refill the planet, implying that that they weren't the first humans God created but were part of a "second creation." Many who accept the gap theory believe this. However, take a look at the same verse in the New King James Version.

Genesis 1:28, NKJV


Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

The word replenish in the King James Version was used in the seventeenth century (when the King James Version was translated) to simply mean "fill." According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it did not mean "refill" at the time the translators worked on the King James Bible. It expressed such ideas as to stock, fill, supply, or inhabit. Note that we don't have both plenish and replenish (like fill and refill). Replenish comes from the word replete; being replete with happiness is being full with happiness.

The first recorded use of the word replenish to mean "to fill again" occurred in 1612, one year after the King James Version was published. Furthermore, it was used in a poetic sense, and Genesis 1:28 is not poetry. The English word has changed meaning over the centuries so that the word replenish today generally means "refill."

The original Hebrew word for replenish in Genesis 1:28 is male. This word simply means "fill" and is translated that way in the King James elsewhere (e.g., Genesis 1:22). So neither the Hebrew word nor the English word chosen by the King James Version translators meant, at that time, "refill." The translators' choice of replenish may have been meant to convey something akin to "fill up" (i.e., to "make replete (full)"), but they were certainly not trying to convey anything about another filling of the earth.

The New King James Version (and some other versions) correctly translates the word in today's parlance as "fill." This apparent "contradiction" is simply a translational issue-not an error in the original manuscripts.

Readmore...

HAVE A BLESSED CHRISTMAS

Updated December 8, 2003 (first published December 22, 2001) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

I want to take this occasion to bid each of our subscribers a blessed holiday season and a fruitful New Year in God's will. If we can be of any help to you in this coming year, don't hesitate to write. We are very busy, but we try to answer as many e-mails and letters as possible. You are always welcome to write. Even with the deluge of mail I receive, I still answer probably 75% of it, though I receive several dozen every day (not counting junk mail and spam).

It seems that each year about this time a number of people write to me and ask my views on Christmas. The subject of Christmas seems to stir up as many strong passions as politics! Some of the angriest, most unkind mail I have ever received (and that is saying something!) has been from people rebuking me for having anything good whatsoever to say about Christmas. When I announced recently that the Nepali Christian ladies had some nice handmade Christmas cards for sale, you should have seen the comments. All of them called me ignorant, hypocritical, and double minded, and those were the nicest things they said!

One most gracious Christian gentleman wrote: "Take me off your list.... I am an ex-Catholic and my wife is also -- from the Philippines! Doubtless you are too stupid to know that worshiping God with Pagan, Dates, Symbols and Rituals does NOT please Him! We stopped 42 years ago - as soon as someone showed us, as Baptists, that it was wrong! How can you miss the encyclopedias, dictionaries, Internet and even God's word - Ex. 32-33, 1 Co. 10:1-5, Jer.10:1-5 unless you are either not saved or wilfully disobedient! No need to answer unless you want to acknowledge just how stupid you really are!"

The fellow has such a winning way, doesn't he! Some of the brethren have the "gift" of making others want to do the exact opposite of what they are teaching and to run the other way when they see them coming.

Since 2001 we have been living in South Asia starting a Bible college and continuing the missionary work that we began in the 1980s, and we do almost nothing for Christmas except to go out to have a nice meal. We praise the Lord that all four of our children will be with us this season for the first Christmas since 2000, and we look forward to a nice family time.

When it comes to Christmas, like on many things, my position doesn't fit neatly into one category. On the one hand, I fully understand and am very wary of the pagan and Roman Catholic aspects of Christmas. I also despise the gross commercialization and Hollywoodization of it. On the other hand, I enjoy the Christmas season (at least I did when we lived in the States), and I don't think there is anything wrong with singing Christmas carols and enjoying the many social blessings of the season and exchanging gifts and participating in other innocent ways with the occasion.

Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ. It refers to Christ's mass, which obviously has a Roman Catholic origin. Normally it is observed on December 25. The practice was popularized by the Catholic Church, and like many other Catholic traditions, it was adopted from paganism; in this case, from the pagan mid-winter solstice marking the turn of the year. The following is a brief overview of its origin: "Saturnalia extended from December 17 to 24 and in A.D. 274 the emperor Aurelian made December 25 a feast of the invincible sun. January 6 was sacred to Dionysus. With the toleration of Christianity under Constantine, both December 25 and January 6 became Christianized feasts (Christmas and Epiphany, respectively). Symbols, originating largely from classical or Teutonic-Celtic paganism, such as lights, greenery, and special foods, gradually became associated with Christmas, as did St. Nicholas, whose feast on December 6 had been a time for giving gifts, especially to children" (New 20th-Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, pp. 181,182).

All of these things can still be observed in some pagan religions. For instance, in Hinduism, there is a festival of lights in early winter that features bright lights, special foods, the giving of gifts, and the alleged visitation of a goddess who bestows blessings on those who are good, etc.

The Santa Claus observance is a Roman Catholic/pagan myth. The Catholic Pocket Dictionary of Saints has this to say about "Saint" Nicholas: "His popularity, already great, increased enormously in the West when his relics were brought to Bari in 1087, and his shrine was one of the great pilgrimage centers of medieval Europe. He is the patron of storm-beset sailors (for miraculously saving doomed mariners off the coast of Lycia), of prisoners, of children ... which led to the practice of children giving presents at Christmas in his name and the metamorphosis of his name, St. Nicholas, into Sint Klaes, into Santa Claus by the Dutch. It should be noted though that the figure of Santa Claus is really non-Christian and is based on the Germanic god Thor, who was associated with winter and the Yule log and rode on a chariot drawn by goats named Cracker and Gnasher" (Dictionary of Saints, pp. 369,370).

God's people are plainly warned to beware of philosophy, the tradition of men, and the rudiments of the world which are not after Christ (Col. 2:8).

We reject the paganism of the occasion. I grew up in a Christian home but was taught as a child that Santa Claus is real. I remember how shocked and sad I was when an older cousin told me that it was a myth! It is a great error for believers to participate in such things. Our children have never believed in Santa Claus; we have never had Santa's image in our home. I won't even buy wrapping paper with a Santa image. I believe that Santa Claus is idolatry. A couple of years ago my wife met a Hindu woman in South Asia who thought that the Christian's God is Santa Claus, and that Santa Claus had a son who is the Christian's Savior. Sadly, for many professing Christians, that is probably close to the truth; because they glibly and mindlessly follow such pagan traditions.

As for the Christmas tree, some have tried to intimate that Christmas trees are condemned in Jeremiah 10:2-5, but I think that is nonsense. Jeremiah 10 is condemning idolatry, and I don't know anyone who makes an idol of a Christmas tree. An idol is something used to portray God, but I have never heard of a Christmas tree being used in such a manner. At the same time, I personally believe it is strange to see Christmas trees and such things set up in churches. At least in my estimation, that is a step toward Catholicism. One might as well get some crucifixes and pictures of Jesus and a Mary with a halo to put alongside of it!

Christmas itself really has nothing to do with the Bible. Christmas is not Christ's day. The first day of the week is the Lord's Day, the day of His resurrection, and it is the only special day God has given Christians. We are specifically commanded to honor Christ's resurrection. As for His birth, the Bible is silent about honoring it in some special way.

Someone protests, "That is the point; the Bible doesn't say anything about it." True, but the Bible also doesn't say anything about not doing something in honor of Christ's birthday. When the Bible is silent, God's people have liberty to follow the personal leading of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14). We are not free to make laws for others in such matters, and we are also not free to judge others.

Christmas is also a good time to witness for Christ. Most people even in North America do not know the true gospel, and Christmas can be a good occasion for explaining who Jesus Christ is and why He came into the world. Many people will go to church at Christmas time who never darken its doors other times in the year. At this time of the year, scriptural churches will focus not on the birth of Christ, but on preaching the cross. This is also true for the Lord's work in many places overseas. Hindus, for example, know that Christmas is a special "Christian festival" of some sort, and oftentimes they are more open on such occasions to attending church meetings or going to believers' homes. There is less stigma among their Hindu friends about mingling with Christians on such occasions.

Wise Christians can spend less time "bah humbugging" Christmas and more time using these things for the gospel's sake.

Dear Christian friends, be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Avoid evil, but enjoy your freedom in Christ during the Christmas season. If your activities are not condemned in the Scriptures and you have a clear conscience before the Lord (Rom. 14), you are free to enjoy yourself.

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks" (Romans 14:4-6).

Readmore...