Articles

By Daniel Durston 04 Apr, 2016
Introduction

To understand where something is going it is important to understand where it came from so the Origins of tattoos will be discussed first. Then the Reasons people generally give justifying their decision to receive this mark. Thirdly and of most importance, the Root reason for these body alterations. Finally a word to Christians who have or may be thinking of marking themselves.

Some of the content discussed may be difficult to accept and offensive to some. This certainly is not intentional and like every worthwhile journey, of most importance is where we end up and how this knowledge equates to application. This means, rolling up the sleeves, getting right to the root and trying to ‘flesh out’ what is going on with this increasing fad.

Ultimately and like the gospel, which offers salvation for the lost and healing to the sick, there is no place for judgement without solution. Judgement is our heavenly Fathers prerogative, and salvations solution His gift, but we have to be humble, acknowledge we are all in need of The Saviour, Jesus Christ. Tattoo’s are just one area in which Satan has sought to pervert humanity, there are a catalogue of others. None of us are immune, we are a fallen people.
Therefore discernment for our age and the dangers that so easily ensnare us, are essential. We are to be equipped, so that we can share the wonderful news of the Saviour and the cross to those are so desperately misguided and adrift.

This article is both for secularists and Christians.


Statistics

Never has there been a time in history when so many have sought to mark their bodies in some way. In the US tattoo parlours are one of the fastest growing industries.
This is interesting because of the negative statistics associated with tattoos in general. Undertaken by recent studies by the Pew Research Centre and the University of St Andrews in Scotland here are just a few.

• Tattoos are universally looked down on.
• Having tattoos lowers your chance of finding a job
• Employers across the majority of industries have a negative view of tattoos ‘dirty’ ‘repugnant’ ‘abhorrent’
• 30% of those without tattoos said they feel those with tattoos are more likely to do something deviant, 25% of them think a tattooed person is less intelligent and less healthy over all.
• Women are viewed less favourably when they have tattoos, viewed as less intelligent, but more honest, however viewed as likely drinking more and being more promiscuous.

Another finding the Pew researchers concluded was that;

‘Tattoos don’t affect how physically attractive someone is found, but rather tattoos generally effect how we judge a person’s character.’

 However, there are those who would argue character is intrinsically tied to what is presented outwardly, this certainly holds true of fashion, clothing, hairstyle and even excessive makeup. Therefore a tattooed person while attractive in their former natural, ‘un-tattooed’ state could well be perceived as unattractive, when laden with tattoos.  
Regardless of the statistics, the desire by both men and women to deface their bodies is on the increase, certainly in Western thinking cultures (this Western trend will be discussed in detail further along). One has only to go to any town in England for example and observe both men and women adorning some form of body branding. Additionally the media and its ‘celebrities’ glorify and advertise freshly acquired markings. This month’s Daily Mail Online featured an entire article on David Beckhams new ‘classical couple’ etched into his ankle.


Origins

Tattooing itself has been practised by humans just about since the beginning of time. Way back in the Torah (5 books of Moses) God instructs Moses to tell the people not to mark their bodies in any way.

‘You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD’. (Leviticus 19:28)

Tracing the origin of tattoos calls for looking at its etymology (the root meaning of the word)
The word means a ‘marking’ and many empires have used it in different ways for centuries to do just that. Almost always different empires branded (tattooed) slaves to symbolize ownership or enslavement over them. As time progressed (19th century) and especially in the West, ‘Tattoo’ became to mean a ‘mark of disgrace or reproach’.

 Archaeology confirms tattooing is nothing new and has been done by cultures all over the planet for millennia. The modern rise of tattoos is not a unique idea to 21st century man but has its roots in thousands of years of history.

Of interest is The Creators prohibition in Leviticus 19:28. Like marking the flesh (tattoo’s) people were also cutting their flesh, the reasons for these mutilations were demonic in nature and were a form of worship to their demon ‘god’. This is why the spiritual realities behind tattoos cannot be underestimated and/or ignored, just because Western cultures are largely ignorant on these topics does not equate to them being untrue and unsubstantiated.

It is worth noting that not only has there been a dramatic increase of people marking themselves (tattoos) but also an increase of self-mutilation (cutting of the flesh) in the last several decades.

See what Americas mental health channel have to say about the problem of self-cutting and the supporting statistics;
Self-injury statistics show that this disturbing phenomenon is a real and present danger to vulnerable people worldwide, especially in developed countries, such as the U.S. and those in Western Europe. Frequently, untreated depression and other mental health challenges create an environment of despair that leads people to cope with these challenges in unhealthy ways. Check out these self-mutilation statistics:
• Each year, 1 in 5 females and 1 in 7 males engage in self-injury
• 90 percent of people who engage in self-harm begin during their teen or pre-adolescent years
• Nearly 50 percent of those who engage in self-injury activities have been sexually abused
• Females comprise 60 percent of those who engage in self-injurious behaviour
• About 50 percent of those who engage in self-mutilation begin around age 14 and carry on into their 20s
• Many of those who self-injure report learning how to do so from friends or pro self-injury websites
• Approximately two million cases are reported annually in the U.S.

While these self-harm statistics are from reliable sources, truly accurate information about rates and trends of self-mutilation are difficult to come by because the majority of participants conceal their activities. Their behaviour may never come to the attention of medical professionals or other social services.
The scope of this article is not about self-mutilation but tattooing, however the two are related and will be addressed again in the last section under The root reason.



Reasons

Like many things which humans do in life there are various reasons behind their tattoos. And these reasons the justifications made when deciding to get branded. Deeper than these surface reasons though there is always more going on. These deeper reasons which are generally unknown to the person, are the real relevant reasons and can be sought in the realm that we call philosophy. Not some endless rhetoric and opinion inspired by ancient Greek orators but simply and as its word means ‘love of wisdom’, the desire to get to truth.

First a look at the most common reasons a person will ink themselves. These are the surface reasons a tattooed person will give to justify their decision to have a tattoo. The deeper relevant reasons covered after.


Impulse Tattoo’s
In a society of impulse shopping, impulse eating and impulse relationships, impulse tattooing is just another addition to the list. For no specific personal reason other than, “I just felt like it” and with no consideration to how they may feel about it in the future impulse tattooing is all about living for today.
This explains the strong link between alcoholism and tattooing, where the tattoo has become an impulse desire under the intoxication of foreign chemicals surging through the bloodstream. Or to the extreme where the person is completely passed out under the alcoholic influence, ‘friends’ have taken upon themselves to give them a tattoo all in the spirit of ‘having fun’ (see article on ‘having fun’).

This is the form or tattooing where the person has not exercised any great deal of thought and can only be put down to what the book of Proverbs describes as folly.

Doing wrong is like a joke to a fool, but wisdom is pleasure to a man of understanding.
(Proverbs 10:23)



Being ‘Cool’ aka ‘Looks Good’ ‘Body Art’ Tattoo’s  
Next in our list of surface reasons and possibly the most common is what is phrased as ‘body art’. Many just like the look of a tattoo, to them there doesn’t not have to be some existential reason for getting it other than that it ‘looks good’.

Whether is a rose located on the top side of the foot or a dragon hovering between the posterior deltoids, it looks good to them. Unlike the former group, folk who fall into this category at least have spent some time deciding what they like. Looking through magazines and templates and even designing their own are all a big part of the process to this group.

 Alas, the thinking is incomplete and falls short on several fronts. Firstly, what a person ‘feels’ now and/or what they represent and stand for now cannot possible be a guarantee of what they will feel like and/or stand for and represent in five, ten, fifteen and twenty down the road. Life experiences change us, what we thought we liked when we are young can often change. If a person is determined to get marked, it is best to wait until your perhaps in your 50’s, at least then you will probably set in your ways and your inking of choice will still be valid in your eyes when you are 70.

Another argument is how we all view art. In truth the human body is already and art work, a created masterpiece. A masterpiece of beauty where each person is unique and beautiful as their nature self. Flipping through a magazine or brochure and deciding on a piece of art to fuse to the human body is akin to placing Van Gogh’s Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers on an easel at the base of Mount Everest. Any beauty the painting could offer will be lost and swallowed up by the surrounding scenery.

It is of interest those who use the body ‘art’ of a reason for tattooing themselves are generally not art connoisseurs. Do they frequent world class galleries? Do they know their Rembrandt from Monet? More often than not it is about themselves, how they want to look, how they want to convey themselves and be perceived by others.

Going back to David Beckman’s body ‘art’. Beckham has approximately forty tattoos, all symbolising different things to him. Approximately eight are related to family, birth of a child etc. Six relating to football, shirt number worn at the time ect. Thirteen to ‘spiritual’ symbolism and approximately eight relating to miscellaneous reasons.

Clearly in Beckham’s case in art is in his own eyes, the Spiritual imagery and Bible verses he has inked have been removed from their original context and reinterpreted by Beckham. More shockingly on his left pectoral is ‘the footballer as Jesus with three cherubs (supposedly representing his sons) lifting him out of a tomb. Now only Beckham will know what this means, but Jesus has nothing to do with football and football thing to do with Jesus, least of all the overtones of resurrection. This is a very prominent feature of tattoos and the thinking behind them, the line between truth and error becomes very blurred and a hybrid produced.
Influenced heavily by Eastern mysticism and their own personal feelings, many people create their own personal non absolute ‘truths’ and depict them via their tattoos.

 These personal ‘creations’ are largely the product of hijacking already known spiritual imagery whether Hindu, Buddhist or some other deception of man and blending it with their own personal opinions and worldview.
In Beckham’s case, he has taken imagery from the Bible which is the inspired Word of God and blended it with his own opinions and worldview and in doing so, made a mockery of the sanctity of the actual meanings behind this Biblical imagery.

For centuries it was common place and quite sufficient, might it be added, to scribe one’s life experiences in a diary. The modern fad where the body itself has become a journal is actually more akin to a walking scrap book.

Consider also the ability of the tattoo ‘artist’ to replicate the chosen image onto human skin. A recent story of a woman from New Zealand who wanted Disney characters inked on her body was shocked when they turned out ghoulish when the job was done.

Moving to the more general, women have been known for getting what has been labelled as ‘tramp stamps’. These are tattoos which are placed on the lower back so whenever she bends to pick something up, there they are on full display. This label ‘tramp stamp’ was coined by the public and is indicative of what is going on in the minds of the observer. How does this give due dignity to that woman?



Conviction Tattoo’s
Unlike the former categories, those who have sought tattoos as a way of ‘honouring’ a conviction they have, at least have done so for passionate reasons and not just on a whim.
A lost loved one or an allegiance to military service would fall under this category. A person who has lost someone very special in their lives would feel a sense of meaning at having their name permanently etched into their bodies as a constant reminder. A serviceman who has lost comrades in war may feel a deep sense of loyalty to those lost in his unit and may want to symbolise this in the form of a tattoo.
 
However once again there are ways to honour those we have lost through a myriad of human expression without defacing the body. Consider also and especially for this category, the soul ties forged with those who have passed on. The concept of soul ties to many will be foreign and is beyond the scope of this article (For an in-depth look at who we really are see article on Sprit, Soul, Body). Additionally and as the case for any permanent marking, will it still be liked in 5, 10, 15 years time? Will that same strong conviction that scribed the original stand the test of time when the marking blurs and fades? Could having a mark that represents such strong emotions and memories actually prevent the person from moving on and enjoying future life experiences in some way?

Tattoos that remember a loved one, who has passed away, although unwise, can readily be empathised with. However what of those who have had their girlfriends or boyfriends name etched onto their bodies. What happens when the ‘relationship’ breaks down? (see article on Postmodern relationships)
What of any new relationship? Would Dorris mind seeing Maggie’s name on her newly acquired George’s forearm? This is really a no brainer, but once again demonstrates how so many are living for today exercising no wisdom whatsoever for the tomorrow.

There are many who have many deep convictions, (arguably in the bigger scheme of things, more important than a deceased love one or military service) who express these in healthy and wholesome ways.
One such person owns several controversial tee-shirts, not controversial because they are vulgar, but statements to make people think, and think for themselves rather than be ‘programmed’ by their culture through mediums such as Tv, peers and social media.

 The difference is, that tee-shirt can be removed at any time, but still gets the message across when worn! Tattoos are akin to branded cattle, that’s it, they are staying there. And from that point on, just like that branded beast, the choice to have it taken away is not available.


Tattoo’s – The Root Reason

Pride covers every other motive behind why a person gets inked and is at the root of all the aforementioned reasons. They have consciously made a decision to mark their bodies for all to see and are proud of this declaration. Some may see this is a good thing, after all they have a strong sense of identity not afraid of what others may think and desire to let others know what they believe in. ‘Be ‘true’ self’, ‘you’re an individual’ are all words of Western culture. And in some ways this is good and right, think of those in times past who have stood even for a principle, even though they stood alone, and wouldn’t back down in their resilience. Think of the many freedoms we enjoy because of outspoken men and women down through the ages who have had a strong sense of identity not afraid of what others thought of them but stood upon what they believed to be truth. And I think most would agree, but is this what we are seeing today? Are we seeing men and women boldly stand in their conviction? Not really is it, in fact it’s very different. The boldness and sense of identity in those who fought for a cause is attractive, courageous and noble. The ‘boldness’ and sense of identity we mainly see today is arrogant and prideful. An arrogance that says “you can’t tell me what to do, I will do what I want’. There is not sense of humility, no sense of self sacrifice. Those who stood in independence and valour for a cause were mostly doing it for those around them, other people centered. Today our Western culture promotes self-glorification, Look at me, listen to my opinions. And this is what can be seen as the classic hallmark of Western Post Modern culture, opinion, opinion and more opinion. Look at ‘social’ media, look at all these outlets where people can post their opinion and draw attention to themselves. And largely this is opinion void of wisdom and lacking any foundation truths, its opinion based on fickle feelings. As the proverb goes;

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
 (Proverbs 18:2)

Now, ‘social’ media can be a brilliant tool for promoting truth, and it should be used! However today where everyone’s opinion is posted, what basis of truth do we have? We many would say at this point, What is truth? Truth has become relative to each person. This is why we have endless opinions, as there is no truth. Well there is truth, Truth came and is coming again in the form of a Person, Jesus Christ.

To recap, having a sense of identity, a conviction to truth is noble and right to which many have lost their lives for, it mostly has the interests of others at the core. Today generally speaking people actually don’t know who they are, they don’t really know what they believe in, they are trying to ‘recreate’ and ‘find’ then selves to see who they are. This endless pursuit for identity is based solely on the reality that the Absolute God who created all and everyone and His Word, has been removed from Western culture and replaced with the religion of evolutionism.

You see people want to be recognised, we want to find meaning in our existence. People seek meaning behind many things they do and engage in and tattoos are no different in that regard. People want their tattoos to be seen and want others to enquire of its meaning.

 Now the grand irony of the 21st century is we are a culture of social retardation. The human soul craves social interaction but through marketing we are told of these apps that we should get, why because everyone else has them and then we are sold the gadgets that make them work. For years we have been hiding behind pixelated screens, jumping from app to app, posting our opinion, updating our feeling, desperate for meaning for why we are here and craving the response we get from another. We have become all together socially inept. And a tattoo is different, struggling to express ourselves, like a fridge magnet we post another addition to the slab of advertising space.


In Closing

The spiritual element behind tattoos is the primary root cause behind a tattoo. It us why they even exist at all. Leviticus 19:28 has been mentioned already as has its prohibitions. Both tattooing and cutting of the flesh are an abomination to God. This reason alone is more than sufficient to not do either.

‘You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD’.

Both tattooing and cutting of the flesh have both physical and spiritual components. People have their own private definitions of what ‘spiritual’ means. Spiritual can only be defined by what is revealed in the Word of God and not some drug fuelled high experience by someone sitting with his legs crossed chanting “ummmm”.

Biblical spirituality can be summed up simply as, the relational dynamic between God and mankind.

Firstly, Physical. Both tattooing and cutting the flesh result in defacing the human body. Whether we accept this premise or not, out bodies are not our own, we are subject to certain laws both physical and spiritual.

If one projects himself out of a high rise building he will readily grasp and succumb to the reality that our physical bodies are subject to and governed by physical laws. Many are happy to accept this, however from a position of ignorance unable to accept the latter, the spiritual laws we are also subject to.

Now the God who created everything (not allah or the plethora of manmade, demonic inspired gods) would have us hear the gospel message of how Jesus came to die and rise again for us. God’s Word teaches that we are sinners and in need of a saviour and ask God to forgive us and consequently live a way that honours and glorifies God. Such a person can readily accept and be thankful for Gods spiritual governance in their lives.

However, the Word of God tells us, we are inherently sinners, blind and unable to see such truths about our human state.
As a result we are not in control of anything least of all our destinies and spiritually subject to God.

A person who continually rejects what Christ achieved on the cross and the free gift of salvation remains under the Gods wrath and who if continues in his wilful rebellion will be judged by God. Do you see the point being made? Every one of us whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not, whether we are atheists or not, regardless of our world view are subject to God. Democracy is an illusion, every one of us really live under a Theocracy where God is Lawgiver and Judge who exercises His right over His creation.


A Word to Christians

To any Christian who is reading who may want to justify marking their bodies, you may think you want to show others your faith by getting a bible verse or an image of the cross, don’t. If sharing you faith means so much live, breath and walk the Christian example like many millions before you who did quite well without defacing their bodies. The fact you feel the need to display an icon of Christianity physically on your body suggest to me you are not living, breathing and walking the Christian life and therefore your good works are not being seen by man. In addition if you are bent on getting something symbolic, then get a necklace with a cross or fish on it, it can be removed and doesn’t violate Leviticus. And if you are saying to yourself “Leviticus is in the old testament, we are not under the law”, then read my other article on why we are to theologically heed the old testament and then turn to the new testament and read the apostle Paul spiritual insight in his letter to the Corinthian church;

 ‘What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?’
For ye are brought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s’ 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Tattooing is defiling the body the temple of the Holy Ghost.
 

All the glory be to God.

~ Daniel Durston
By Daniel Durston 25 Feb, 2016

When was Jesus born? It can’t have been Zero or One AD because King Herod had died before then.

We are led to believe that King Herod died about 3 or 4 B.C. If this is accurate, then Jesus must have been born earlier, as Herod would have to be alive to implement the slaughter of the innocents. Also, the Magi, (however many there were in number) paid tribute to Herod by visiting him. This means Jesus’ birthday was years before the commonly believed date. What are the facts?

A date problem?

In order to establish if there is indeed a conflict with the commonly believed date of Jesus’ birth and the time of Herod, a chronological sequence of events surrounding this time in history needs to be mapped out. If indeed Herod died in 3 or 4 B.C when exactly was Jesus born? A.D. is the Latin abbreviation for ‘Anno Domini’ or roughly translated ‘the year of our Lord’. The BC/AD system was developed in 525 AD by Dionysius Exiguus, a Catholic monk, who had been commissioned by Pope John I, specifically to determine the correct date for Easter as well as keeping track of the time that had passed since the birth of Jesus. (For more information on the BC/AD calander click here).

Dionysius’ dates do cause an issue because his calendar would result in Jesus having been born after our now known data about the date of death for the Herod recorded in Scripture as being alive when Jesus was born. We must also note that since the Scriptures do not directly state the year and time of Jesus birth not even on the ancient Jewish Calendar, there can be no conflict between any man made calendar and the Scriptural record on this point. However, from both within Scripture and from outside historical data, there are clear historical events, people and rulers that create an indisputable time frame for the birth of Jesus Christ.

There are three main ways to establish the year of the birth of Jesus: first, by working backwards from the starting point of his ministry to the year of birth; second, by calculating the ‘seventy weeks’ prophecy in the book of Daniel and other prophetic scriptures; or, third by identifying events surrounding his birth.

Jesus in Real History

A seemingly obvious point ought to be initially mentioned. Even if there were no documented events regarding the precise time of Jesus birth, that would not negate the fact that he was born, it would just mean we would not know the exact time of his birth! Often exact birth and death records of people are unavailable but people, places and events that are known and historically documented can connect and place that person accurately within a certain time frame.

To give you a modern example: one of the older associates of Creation Research had his birth and passport records destroyed in World War 2. It wasn’t a problem until he applied for his pension only to be told he didn’t exist, when he obviously did and had many witnesses to confirm it and and his age, but nothing on paper. In the case of Jesus Christ, no serious historian disputes the life and rule of King Herod, and there are twelve references to Herod in Matthew’s gospel to which the birth of Jesus is connected. Nine of these references directly associate Herod with Jesus.

Matthew Chapter 2 opens with the birth of Jesus and Herod’s response: “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. “ Matthew 2:1-4 According to Matthew 2:1 the birth of Jesus took place in the days of Herod, meaning King Herod was alive at the time of Jesus birth. Matthew also mentions the place, Judea, (the known historical location and Herod’s sphere of rule). Locations are named also in context of Jesus birth, for example Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1, 2:5, 2:6, 2:8, 2:16, Luke 2:4, 2:15,) and references are to be found in John’s gospel also.

There are also six references to the town of Nazareth in Matthew’s gospel which all are in context of Jesus (2:19, 2:23, 4:13, 13:53, 21:11, 26:71). Five references to the town of Nazareth can be found in Mark’s gospel again all in context of Jesus (1:9, 1:24, 6:1, 10:47, 16:6). Luke makes reference to Nazareth 8 times (1:26, 2:4, 2:39, 2:51, 4:16, 4:34, 18:37, 24:19) and John’s gospel 5 times (1:45, 1:46, 18:5, 18:7, 19:19). In addition to these places Jesus is tied with Jerusalem in many of the synoptic gospels, 12 in Matthew, 10 in Mark and 30 times in John’s gospel.

The good historian and physician Luke also clearly places the birth of Jesus in an irrefutable time frame. Luke records: “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.” Luke 2:1-5

Here we learn Joseph and expecting mother Mary, makes the journey for the registration by decree of Caesar Augustus. The authenticity of the life and rule of Augustus, who is considered to be the first ruler of the Roman Empire, from 27BC until 14AD, is a well documented fact by historians. Also Luke ties Jesus’ 30th year to the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, (27-28 AD) placing Jesus birth at 4BC. (Luke 3:1-3) The times of Tiberius (and Augustus) are known exactly from Ptolemy’s Canon, and the time of the death of Herod is fixed for us by Josephus (Antiquities XVII. 4).

So the year our Lord Anno Domini is not the actual year of the birth of Jesus Christ. It is important to note the AD calendar was not commenced during Jesus’ earthly life or in the Apostolic era. A monk in Rome called Dionysius Exiguus computed that the year he was in was 525 years after the birth of Christ. But he was ‘out’ by 4 years. Considering the number of calendar revisions this was a good calculation.

Calendar Calculations

The main area of confusion obviously lies with the different calendars that have been invented by men over the past few thousand years. These need to be considered, so a brief overview is necessary.

The Julian, Gregorian and the Jewish calendars are of special importance. Most calendars have three chief methods of time-reckoning. The lunar calendar based on the phase observations of the moon resulted in lunar months, some of which were 29.5 days. In addition to this there was the solar calendar, based upon the earth’s orbit of the sun, approximately 365 days. And finally the civil calendar which was dictated around civil or religious events. The discrepancies become apparent right away between the lunar and solar calendar since 12 x 29.5 = 354 (lunar cycles) compared with the solar calendar of approximately 365 days. Keeping the calendars in pace with one another involves the process of ‘intercalation’. This simply means the addition of a specified period of time every so often. The early Roman calendar was based upon 12 lunar months of varying length.

The Pontifices (high ranking priests) controlled the calendar and were also responsible for intercalation. By the time of Julius Caesar the calendar was getting rather confusing, so in 46BC Caesar undertook a reform to correct it. He introduced the ‘Julian’ calendar, and it’s this one that is basically used today. He abolished the lunar year and established a calendar of 12 months of 28, 30 or 31 days, with February taking a 29th day every 4th (leap year). The leap year compensates for the fact that a 365 day calendar year is actually a few hours shorter than the solar year.

But the Julian calendar was still out of sync with the sun by 11 minutes per year. This came to the attention of Pope Gregory XIII who introduced a further reform in 1582. Motivated to determine the Easter day celebration, and to place the calendar back in sync with the solar year he dropped 10 days in 1582. October 4th was immediately followed by October 15th. The intercalation of the leap year’s extra day was omitted on all centenary years except for multiples of 400, thus avoiding the Julian error of 3 days in 400 years. (For this reason the year AD 2000 was a leap year, but AD 1900 wasn’t.) The dropping of 10 days was very unpopular and it took decades and in some cases centuries for different countries to adopt these changes.

So when taking into consideration the calendar changes and revisions and what has been left on record by the four different gospel authors, a chronological timeline of history can be mapped out regarding the correct birth year of Jesus. The Biblical facts have also been backed up and verified through secular historical sources. The Biblical accounts, along with secular historical data, provide compelling evidence for a 4BC birth using the Gregorian Calendar and his death some 33 yrs later to pay the price of your sin and mine which is the best gift God has ever given, so accept it humbly as we remember the season of his birth.

Sources: The Date of the Crucifixion and the Era of New Birth by David Davidson Whiston, William; Josephus: The Complete Works, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998.

What about the month of Jesus birth?

It was in A.D. 325 that the Roman Church settled that the 25th December was to be observed as Christ’s birthday. The actual time of the year is disputed and most scholars go for a late summer birth. The gospel of Luke with its detailed account offers the most valuable clues surrounding the time of the year for Jesus birth. By placing the birth of John the Baptist alongside the birth of Jesus, an accurate picture of a chronological timeline can be drawn.

Luke’s gospel commences with the story of John the Baptist’s parents, Zacharias and Elizabeth . While Zacharias was ministering in the temple he received the visit from the angel Gabriel concerning the birth of John. Soon after Zacharias finished his duties at the temple, Elizabeth conceived. It was in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy that Gabriel informed Mary she too would bear a Child, Jesus (Luke 1:26-36). Jesus then was born about six months after John. If the time of Zacharias service in the temple can be traced out, an approximate time of the year for Jesus’ birth can be worked out.

The clue for this lies in Zacharias being “of the division of Abijah” (Luke 1:5). The course of Abijah will provide a point of reference from which the time of the year can be deciphered. 1 Chronicles 24 not only provides the time of the year when the course of Abijah was but how long it lasted. The courses were made up of the different heads of two different fathers, Eleazar and Ithamar. The father of these two was Aaron where the Aaronic priesthood had its roots. So the course of Abijah was one of 24 courses, 16 heads of house from Eleazar and 8 from Ithamar. The different courses were responsible for ministering in the temple and its duties at different times of the year. Each course ministered twice per year leaving 3 extra weeks that were filled with events such as feasts and celebrations, (the Hebrew year normally has 51 weeks). In the Jewish calendar Nisan 1 was the first shift cycle going through the whole year. The course of Abijah was the eighth shift. These shifts were observed right up until the time of the destruction of the temple in 70AD.

If Jesus was born sometime in 4 BC, counting back 9 months of the gestation period and the 6 month difference in age, John must have been conceived in the first half of 5 BC. Knowing this we need to attach it to the first course of Abijah as the time when Gabriel visited Zacharias in the temple. Frederick Coulter calculates it as follows: In the year 5 BC, the first day of the first month, the month of Nisan, according to the Hebrew Calendar, was a Sabbath. According to computer calculation synchronizing the Hebrew Calendar and the stylized Julian Calendar, it was April 8. Projecting forward, the assignments course by course, and week by week, were: Course 1, the first week; Course 2, the second week; all Courses for the Passover and the feast of unleaved bread the third week; Course 3, the fourth week; Course 4, the fifth week; Course 5, the sixth week; Course 6, the seventh week; Course 7, the eighth week; Course 8, the ninth week; and all courses the tenth week, which was the week of Pentecost. If Zacharias worked on his assigned course this period ran from the Hebrew calendar Iyar 27 through to Sivan 12. By the Julian calendar that is June 3rd through to 17th. If he returned to his home after his assigned course, and Elizabeth conceived in the following 2 weeks that places the time approximately between June 18th through July 1st. So Elizabeth’s sixth month would have been in December, during which time Mary conceived. If we project six months after John’s expected birth time (late March 4BC) then Jesus would have been born approximately the later part of September, right around the Feast of Trumpets.


All the glory be to God.

~ Daniel Durston
By Daniel Durston 12 Mar, 2014

‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ – Genesis 1:1

The Christian holy scriptures open with a sentence that puts itself on a collision course with all humanistic systems of thinking. In ten words, this sentence of proclamation smashes Atheism, Agnosticism, Polytheism, Pantheism, Evolutionism and Materialism to pieces. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’

The root of evolutionism is materialism, the idea that all can be explained away by matter, by that which can be seen and touched, (a feature of the enlightenment or ‘golden age’). A notable advocate of this world view would be Richard Dawkins. Materialism would opine that it alone can provide all the necessary answers that surround our existence.

The beginning of 2009 commenced with a Darwin exhibition at the London Natural History Museum. Motivated by Darwin’s 1809’s birthday, the exhibit was advertised widely across London. With pursed lips sealed by a finger, it pictured Charlie Darwin with the caption, ‘If you had an idea that outraged society, would you keep it to yourself?’ It could be seen all over London’s busy rail networks. Ironically the same can be said about the biblical account of origins that outrages many. Though, through years of neglect bible believing men and women have abandoned their duty to defend the faith, paving the way for the secularists to take foot holds in areas of education, science and ethics that belong to the church.

Many scoff at the notion of special creation, wrestling not so much with a belief in God but more with the idea of the narrative in the Genesis account, which clear stamps God’s authority upon the Created order. The scoffing and disbelief comes from years of pre-programmed responses from which the propagation of Darwin’s ideas have worked their way into the deep recesses of our cultural belief system. The all too familiar beat of the old drum, ‘millions of years ago…’ can be heard over and over and has worked its way through our education, entertainment, social and political systems. Where museums, Hollywood, schools and universities have been hood winked into propagating this same old rhythm. The mantra, ‘millions of years ago’. The belief that science has proved evolution has given rise to the ridicule, yet it is not from an educated properly researched conclusion. Phrases such as, “but hasn’t Science proved…” are all too common.


This will be a good point to pause and briefly mention science. All too often science is viewed as being in conflict with religion. Science versus Religion. Two major points to draw attention to. Firstly the bible is not a science text book, it does however contain scientific statements and ideas, and Genesis, first chapter doesn’t play this down in the slightest. There is a very specific outlined account of our world and its origins.

When scripture draws our attention to scientific aspects of our world, investigation and research has always enhanced our understanding of that science. This to some may sound like a radical, bold and outrageous claim, the truth remains, however, that when considering the aspects of scripture that have been portrayed as not being in agreement with science, through further honest investigation and presentation of the whole truth, it can be confirmed that there is indeed absolute harmony between the two.

Many of the great fathers of science were young earth or literal Genesis, six day creation believers. An example is Isaac Newton. Newton was a very keen reader of scripture and a great theologian describing how often, through meditation upon scripture, he be led to further scientific discovery. Some would say, “But we are so much more advanced now and have more developed scientific equipment”. This is true as a statement but wrong as a conclusion. Our advances in science have enabled us to understand more about the working of molecular cells and our world, opening us evermore to its increasing complexity. It cannot, however, and does not give any insight and evidence towards the why and when? The ‘why does life occur’ and ‘when did life start’ cannot be addressed using science. Science is very limited and can only further understanding of our world. Scientific discoveries move us even further towards humility through the sheer brilliance of our creator, God.

Secondly from a brief survey of scripture, one can conclude, God not only created but is the maintainer and sustainer. God is the Master Scientist! God thought about, designed and created Chemistry, Biology and Physics! Like any designer, the designer is always greater than the designed! It would serve well for man that as honourable as the quest for science is, there is a limit we will reach in our understanding. What we do know though, through Genesis account and current findings, is abundantly more than necessary to give God glory for His creative genius.

A thought for the evolutionist - if our origins are from such a process of random, mindless chaos, then how can such a mind know what is true? How can we be competent to explain our own origin, where is the logic or sense, where is the reason, where is the science?

Science, the study of how our physical realm, which God brought into existence from the invisible realm, functions, reveals a measure of Gods nature and character, bringing all the glory to Himself. ‘The Heavens declare your Glory oh Lord’ - the words of David in Psalm 8. There is no glory in a random process and certainly none in decay and death. To put Science on a plateau versus Religion is absurd! This is, however, the very essence of Materialism. No need for God.

For purposes of clarification, and this is essential, many Christians have been lied to by powerful secular philosophy and feel driven to choose between Genesis or Science. Many have wrestled with their faith, trying to make sense of the glaring conflicts and implications. And rightly so! The claims of evolutionism are so far removed from orthodox scripture, that one has to butcher large text’s of scripture and its intended doctrinal meaning, to find some kind of union. In the end though It can never form a union, only a compromise and biblical compromises always lend toward heresy.

When one meditates on scripture, an immediate Philosophy becomes apparent. God who is All and above all is pre-eminent and supreme with His Word, becoming life’s point of reference. When ever a humanistic philosophy of man such as evolutionism sets it self up alongside scripture, there will be immediate discord and disharmony as one has its origin of wisdom in Him who is All powerful and All Knowing and one has its wisdom in man which is sensual, carnal and earthly. Its because of its carnal and anarchistic foundation that results Gods word being doctored rather than scripture ruling in man’s wisdom.

There is a very popular belief in the Church called ‘Theistic Evolution’. The greatest Christian oxymoron! The idea that God used the mechanism of evolution to bring forth life. It is this humanistic philosophy which the scope of this article will confront. Using the Word of God and honest deliberation, its intended purpose is that this philosophy, when presented before any honest jury, will be exposed for its nakedness and heretical nature.

Richard Dawkins is right about one thing when he ridicules Christians for this and rightly so. We do have to choose as Christians between The gospel (scripture) and evolution - we really do. This is said in direct opposition to a recently written book by Denis Alexander, ‘Creation or Evolution, Do We Have to Choose?’ It is riddled with sweeping statements and, in my opinion, a total omission of the theological heresies that rise when attempting to tally up creation and evolution. This is a dangerous book, attempting to put out the controversial fire of the creation/evolution discussion, and one that ought not to be put out until the truth is established. For good reasons that fire is burning strong as creation is a polar opposite to evolutionism .

The wonderful news is, God says what He means and means what He says. (2 Timothy 3.16) If one takes their faith seriously and literally interprets Genesis as its intended to be, there is no conflict with Science.

“But hasn’t science been proved..?”

All too often when trying to assert 6 day creation, the pre-programmed wild card, ‘but hasn’t science proved’ comes out and is presented. Rightly so this deserves mention. Secular scientific findings and opinions are presented through secular media corporations. Anything against evolutionism (that fiercely defended religious philosophy) will be censored out immediately, and there are many instances that have occurred supporting this. What we do see being presented is baffling, intimidating science by Professor Atheist Billy Big Spuds - an Evolution advocate in story form with no or little evidence. Special creation scientists will not get a hearing unless sponsored by a Christian media affiliated institution.

There are many PhD, degree bearing holding to a young earth, literal Genesis reading, who are operating in the realms of science. Both parties can make a convincing argument.

So what’s amiss?

When researching this topic you are the jury. Like any good jury who cannot be informed of every detail and crucial pieces of information, you are called upon to reach a verdict. As both sides can present a persuasive argument, alongside their chosen evidence, what is absolutely essential is not the evidence, (both evolutionist and creation scientists have access to the same evidence) but the evaluation of the evidence!

This is the core of the evolution/creation ‘debate’. It’s a matter of a persons’ starting point or their bias and everyone has a bias - even the ‘objective’ scientist. What is my world view? In the beginning God or in the beginning dirt? What glasses do I have on that interpret or tarnish my world? We all have a bias! Every scientist when evaluating the evidence has a bias which is their ‘starting point’. To illustrate consider the following. When standing upon the rim of the Grand Canyon in Arizona, an evolutionist will say, “A small amount of water over a long period of time carved this canyon.” Compare this to a special creationist who will say, “A large amount of water over a short period of time carved this canyon.” (as fitting with a global catastrophic flood in Genesis 6). Both are viewing the same situation with their world view but both are coming up with very different conclusions about what they see. So as Jury you have to weigh the evidence and you do have to choose.

One of Websters definition of 'religion' is, 'a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith' It is a fair and accurate to say that Evolution is a religion. And that’s why I will refer to it as Evolutionism. Its a philosophy about our origins and therefore by inference is a religion and a fiercely guarded state religion at that. All secular disciplines and studies now bow to evolutionary thinking . Consider, Science is defined as that which is observable and repeatable. This is known as empirical science. Evolution cannot be repeated under observation. So it certainly is not science. Therefore faith is the necessary ingredient in those who hold onto the evolutionary belief. The evolutionists faith statement is, ’millions of years ago nothing exploded’. The Christian (bible believing) faith statement is, ‘In the beginning God created’. Two polar opposite religions. As Evolutionism is not science, it is actually more of a hindrance as it seeks to place scientific findings in a neatly arranged Darwinian package rather than the quest of discovery.

Its no surprise that God’s world (and Word) has been hijacked by evolutionists as scripture informs us that it declares the glory of God. Behind the evolutionism movement I am fully convinced are the powers and principalities that seek to set themselves up against the knowledge of God . Darwin was just a pawn through which Evolutionism propagated and floats around in our textbooks and programs not because of credible empirical scientific findings, but rather a philosophy that offers sinful man a way out of confronting his sinful nature through the omission of God.

There is a good reason why in a Jury the witness is told to speak the Truth , the Whole Truth and nothing but the truth. We all know to well that we can hear partial truth, but if its not the whole truth, then a drastically different understanding will effect the ability of the verdict . SO how really does evolutionism stand in a court of law?

This article is intend to present what the Scripture has to say. If you believe all scripture is God breathed, God inspired, (2 Tim.3:16) then very early on doctrinal problems develop when considering the verdict . In John 5.47 Jesus Himself validates the writings of Moses. If you don’t believe God’s Word is God inspired and accurate then you have bigger problems than Evolutionism. Too long we have been sold a lie. Theistic evolution, is an attempt to embrace secular evolution and falls short of theological soundness not to mention common sense.

No less than ten times Genesis chapter one goes to length repeating, God created the different plant and animals after their kind. Gen 1:11, twice in 1:12 ,twice in 1:21,twice in 1:24 and three times in 1:25. And this is exactly what we see today. Dogs give birth to dogs, horses to horses and the same great observation that Charlie Darwin was made famous for on the Galapagos Islands, the finches. Finches who differed in beak size, (natural selection, variation amongst the kinds) but they are still the same kind. Birds!

As a side note, its from this observation through that the whole evolution idea is birthed from and hung upon. We have been told that because there are variations amongst kinds this means that at some point there had to have been ‘jumps’ to other kinds, this is completely unobserved, unscientific and unscriptural. (Variation amongst the kinds is also known also as micro evolution, an unfortunate term as its not evolution at all, but rather the brilliance of our Creator God that places diversity in the genes of the created life) One cannot accept evolutionism and competently accept the Genesis account.

The gospel has its origins in Genesis right after the fall. The theme for the Christian faith is the restoration of all things. That which was lost through the fall in Genesis 3 will one day be restored by Christ. In part we have been reconciled back to God. But there is much more here than salvation. The original plan and design of God was corrupted and spoilt.

In Genesis we are introduced with two tree’s, the tree of good and evil and the tree of life. These are real tree’s not symbolic as they come up again in Revelation as part of the reconciliation. God’s warning to Adam that if he was to partake of the tree of good and evil, he would surely die. Right here we are given our first negative from God. God had created everything wonderful, and it was ALL very good (Gen 1.31), but here we get a warning from God to man. You will surely die. Death is first defined right here. It stands in polar opposites to that which exists as good up to that point in the garden. Its essential to note death is a result of sin. Death is a product of sin. The same carries on into much of Paul’s writing’s, when going through his list of those who practice sin, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but will surely die.(1 Cor. 6.10) also the seed of sin gives birth to death(James 1:15).

The hero of evolutionism is the survival of the fittest, death and decay,

Question, what was God talking about? “You will surely die”, if the very mechanism by which God used to produce man was death? This naturally leads on to another question, What sort of god is demented enough to look at his creation, and say of it “it is very good” (Genesis 1.31). What kind of god can say of aeons of years of death and decay as being good? Scriptures tell us God is good as God himself has defined bad by virtue of death in his warning to original man, Adam.

Because of their delusion in prostituting Evolutionism with Genesis, some have tried to get around Gen 1:31, ‘God said it was good’ and proposed it wasn't good at all. This is a key feature of theistic evolutionism and is an outright heresy. It’s a perverted twisting of scripture that runs into direct contradiction to what we are told. Its outright and blatantly wrong,. The word good in Genesis 1.31 is the same in as in Psalm 14.1 and interesting conveys also a moral goodness, the same that Jesus uses in Matthew 19:17. A goodness that is only know in the realm of the goodness of God.

Consider.... The gospel began in Genesis 3. God created perfect man, man sinned, God gave and sent his son to fix the problem. Well, if evolution was the means God used, aeons of years of survival of the fittest and death and decay , what really was so bad about the fall ? Genesis 3 (the fall, the root problem of man) is a nonsense if death was existent before that. If evolution be true, why is the fall such a problem? Its very obvious to the authors of scripture and Christ Himself that death is an issue and requires ultimately to be conquered.

If God had so willed, billions of years could have been used. God could have used a picosecond if desired, but that’s not what we are told. We are told God worked in creation for 6 days and rested on the 7th simply to set the work and rest pattern for man.

The Hebrew for day is ‘Yom’. Meaning a literal day or a period of time such as in the ‘days of Elijah’. In Genesis though there can be no mistake upon its usage as there are several indications of its meaning. Firstly ‘Yom’ is accompanied by the number of that day. God tells us what He did on day 1, day 2 etc. Secondly there is mention of the first evening and morning. This was the composite parts of a day (Gen. 1:5). To give a long period of time an evening and a morning is a grand stretch. Thirdly what is known as the ‘Law of First Mention’.

From David L. Cooper, Th. M, PhD,, this law of first mention is defined as;

The law of first mention may be said to be the principle that requires one to go to that portion of the Scriptures where a doctrine is mentioned for the first time and to study the first occurrence of the same in order to get the fundamental inherent meaning of that doctrine. When we thus see the first appearance, which is usually in the simplest form, we can then examine the doctrine in other portions of the Word that were given later. We shall see that the fundamental concept in the first occurrence remains dominant as a rule, and colours all later additions to that doctrine. In view of this fact, it becomes imperative that we understand the law of first mention

Psalm 33.6 tells us by Gods word the heavens were made and the host of them, verse 9 tells us God spoke and it was done and stood fast. A sense of absolute authority and supreme power is being conveyed here. God commanded, everything was done and it stands fast. It would be difficult to insert evolution as the process in which God created and then follow up with a statement such as ‘it holds fast’. For something to hold fast there needs to be a sense of it having reached a final point of completion to be held fast.

A thousand years as one day has been used by many as a defence for accepting long ages. Firstly it’s thousands of years, not millions. The two biblical references and their authors had no concept (and inspiration from God) of millions of years and rightly so, there had only been multiples of thousands! Secondly scripture used in this way is a text without a context. Within context these scriptures are drawing attention to the fact that God created time (Gen 1:1, In the beginning) we are locked into time, God is not. God is outside of time domain.

Consider Genesis 1:14, “And God said , Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs , and for seasons, and for days, and years.” God is telling us the function of the stars. God specifically uses the term day and year and rightly so, as the earth spins one rotation on its axis in a 24 hour day defining what a day is (a tad less) and the earth completing one revolution around the sun defines what one year is. So in God’s brilliance crafted through His creation, seasons were introduced to establish and govern what you and I so often glibly call time. In our western arrogance so often we can patronise civilizations labelling them as primitive. This often surfaces through such statements as, ‘that’s how they wrote in those days, and that was their understanding of time’. What nonsense!


Genesis is full of specific statements, place names , people and events that have been verified through Archaeology. Also verified by New Testament scriptures, especially Romans. Genesis tells us it’s Astronomy that gives us our seasons, and we come up with notions that these people had a different concept of time than we do! How arrogant.

Attempting to symbolise the Genesis historical account, how would one explain away the specific ranges of the deaths of people who lived pre-flood. Adam died at 930 years, Methuselah 969 and so on, (as a side note these years are fully possible considering pre flood earth conditions and also provable). Given these specific years then, when did Genesis swap to going from being symbolic to being precise? Using specific ages of man's death and specific days when discussing the flood account, the Genesis account is displaying its accuracy based on its understanding of how time and seasons were understood.

In Exodus 20, God is giving Moses the 10 commandments – a very significant event for mankind, Verse 9 God Himself explains why we are to work 6 days and rest on the 7th, ..”For in 6 days the Lord made heaven and earth , the sea and all that in them is.” By establishing the Sabbath God Himself is declaring the duration of the creation week. Again we see this pattern. The idea that the days are aeons of time is nonsense, creating for millions of years and then resting lacking seriously in mental integrity.

According to God, His work is finished as He declared in Genesis 2:1 – This moves us on to day 7 where God rested. If evolution be true, by definition requires a continuing process – it cannot be finished. But the word of God has something very different to say, When discussing marriage with the Pharisee’s Jesus (in Mark 10:6) took them right back to the beginning – “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female”. Right here Christ infers completion, right back at the beginning of creation (the creation week) God made them male and female. Finished.

Had this not been true Gen 1.31 again produces an issue , If God created and finished, calling it very good makes complete sense, but setting aside the time line issue momentarily, of what good is man, through the mechanism of death and survival of the fittest (evolution) who is still evolving? Gen 1.26 refers to man bearing God’s image, Whose or what image does a ‘evolving’ thing bear? An evolving man would be made in the image of a god whose by very nature is death, disease and suffering. Genesis does not portray this in any sense , no matter how much effort is placed on butchering the text.

The mechanisms of evolutionism are chaotic disorder, random chances, genetic mutations, survival of the fittest, pain, suffering and disease contrasting the theme established in Genesis which is God. God who thought. God who designed and God who created. Genesis one and two is good with no mention of randomness, chance, badness, corruption, suffering, disease and certainly not death. To even entertain the idea of evolutionism into the Genesis, origin of life account is not only heretical its completely illogical.

The nature of man ought to be discussed. Scripture gives us some insight into original created man. Man and woman were designed and built by God, a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned in glory and honour (Psalm 8). God did a very good job when He made man (Gen 1.31). Three specific attributes are going on here, Firstly, made a little lower than the heavenly beings, well its hard to know with certainly exactly what that is, maybe a sphere of authority, whatever the case though, we were made, a verb that conveys completion. There is no essence of unfinished work, are the angels who are a litter higher than us still evolving? Or have they been evolving and have now stopped? Seems absurd to entertain the idea of ‘beings of a spiritual nature’ evolving, so why do we assume God’s physical representation would need it?

Secondly, Man was crowned with glory and honour. Again crowned, a verb conveying completion . What sort of imaginative thinking would one have to do to butcher this text? These are amazing insights into the original attributes of man all coinciding with whose image we bear (Gen1:26). This is the Shekinah glory of God, it’s the glory that the Hebrew is referring to when it says, man was naked and unashamed. Man was clothed with God’s Shekinah glory!

When God’s temple was completed by Solomon we read of God’s glory falling. We read of the items in the temple that were to be holy (set apart for God’s use). Nothing that has not been set apart can have the glory of God upon it. It’s a pattern that runs through scripture heavily. God created perfection and it was very good. Man was created and set apart for God. God’s glory was all over creation and especially over man who was made in God’s image! Clothed in glory! Immediately after the fall, man was aware of his nakedness, but this is NOT a physical nakedness! Man was physically naked before, it’s the glory! The glory was lost. God’s Shekinah glory that Psalm 8 discusses was lost! It’s this same sense we feel as men and woman now, we feel desperately unattached and apart from our Creator God. And that’s the nakedness that the original man and woman experienced, a separation from their Creator God and that is what sin does, it separates us from God. But praise be to God, Jesus came to set us free, Jesus is the last Adam. 1 Corinthians 2.9 tells us some attributes of Jesus, glory and honour again! This is the glory! Jesus is reconciling what was lost back to man. Scripture contrasts Gods glory with fallen man often. Its this chasm that one day will be dealt with. As one man brought death into the creation, (Romans 5.17- 5.19) it was one man Jesus the second Adam, to remove it! So following this through it was the corruption that entered into our nature and a Holy God could not be associated any longer in an intimate way with fallen man. This is the centrality of our faith as Christians! Our brokenness (fall of man) is made right through the life, death and resurrection of Christ!

Question, could ‘evolving man’ really be clothed in the glory of God? Could something that is a depiction of death and disease (the mechanism of evolution) be endowed or clothed with God’s glory.? This brings us back to an earlier point, what was so bad about the fall? What did God's warning about ‘You will surely die’ mean? If by nature our existence was brought by death and disease then what the heck was God talking about? Man was already death and dying! But it was a disaster, the worse disaster that has ever come upon man.

One thing has to be known and Immediately here we head to 2 passages in the New Testament, Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15.21. Its clear and central to the Christian faith, Man brought sin into the world not God! 1 Corinthians 15.21 says it was through man’s sin death came into the world. It then mentions Adam right away, the first man. Yet again we have verification of man's time line. Adam was the first man, Adam sinned. One human, one life. Evolutionism maintains aeons of time of death and decay, so as a ‘theistic evolutionist’ what butchering of God’s word would have to be done here’? when did sin come along? Theistic evolution states death and then ultimately sin. The Word of God declares Sin and then death, a reversion and complete polarisation on points of doctrine. Its simply not possible to tally up evolutionism and the Word of God. They declare two viewpoints and ultimately two very different world views.

The whole reason for joy as Christians is that Jesus, (the last Adam) had victory over death. Why does Paul make a point in 1 Cor. 15.54 about death as being swallowed up in victory? Death is bad! It always has been. It was not God’s desire at all.

We know Jesus came to undo the works of the enemy! (1 John 3:8) to fix the damage of the fall in Genesis 3, but why? Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 15:26 that the last enemy to be destroyed is death. If Jesus is portrayed as the last Adam, (where Adam as original man was crowned by honour and glory) and died to restore all things unto himself (Colossians 1:20), but God by aeons of years of death (which was the catalyst for the 1st man Adam), then what use was the death of Jesus and what is he restoring to Himself? What would the death of another man benefit? It’s a nonsense and carries no significance at all. The cornerstone of our faith would be a joke.

This is just some of the theological implications a theistic evolutionist has to deal with or just accept as faith.

All the glory be to God.

~ Daniel Durston

By Daniel Durston 09 Jun, 2010


By way of introduction and before embarking on examining any scientific claim, an understanding of secular foundational world view needs to be considered. World view, we all have one. That which equips us with a set of lens by which we process things, experiences, people and life itself. Ironically, it is things, experiences, people and life which form our world views.

So often the controversy behind these scientific claims is not the science itself but the philosophy behind it, ‘the world view’. Professor of Bible Theology Marvin L. Lubenow says, “It is becoming increasingly evident that the so-called “Bible-Science War” is not a science war but a philosophical war.” Or as Oxford Professor of mathematics and Philosopher of Science, John Lennox, says, “Two opposing scientists can give two equally opposing and convincing statements, this tell us the disagreement is not in the science but the world view.”

In a culture that is programmed and ruled by post-modern thought, there is no room for God. No room for an Absolute, therefore no room for absolutes . No room for a world view that sets God up as Moral Dictator, Law Giver and Judge. In turn just a melting pot, of humanism, materialism, anarchy and relativity, where you establish your own set of truths and values to live by. So its of no surprise to find man seeking to answer by his own sense of autonomy questions of life, questions of morality and in this instance questions of origin.

One such lens was sold to the west over 150 years ago by one man, Charles Darwin. In his book, ‘Origin of Species’ (1859), Darwin offered a revolutionary new world view for sinful man. A way in which rebellious man could view his created world and understanding of its origins as a series of natural events and genetic freak mutations with minimal or no commitment to an all powerful God who one day will reckon all peoples to give an account of their lives.

As we all have a world view, it needs to be said scientists are no different! A scientists world view will strongly determine their ‘starting point’ in which they view and interpret any 'evidence' they come across.

Darwin’s ideas were heavily influenced by British born Geologist Charles Lyell, who himself set out to, "free the science from Moses". Darwin’s book however ‘Origin of Species’ speaks nowhere of the origin of species, let alone any evidence for his theories, just a fairytale notion that a ‘simple cell’ came from nothing and increased in complexity and produced all the complexities and phylum of life we have today. How wrong could Darwin have been, what so arrogantly in his day was referred to as the ‘simple cell’, is known to be vastly more complex than anything man could ever conceive to build. This ‘simple cell’ is nothing less than a miniature city with staggering complexity facilitating the existence of life.

At this point it would be worth mentioning a popular misconception. The ‘Fossil Record’.

Guess what? There isn’t a fossil record! When bones or skull fragments are found, they come not with scribed inscriptions referencing date of origin and genus. In this case of the found Australopithecus sediba skull, no records were found with it. This may sound apparently obvious, however the point needs to be illustrated that the interpretation of the evidence is 100% one sided. 'Records' have been established by geologists, palaeontologists and in this case the paleoantologists who have been influenced by Charles Darwin, from which current day fossil finders interpret their finds by. Classification is essential of course regarding the natural world, but if one is classifying based on ‘increased complexity’, from simple to complex, as Darwin proposed ,their classification is seriously flawed for a number of reasons.

Consider the Genesis account;

Chapter One

(v.24) And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

(v.25) God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Three things stand out here, firstly what God said, was done. ‘And it was so’.

Secondly, we read, 'each according to its kind', This is why cats give birth to cats, dogs give birth to dogs and elephants give birth to elephants and humans, humans.They produce after themselves the same kind. The bible uses its own classification system, 'kinds'. Today we speak in terms of species, because of different classification systems in use, care needs to be exercised when using the words interchangeably, but simply put (and to this day it has never been fully agreed upon) an animal who can breed with another animal and whose offspring is fertile is generally regarded as the same kind. God has enabled through genetic programming variations within the kinds,(this is not evolution) but they are still the same kind of animal! Any 'specie' barrier jumping as Darwin and modern day evo's (evolutionist) claim, has never been observed.

Thirdly God saw it was good. It’s clear these animals were completed, finished and fully functional. Nothing half or partially complete could be of any functional use and therefore unable to bring glory to God and hardly something God would be able to call good. (Gen 1:21,25)

Consider also a glaring issue with the evolutionary world view, The ‘simple’ to more complex. It is absurd to say that different animals range in complexity. Is it possible to make a dog any simpler and maintain its functionality? Could a better Kudu be built? Maybe it can be explained this way; all life forms are complex, every one. Unless there is full completion (complexity) of the beast life is not possible. This has come to be termed as ‘irreducible complexity’. To illustrate this point consider a mouse trap.

A mouse trap has five parts.

1 – catch

2 - spring

3 - hammer

4 - bait holder

5 - platform


All of these parts have to be present and assembled before there is available functionality of the trap. If just one part is absent, it will not equate to 4/5ths possible mice catches, no mice could be caught. Our Creator God has made and completed all living systems fully functional and ready to reproduce after its kind. (Genesis 1:20-31)

Lee Berger , discoverer of the Australopithecus sediba is quick to tell us, 'it is the missing link crucial in our understanding for human evolution.' Quote; (BBC News April 9 2010, 'Science and Environment')

“This sits right at a critical moment in human evolution between those early Australopithecines like Lucy and between our immediate ancestors, Homo erectus like Turkana boy, it fills that gap an its different than what we’d been filling that gap with which is always a fantastic thing for science to find.”

Here another flaw in the evo’s world view is highlighted and best illustrated by Marvin L. Lubenow’s book, ‘Bones of Contention’

‘In a certain graduate course I took in palaeontology at a state university, the professor attempted to teach us the concepts of taxonomy and the construction of those familiar evolutionary family trees. He handed each student a packet of about 150 metal objects such as nails, tacks, and paper clips. Utilizing the various rules of evolutionary taxonomy, such as small to large, simple to complex, and generalized to specialized, we were each expected to arrange these objects in evolutionary order. Starting with generalized nails, we went on to nails 'gradually increasing in size and then branching off into various specialized types of nails and tacks. Naturally no two students arranged their objects in exactly the same way, although there was a similar overall similarity. When the project was finished, we all had created a beautiful series of phylogenetic trees showing the “evolution” of nails, tacks and paper clips.

What I found fascinating about the project was that as we played with our object lesson, no one sensed that the illustration was totally invalid; it had no relationship to reality. Each of the objects that we had arranged in such a convincing evolutionary sequence had in fact been individually created for a specific purpose by humans. There was no actual evolutionary relationship between them. We were able to arrange then in an “evolutionary” sequence even though none of them had evolved.

Rather than being led by the evidence and seeing where it leads, Lee Berger is ‘force fitting’ the evidence into pre-conceived ideas and classifications that Charles Darwin has handed down.

Actually at the time of his writing Darwin had no physical evidence such as ‘transitionary’ fossils to support his claim. He believed in time however some would be found. At least Darwin was honest enough himself to include the below extract in his book;

“Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and series objection which can be urged against the theory.” (Origin of Species 6th edition 1872 P.413)

So where are we at today? If evolution be true we should be finding millions and millions of transitionary fossils and skeletons. We should be finding invertebrate to vertebrate, fish to amphibian, reptile to bird and so on, but this isn’t the case. Even ex senior Palaeontologist (evolutionist) Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History, had himself acknowledge that of all their 60,000 plus fossils, not a single transitional fossil could be found.

It should be clear by now that our lens or ‘starting point’ play a key role in viewing and interpreting evidence and information. In the book , ‘Bones of Contention’, Lubenow illustrates this point well in the following extract;

‘One of the lines of evidence promoting the concept of human evolution involves studies on living chimpanzees-their behaviour, genetic makeup, and anatomy. All of these studies are fundamentally flawed. The flaw is known in logic as begging the question. In begging the question, you assume to be true the very thing you are trying to prove. Let me illustrate…

A man was observed walking down in Chicago, snapping his fingers. Finally, someone was driven by curiosity to ask him why he repeatedly snapped his fingers. “It keeps the elephants away,” the man replied.

“Why, man, there aren’t any elephants within ten thousand miles of this place!” responded his questioner.

“Pretty effective, isn’t it?” exclaimed the man. He first assumed that snapping his fingers kept elephants away. He then used the absence of elephants to prove that his snapping worked. To presuppose the truth of what you are trying to prove is the illogical practice of begging the question.

Evo’s first assume that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. They then use superficial similarities between humans and chimpanzees to prove their assumption.

They should take a course of logic. Studies on Chimpanzees could cast light on human nature only if evolution were first proven to be true. If evolution is not true, chimpanzee studies, although valuable in their own right, are worthless in shedding light on human origins.’

The evo’s though are desperate to defend the god of evolution, no matter how much mental gymnastics need to be performed to achieve it. Scratching at anything that could be interpreted as a transitional fossil, and Australopithecus sediba found in South Africa was no different.

The Article

April 8 2010, BBC News Channel published an article titled ‘South African fossils could be new hominid species’. “Science” journal the next day also had a publication on this ‘ape-like’ ancestor.

Ascribing the fossil in question with the name Australopithecus sediba (‘Southern Ape of the Spring’) its discoverer American Professor Lee Berger, explains how the remains of two ancient human-like creatures discovered in the Malapa caves in South Africa’s Sterkfontein region, could be a new species which bridge the gap between the older Homo hails (supposedly 2.3 to 1.4 millions years ago) and the more modern Homo sapiens.

Berger is claiming this fossil find is the link between ‘Lucy’ and ‘Turkana boy’. Who is ‘Lucy’ though? And who is ‘Turkana boy’.

Well according to the Evo’s, ‘Lucy’ 'Australopithecus afarensis' was a member of the ape-like Australopithecus (meaning southern ape) who lived in Africa 3.2 million years ago. Found by U.S. palaeontologist Donald Johanson in Ethiopia 1974, it is still universally regarded as a fossil of human descent and is used as an example of human evolution in the majority of school textbooks.

However, when the bones were studied using a spectrograph they match that of a chimpanzee, not of a man. The bones that supposedly made up ‘Lucy’ were assembled from bones found in different locations. The knee joint was found over a mile away from the rest of the skeleton! National Geographic even made reference to ‘Lucy’s knee’ and without correction.

Johanson thought Lucy was becoming a human due to the fact that an ape has a straight femur which it does, but Lucy’s knee was angled to the side like a human. However tree climbing monkeys have an angled femur, she was a tree climbing monkey! And possibly some still exist today in parts of Southeast Asia.

So what about ‘Turkana Boy’. Discovered By K. Kimeu in 1984 at the Nariokotome site in West Kenya, Turkana was believed to be part of the Homo erectus specie. The most complete skeleton ever found but with hands and feet missing. Based on the cranial capacity , about 1000 – 1050cc, similar to a young child but too large for an ape, in contrast to its larger eye brow ridges, like that of an ape , Turkana was believed to be another missing link.

Of interest discovered in 1891 by Eugene Dubois in Indonesia is ‘Java man’. All Dubois found though was a skull cap, 3 teeth and a femur which was found 50 feet away from the skull cap a year later. After serious study it was discovered 2 of the other pieces from ‘Java man’ were from 2 different skulls from two different areas in the island. Dubois closer to his death confessed the in-authenticity of his find and admitted the pieces were that of a human and a femur bone of a giant gibbon. And yet it remains in the text books and ‘science’ journals as evidence for human evolution.

Piltdown man is one such find which had been acknowledged as a deliberate hoax. Collected from a gravel pit at Piltdown (a village in Sussex, UK) in 1912, a combination of a human cranium and a lower jaw of an orang-utan were assembled together. With the teeth of the orang-utan mandible which had been filed down to make them look human.

So Berger has classified his find, to fit in-between two deliberate frauds. And the frauds go on, ‘Peking man’ , ‘Orce’, ‘Ramapithicis’ ‘Neanderthal man’.

Even fellow evo’s have their doubts regarding Lee Berger’s claim. One of which is covered by Science and Tech Mail Online April 11 2010)

'Dr Darren Curnoe a specialist in human evolution from the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney said: 'The discovery of one, let alone two, partial skeletons of the fossil relatives of humans is a rare and truly amazing thing. Added to this, is the remarkably young geological age of these new finds. 'But he claimed the discovery had been surrounded by 'hype and over-interpretation' .'To claim that these new fossils represent an ancestor of living humans is misleading and founded in error,'

It should be said that these fossil finds are not readily available for scientists to examine and scrutinise. In the evolutionary mindset finding such a ‘missing link’ is of incredible value as it belongs to part of human heritage. These fossils which have been claimed to be transitionary fossils usually remain in the country where they are found in and are heavily guarded! Not to mention the fragility of them. Being buried and packed with dirt, soil and mineral deposits has kept them preserved, (not suggesting millions of years here), this makes them vulnerable when exposed to the elements. Also during their cleaning, many become ever more frail after the support they once had (the sediments) gets removed. As Lubenow puts it, ‘In some countries the protection of these fossils seems more important than the study of them’.

Therefore it needs to be said only a very few scientists actually get to handle and examine the fossils without much challenge in their interpretation. In addition to this from Marvin Lubenow, ‘Bones of Contention’;

“Since the original fossils are virtually beyond access to even to most who teach and write in the field of Paleoanthropology, and only a few of the fossils are available as reproductions, and reproductions are not recommended in the preparation of scientific papers, and those scientific papers themselves cannot adequately convey differences between fossils, the “science” of Paleoanthropology seems to have a problem.

The myth in the minds of the public is that the human fossil material is readily available and is thoroughly studied by all who teach and write on the subject. The truth is that Paleoanthropology is in the awkward position of being a science that is several steps removed from the very evidence upon which it claims to base its findings."

John Fleagle Department of Anatomical Sciences, State University of New York;

“The big awkwardness right now is when someone announces they have found a specimen that overturns everything we know, but almost no one has seen it “

To date approximately 4000 human fossil remains have been found. Out of this amount only a few have been selected and attempted to be used for human evolution. It would be good to briefly mention something about brow ridges. In all of these skulls the brow ridge appears somewhat prominent. This is easy to understand for the ape skulls, as apes have prominent brow ridges! However some human remains have been found with prominent brow ridges. This is in harmony with the biblical account where humans and animals not only grew much larger (plenty of fossil evidence to support this) but lived longer as well. The brow ridge is the only bone in the human body that does not stop growing, with humans living many hundreds of years its plausibly at least to suggest they would have had larger sized brow ridges. It was after the fall of man that human longevity began to decrease and especially noticeable post flood where the average age of a person dropped considerably.

Its always of interest to note how the scientists comment on the possible cause of deaths. In every instance of found fossils, being rapidly buried through drowning is always the imagined scenario. Even dinosaur fossils, who have supposedly drowned in such flash floods.

An extract from the BBC write up under the heading ‘Rapid Burial’ says;

‘The scientists speculate the creatures either fell into the cave complex or became stuck in it. It is likely their bodies were then swept into an underground lake or pool, perhaps during a rainstorm. Their bones were laid down with the remains of other dead animals, including a sabre-toothed cat, antelope, mice and rabbits. The fact that none of the bodies appear to have been scavenged indicates that all died suddenly and were entombed rapidly.’

Or Professor Paul Dirks from James Cook University in Queensland, Australia; (team member)

“We think that there must have been some sort of calamity taking place at the time that caused all of these fossils to come down together into the cave where they got trapped and ultimately buried,"

And there is a good reason for this. In order for a life form to be fossilized it has to be covered and buried rapidly. If not decay and decomposition will set in and destroy it, if it hadn’t been already scavenged by a predator. So the only way to account for all the thousands upon thousands of fossils we have are thousands upon thousands of ‘rapid burial’ events. Or perhaps a more biblical interpretation would be, just one catastrophic event. A global flood. (Gen. 6)

In light of this, fossil finders take it for granted that what they find has been rapidly buried, aiding its preservation. However these same paleontologists ascribe to the idea that earths strata was laid down layer by layer over millions and millions of years as the theory of evolution dictates.

Of all these thousands upon thousands of fossils, imagine the dying animal lying exposed for millions and millions of years whilst the layers slowly bury around them. Its an illogical impossibility. They would be eaten up or decomposed within weeks. This is yet another serious problem the evo’s have to deal with when embracing Darwinian evolutionism as their worldview. The very existence of fossils points to a world wide flood as fossils do not form under normal conditions, they have to be buried rapidly.


Artwork

Just a few notes on artwork. A visit to the museum, the biology textbooks or national geographic is enough to see a great spectrum of glossy complete pictures of our ‘human ancestors’.

The artist rendition of the found fossil is completely down to the subjectivity and the imagination of themselves. Of all the supposed transitional fossils, the majority are partially assembled with just a selection of bones. The artist (‘guided’ by the paleoanthropologist) fills the gaps in and conveys exactly what they want to viewer to see. Consider ‘Lucy’ Australopithecus afarensis, no foot bones were found whatsoever, yet St Louis zoo had her on display with human like feet! As do all the images of ‘her’.


In God's Image

Professor Lee Berger tells us, ‘It's at the point where we transition from an ape that walks on two legs to, effectively, us," (BBC News Report April 2010)

But the God of creation who was there gives us a very different account. Genesis chapter one.

(v26) ‘Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let then rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Embracing the idea of human evolution as a plausible way that mankind came into being promises major doctrinal issues. Much can be said, but consider just some of the issues.

Man was created in Gods image, either man was or was not. If man came about through a series of transitional humans, then man could not have been made in Gods image. At what stage through the evolutionary process did man become a man bearing the image of his God? At what stage did man become a tri-composite being of Spirit , Soul and Body? (1 Thess. 5:23)

We are told Jesus was the ‘last Adam’. Jesus accomplished through love, faith and obedience what Adam had failed to do. (Rom. 5:12) This is based on the foundational truths in Genesis that there was one man Adam. Working backwards if Jesus was the last Adam, a ‘first Adam’ had to have lived. Secondly if the one man Jesus was obedient so many could be made righteous, (Rom. 5:19) then the first made Adam must have been able to be obedient himself. Naturally the question arises how capable of rational thinking and choice let alone obedience, is a slowly progressing transitioning ape/human.?

 

As mentioned a whole book could be written on the lack of compatibility with Gods Word and human evolutionism. However one last issue needs to be discussed. The sanctity of humanity.

Evolution teaches we are all animals. This is polar opposite to what God would have us know.

Unlike animals we have a spirit. This is the part of our composition which separates us from animals and plants and makes us Image bearers of God. Chemistry, biology and physics are not enough to produce life! Science is just the study of things we can test in a laboratory.

We are told it was upon the Wisdom of God, (Proverbs) that life was brought forth, and upon Gods Word it was established. Regarding Mankind , Genesis 2:7 tell us that man was formed from the dust of the ground, (chemistry and biology working together) But it was not until God breathed into the mans nostrils the breath of life, רוח, (RU-ah) that man became a living being. This is the part of the very God that built us that unites us as human beings and separates us from animals and everything else created, God’s Spirit, Gods Image. Life comes from God, not the ground.

As we bear the very Image of God, we are holy, we are sacred, we are set apart from all of Gods creation. This is why the institution of capital punishment was given to Noah by God after the flood. (Gen.9:6) Humans are of immeasurable worth, of immeasurable value and sacred because of Whose image we bear.


Finally

Our world view is of the upmost importance. As it bears influence on the choices we make from day to day right up to legislation passed by our governments, its of absolute importance we seek to get a right and Godly one.

Ironically on the website of prominent Atheist Richard Dawkins, the slogan can be seen, ‘A Clear-Thinking Oasis’.

Dawkins does not understand that none of us live in a vacuum, and that our thinking is influenced and established by what we feed on and embrace, (those things we ultimately worship)

Absolute objectivity is an unrealistic condition to be placed on our fallen state and depraved thinking. Worldviews are formed in a child predominantly by their parents followed by the schools and reinforced (or not) by the media. To know the worldview of our age, one just has to switch on the television, observe the movies watched, music listened to and friends kept. None of us are free agents, we will be influenced by the philosophy of our age. We are however free choosers, we can choose to adopt a different worldview, a biblical worldview. Scripture has a lot to say about a persons thinking.

In the book of Proverbs, which is primarily written to young men to teach and guide them into manhood, we find ‘Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding’

(Proverbs 3:5)

Paul in to the church at Rome tells us, ‘Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.’ (Romans 12:2) By feeding on Gods Word we are pushing out the philosophies and vain thinking of our age and embracing the ultimate and perfect thinking of God.

As fallen man we have a disposition for sin, it comes most natural, Gen 6:5 tell us ‘how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.’ This was the main reason why God wiped mankind from the face of the earth by the global flood.

In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul call us to fight with weapons that are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 6And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete. (2 Cor. 10:4,5) Again the idea of punishing the disobedient comes out here.

Godless thinking will lead to a Godless and heathenistic life which in turn will lead to destruction. We are called to renew our minds and be thinkers like Christ .In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul affirms them that the mind of Christ dwells within them, and call them to realign their thinking with that of Christ.(1 Cor. 2:16) There is something essential about getting our thinking aligned to the inspired Word of God and turning from the uninspired words of man.

 

‘As a man thinks in his heart, so is he’ ~ Proverbs

May this be our Prayer;

Father God, we repent that we have for too long been swept by doctrines of demons, where Your power and glory is stripped away and reduced to natural, random, mindless processes.

Father God, we thank you that you first loved us and thought about us and through Your Wisdom brought forth the physical realm into existence by Your Word.

Thank you Lord that when You spoke it, it was done. And all that You had done was very good.

Father, we confess there is much we don’t know, but thank You Lord you left us an account of our origins.

Thank you Father that what we do know enables us to bring glory to You,

Thank you Creator God that You have left us the study of chemistry, biology and physics bounded by laws in which to learn more about our world.

To You God be the glory forever and ever. Amen


By Daniel Durston 04 Apr, 2016
Introduction

To understand where something is going it is important to understand where it came from so the Origins of tattoos will be discussed first. Then the Reasons people generally give justifying their decision to receive this mark. Thirdly and of most importance, the Root reason for these body alterations. Finally a word to Christians who have or may be thinking of marking themselves.

Some of the content discussed may be difficult to accept and offensive to some. This certainly is not intentional and like every worthwhile journey, of most importance is where we end up and how this knowledge equates to application. This means, rolling up the sleeves, getting right to the root and trying to ‘flesh out’ what is going on with this increasing fad.

Ultimately and like the gospel, which offers salvation for the lost and healing to the sick, there is no place for judgement without solution. Judgement is our heavenly Fathers prerogative, and salvations solution His gift, but we have to be humble, acknowledge we are all in need of The Saviour, Jesus Christ. Tattoo’s are just one area in which Satan has sought to pervert humanity, there are a catalogue of others. None of us are immune, we are a fallen people.
Therefore discernment for our age and the dangers that so easily ensnare us, are essential. We are to be equipped, so that we can share the wonderful news of the Saviour and the cross to those are so desperately misguided and adrift.

This article is both for secularists and Christians.


Statistics

Never has there been a time in history when so many have sought to mark their bodies in some way. In the US tattoo parlours are one of the fastest growing industries.
This is interesting because of the negative statistics associated with tattoos in general. Undertaken by recent studies by the Pew Research Centre and the University of St Andrews in Scotland here are just a few.

• Tattoos are universally looked down on.
• Having tattoos lowers your chance of finding a job
• Employers across the majority of industries have a negative view of tattoos ‘dirty’ ‘repugnant’ ‘abhorrent’
• 30% of those without tattoos said they feel those with tattoos are more likely to do something deviant, 25% of them think a tattooed person is less intelligent and less healthy over all.
• Women are viewed less favourably when they have tattoos, viewed as less intelligent, but more honest, however viewed as likely drinking more and being more promiscuous.

Another finding the Pew researchers concluded was that;

‘Tattoos don’t affect how physically attractive someone is found, but rather tattoos generally effect how we judge a person’s character.’

 However, there are those who would argue character is intrinsically tied to what is presented outwardly, this certainly holds true of fashion, clothing, hairstyle and even excessive makeup. Therefore a tattooed person while attractive in their former natural, ‘un-tattooed’ state could well be perceived as unattractive, when laden with tattoos.  
Regardless of the statistics, the desire by both men and women to deface their bodies is on the increase, certainly in Western thinking cultures (this Western trend will be discussed in detail further along). One has only to go to any town in England for example and observe both men and women adorning some form of body branding. Additionally the media and its ‘celebrities’ glorify and advertise freshly acquired markings. This month’s Daily Mail Online featured an entire article on David Beckhams new ‘classical couple’ etched into his ankle.


Origins

Tattooing itself has been practised by humans just about since the beginning of time. Way back in the Torah (5 books of Moses) God instructs Moses to tell the people not to mark their bodies in any way.

‘You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD’. (Leviticus 19:28)

Tracing the origin of tattoos calls for looking at its etymology (the root meaning of the word)
The word means a ‘marking’ and many empires have used it in different ways for centuries to do just that. Almost always different empires branded (tattooed) slaves to symbolize ownership or enslavement over them. As time progressed (19th century) and especially in the West, ‘Tattoo’ became to mean a ‘mark of disgrace or reproach’.

 Archaeology confirms tattooing is nothing new and has been done by cultures all over the planet for millennia. The modern rise of tattoos is not a unique idea to 21st century man but has its roots in thousands of years of history.

Of interest is The Creators prohibition in Leviticus 19:28. Like marking the flesh (tattoo’s) people were also cutting their flesh, the reasons for these mutilations were demonic in nature and were a form of worship to their demon ‘god’. This is why the spiritual realities behind tattoos cannot be underestimated and/or ignored, just because Western cultures are largely ignorant on these topics does not equate to them being untrue and unsubstantiated.

It is worth noting that not only has there been a dramatic increase of people marking themselves (tattoos) but also an increase of self-mutilation (cutting of the flesh) in the last several decades.

See what Americas mental health channel have to say about the problem of self-cutting and the supporting statistics;
Self-injury statistics show that this disturbing phenomenon is a real and present danger to vulnerable people worldwide, especially in developed countries, such as the U.S. and those in Western Europe. Frequently, untreated depression and other mental health challenges create an environment of despair that leads people to cope with these challenges in unhealthy ways. Check out these self-mutilation statistics:
• Each year, 1 in 5 females and 1 in 7 males engage in self-injury
• 90 percent of people who engage in self-harm begin during their teen or pre-adolescent years
• Nearly 50 percent of those who engage in self-injury activities have been sexually abused
• Females comprise 60 percent of those who engage in self-injurious behaviour
• About 50 percent of those who engage in self-mutilation begin around age 14 and carry on into their 20s
• Many of those who self-injure report learning how to do so from friends or pro self-injury websites
• Approximately two million cases are reported annually in the U.S.

While these self-harm statistics are from reliable sources, truly accurate information about rates and trends of self-mutilation are difficult to come by because the majority of participants conceal their activities. Their behaviour may never come to the attention of medical professionals or other social services.
The scope of this article is not about self-mutilation but tattooing, however the two are related and will be addressed again in the last section under The root reason.



Reasons

Like many things which humans do in life there are various reasons behind their tattoos. And these reasons the justifications made when deciding to get branded. Deeper than these surface reasons though there is always more going on. These deeper reasons which are generally unknown to the person, are the real relevant reasons and can be sought in the realm that we call philosophy. Not some endless rhetoric and opinion inspired by ancient Greek orators but simply and as its word means ‘love of wisdom’, the desire to get to truth.

First a look at the most common reasons a person will ink themselves. These are the surface reasons a tattooed person will give to justify their decision to have a tattoo. The deeper relevant reasons covered after.


Impulse Tattoo’s
In a society of impulse shopping, impulse eating and impulse relationships, impulse tattooing is just another addition to the list. For no specific personal reason other than, “I just felt like it” and with no consideration to how they may feel about it in the future impulse tattooing is all about living for today.
This explains the strong link between alcoholism and tattooing, where the tattoo has become an impulse desire under the intoxication of foreign chemicals surging through the bloodstream. Or to the extreme where the person is completely passed out under the alcoholic influence, ‘friends’ have taken upon themselves to give them a tattoo all in the spirit of ‘having fun’ (see article on ‘having fun’).

This is the form or tattooing where the person has not exercised any great deal of thought and can only be put down to what the book of Proverbs describes as folly.

Doing wrong is like a joke to a fool, but wisdom is pleasure to a man of understanding.
(Proverbs 10:23)



Being ‘Cool’ aka ‘Looks Good’ ‘Body Art’ Tattoo’s  
Next in our list of surface reasons and possibly the most common is what is phrased as ‘body art’. Many just like the look of a tattoo, to them there doesn’t not have to be some existential reason for getting it other than that it ‘looks good’.

Whether is a rose located on the top side of the foot or a dragon hovering between the posterior deltoids, it looks good to them. Unlike the former group, folk who fall into this category at least have spent some time deciding what they like. Looking through magazines and templates and even designing their own are all a big part of the process to this group.

 Alas, the thinking is incomplete and falls short on several fronts. Firstly, what a person ‘feels’ now and/or what they represent and stand for now cannot possible be a guarantee of what they will feel like and/or stand for and represent in five, ten, fifteen and twenty down the road. Life experiences change us, what we thought we liked when we are young can often change. If a person is determined to get marked, it is best to wait until your perhaps in your 50’s, at least then you will probably set in your ways and your inking of choice will still be valid in your eyes when you are 70.

Another argument is how we all view art. In truth the human body is already and art work, a created masterpiece. A masterpiece of beauty where each person is unique and beautiful as their nature self. Flipping through a magazine or brochure and deciding on a piece of art to fuse to the human body is akin to placing Van Gogh’s Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers on an easel at the base of Mount Everest. Any beauty the painting could offer will be lost and swallowed up by the surrounding scenery.

It is of interest those who use the body ‘art’ of a reason for tattooing themselves are generally not art connoisseurs. Do they frequent world class galleries? Do they know their Rembrandt from Monet? More often than not it is about themselves, how they want to look, how they want to convey themselves and be perceived by others.

Going back to David Beckman’s body ‘art’. Beckham has approximately forty tattoos, all symbolising different things to him. Approximately eight are related to family, birth of a child etc. Six relating to football, shirt number worn at the time ect. Thirteen to ‘spiritual’ symbolism and approximately eight relating to miscellaneous reasons.

Clearly in Beckham’s case in art is in his own eyes, the Spiritual imagery and Bible verses he has inked have been removed from their original context and reinterpreted by Beckham. More shockingly on his left pectoral is ‘the footballer as Jesus with three cherubs (supposedly representing his sons) lifting him out of a tomb. Now only Beckham will know what this means, but Jesus has nothing to do with football and football thing to do with Jesus, least of all the overtones of resurrection. This is a very prominent feature of tattoos and the thinking behind them, the line between truth and error becomes very blurred and a hybrid produced.
Influenced heavily by Eastern mysticism and their own personal feelings, many people create their own personal non absolute ‘truths’ and depict them via their tattoos.

 These personal ‘creations’ are largely the product of hijacking already known spiritual imagery whether Hindu, Buddhist or some other deception of man and blending it with their own personal opinions and worldview.
In Beckham’s case, he has taken imagery from the Bible which is the inspired Word of God and blended it with his own opinions and worldview and in doing so, made a mockery of the sanctity of the actual meanings behind this Biblical imagery.

For centuries it was common place and quite sufficient, might it be added, to scribe one’s life experiences in a diary. The modern fad where the body itself has become a journal is actually more akin to a walking scrap book.

Consider also the ability of the tattoo ‘artist’ to replicate the chosen image onto human skin. A recent story of a woman from New Zealand who wanted Disney characters inked on her body was shocked when they turned out ghoulish when the job was done.

Moving to the more general, women have been known for getting what has been labelled as ‘tramp stamps’. These are tattoos which are placed on the lower back so whenever she bends to pick something up, there they are on full display. This label ‘tramp stamp’ was coined by the public and is indicative of what is going on in the minds of the observer. How does this give due dignity to that woman?



Conviction Tattoo’s
Unlike the former categories, those who have sought tattoos as a way of ‘honouring’ a conviction they have, at least have done so for passionate reasons and not just on a whim.
A lost loved one or an allegiance to military service would fall under this category. A person who has lost someone very special in their lives would feel a sense of meaning at having their name permanently etched into their bodies as a constant reminder. A serviceman who has lost comrades in war may feel a deep sense of loyalty to those lost in his unit and may want to symbolise this in the form of a tattoo.
 
However once again there are ways to honour those we have lost through a myriad of human expression without defacing the body. Consider also and especially for this category, the soul ties forged with those who have passed on. The concept of soul ties to many will be foreign and is beyond the scope of this article (For an in-depth look at who we really are see article on Sprit, Soul, Body). Additionally and as the case for any permanent marking, will it still be liked in 5, 10, 15 years time? Will that same strong conviction that scribed the original stand the test of time when the marking blurs and fades? Could having a mark that represents such strong emotions and memories actually prevent the person from moving on and enjoying future life experiences in some way?

Tattoos that remember a loved one, who has passed away, although unwise, can readily be empathised with. However what of those who have had their girlfriends or boyfriends name etched onto their bodies. What happens when the ‘relationship’ breaks down? (see article on Postmodern relationships)
What of any new relationship? Would Dorris mind seeing Maggie’s name on her newly acquired George’s forearm? This is really a no brainer, but once again demonstrates how so many are living for today exercising no wisdom whatsoever for the tomorrow.

There are many who have many deep convictions, (arguably in the bigger scheme of things, more important than a deceased love one or military service) who express these in healthy and wholesome ways.
One such person owns several controversial tee-shirts, not controversial because they are vulgar, but statements to make people think, and think for themselves rather than be ‘programmed’ by their culture through mediums such as Tv, peers and social media.

 The difference is, that tee-shirt can be removed at any time, but still gets the message across when worn! Tattoos are akin to branded cattle, that’s it, they are staying there. And from that point on, just like that branded beast, the choice to have it taken away is not available.


Tattoo’s – The Root Reason

Pride covers every other motive behind why a person gets inked and is at the root of all the aforementioned reasons. They have consciously made a decision to mark their bodies for all to see and are proud of this declaration. Some may see this is a good thing, after all they have a strong sense of identity not afraid of what others may think and desire to let others know what they believe in. ‘Be ‘true’ self’, ‘you’re an individual’ are all words of Western culture. And in some ways this is good and right, think of those in times past who have stood even for a principle, even though they stood alone, and wouldn’t back down in their resilience. Think of the many freedoms we enjoy because of outspoken men and women down through the ages who have had a strong sense of identity not afraid of what others thought of them but stood upon what they believed to be truth. And I think most would agree, but is this what we are seeing today? Are we seeing men and women boldly stand in their conviction? Not really is it, in fact it’s very different. The boldness and sense of identity in those who fought for a cause is attractive, courageous and noble. The ‘boldness’ and sense of identity we mainly see today is arrogant and prideful. An arrogance that says “you can’t tell me what to do, I will do what I want’. There is not sense of humility, no sense of self sacrifice. Those who stood in independence and valour for a cause were mostly doing it for those around them, other people centered. Today our Western culture promotes self-glorification, Look at me, listen to my opinions. And this is what can be seen as the classic hallmark of Western Post Modern culture, opinion, opinion and more opinion. Look at ‘social’ media, look at all these outlets where people can post their opinion and draw attention to themselves. And largely this is opinion void of wisdom and lacking any foundation truths, its opinion based on fickle feelings. As the proverb goes;

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
 (Proverbs 18:2)

Now, ‘social’ media can be a brilliant tool for promoting truth, and it should be used! However today where everyone’s opinion is posted, what basis of truth do we have? We many would say at this point, What is truth? Truth has become relative to each person. This is why we have endless opinions, as there is no truth. Well there is truth, Truth came and is coming again in the form of a Person, Jesus Christ.

To recap, having a sense of identity, a conviction to truth is noble and right to which many have lost their lives for, it mostly has the interests of others at the core. Today generally speaking people actually don’t know who they are, they don’t really know what they believe in, they are trying to ‘recreate’ and ‘find’ then selves to see who they are. This endless pursuit for identity is based solely on the reality that the Absolute God who created all and everyone and His Word, has been removed from Western culture and replaced with the religion of evolutionism.

You see people want to be recognised, we want to find meaning in our existence. People seek meaning behind many things they do and engage in and tattoos are no different in that regard. People want their tattoos to be seen and want others to enquire of its meaning.

 Now the grand irony of the 21st century is we are a culture of social retardation. The human soul craves social interaction but through marketing we are told of these apps that we should get, why because everyone else has them and then we are sold the gadgets that make them work. For years we have been hiding behind pixelated screens, jumping from app to app, posting our opinion, updating our feeling, desperate for meaning for why we are here and craving the response we get from another. We have become all together socially inept. And a tattoo is different, struggling to express ourselves, like a fridge magnet we post another addition to the slab of advertising space.


In Closing

The spiritual element behind tattoos is the primary root cause behind a tattoo. It us why they even exist at all. Leviticus 19:28 has been mentioned already as has its prohibitions. Both tattooing and cutting of the flesh are an abomination to God. This reason alone is more than sufficient to not do either.

‘You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD’.

Both tattooing and cutting of the flesh have both physical and spiritual components. People have their own private definitions of what ‘spiritual’ means. Spiritual can only be defined by what is revealed in the Word of God and not some drug fuelled high experience by someone sitting with his legs crossed chanting “ummmm”.

Biblical spirituality can be summed up simply as, the relational dynamic between God and mankind.

Firstly, Physical. Both tattooing and cutting the flesh result in defacing the human body. Whether we accept this premise or not, out bodies are not our own, we are subject to certain laws both physical and spiritual.

If one projects himself out of a high rise building he will readily grasp and succumb to the reality that our physical bodies are subject to and governed by physical laws. Many are happy to accept this, however from a position of ignorance unable to accept the latter, the spiritual laws we are also subject to.

Now the God who created everything (not allah or the plethora of manmade, demonic inspired gods) would have us hear the gospel message of how Jesus came to die and rise again for us. God’s Word teaches that we are sinners and in need of a saviour and ask God to forgive us and consequently live a way that honours and glorifies God. Such a person can readily accept and be thankful for Gods spiritual governance in their lives.

However, the Word of God tells us, we are inherently sinners, blind and unable to see such truths about our human state.
As a result we are not in control of anything least of all our destinies and spiritually subject to God.

A person who continually rejects what Christ achieved on the cross and the free gift of salvation remains under the Gods wrath and who if continues in his wilful rebellion will be judged by God. Do you see the point being made? Every one of us whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not, whether we are atheists or not, regardless of our world view are subject to God. Democracy is an illusion, every one of us really live under a Theocracy where God is Lawgiver and Judge who exercises His right over His creation.


A Word to Christians

To any Christian who is reading who may want to justify marking their bodies, you may think you want to show others your faith by getting a bible verse or an image of the cross, don’t. If sharing you faith means so much live, breath and walk the Christian example like many millions before you who did quite well without defacing their bodies. The fact you feel the need to display an icon of Christianity physically on your body suggest to me you are not living, breathing and walking the Christian life and therefore your good works are not being seen by man. In addition if you are bent on getting something symbolic, then get a necklace with a cross or fish on it, it can be removed and doesn’t violate Leviticus. And if you are saying to yourself “Leviticus is in the old testament, we are not under the law”, then read my other article on why we are to theologically heed the old testament and then turn to the new testament and read the apostle Paul spiritual insight in his letter to the Corinthian church;

 ‘What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?’
For ye are brought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s’ 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Tattooing is defiling the body the temple of the Holy Ghost.
 

All the glory be to God.

~ Daniel Durston
By Daniel Durston 25 Feb, 2016

When was Jesus born? It can’t have been Zero or One AD because King Herod had died before then.

We are led to believe that King Herod died about 3 or 4 B.C. If this is accurate, then Jesus must have been born earlier, as Herod would have to be alive to implement the slaughter of the innocents. Also, the Magi, (however many there were in number) paid tribute to Herod by visiting him. This means Jesus’ birthday was years before the commonly believed date. What are the facts?

A date problem?

In order to establish if there is indeed a conflict with the commonly believed date of Jesus’ birth and the time of Herod, a chronological sequence of events surrounding this time in history needs to be mapped out. If indeed Herod died in 3 or 4 B.C when exactly was Jesus born? A.D. is the Latin abbreviation for ‘Anno Domini’ or roughly translated ‘the year of our Lord’. The BC/AD system was developed in 525 AD by Dionysius Exiguus, a Catholic monk, who had been commissioned by Pope John I, specifically to determine the correct date for Easter as well as keeping track of the time that had passed since the birth of Jesus. (For more information on the BC/AD calander click here).

Dionysius’ dates do cause an issue because his calendar would result in Jesus having been born after our now known data about the date of death for the Herod recorded in Scripture as being alive when Jesus was born. We must also note that since the Scriptures do not directly state the year and time of Jesus birth not even on the ancient Jewish Calendar, there can be no conflict between any man made calendar and the Scriptural record on this point. However, from both within Scripture and from outside historical data, there are clear historical events, people and rulers that create an indisputable time frame for the birth of Jesus Christ.

There are three main ways to establish the year of the birth of Jesus: first, by working backwards from the starting point of his ministry to the year of birth; second, by calculating the ‘seventy weeks’ prophecy in the book of Daniel and other prophetic scriptures; or, third by identifying events surrounding his birth.

Jesus in Real History

A seemingly obvious point ought to be initially mentioned. Even if there were no documented events regarding the precise time of Jesus birth, that would not negate the fact that he was born, it would just mean we would not know the exact time of his birth! Often exact birth and death records of people are unavailable but people, places and events that are known and historically documented can connect and place that person accurately within a certain time frame.

To give you a modern example: one of the older associates of Creation Research had his birth and passport records destroyed in World War 2. It wasn’t a problem until he applied for his pension only to be told he didn’t exist, when he obviously did and had many witnesses to confirm it and and his age, but nothing on paper. In the case of Jesus Christ, no serious historian disputes the life and rule of King Herod, and there are twelve references to Herod in Matthew’s gospel to which the birth of Jesus is connected. Nine of these references directly associate Herod with Jesus.

Matthew Chapter 2 opens with the birth of Jesus and Herod’s response: “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. “ Matthew 2:1-4 According to Matthew 2:1 the birth of Jesus took place in the days of Herod, meaning King Herod was alive at the time of Jesus birth. Matthew also mentions the place, Judea, (the known historical location and Herod’s sphere of rule). Locations are named also in context of Jesus birth, for example Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1, 2:5, 2:6, 2:8, 2:16, Luke 2:4, 2:15,) and references are to be found in John’s gospel also.

There are also six references to the town of Nazareth in Matthew’s gospel which all are in context of Jesus (2:19, 2:23, 4:13, 13:53, 21:11, 26:71). Five references to the town of Nazareth can be found in Mark’s gospel again all in context of Jesus (1:9, 1:24, 6:1, 10:47, 16:6). Luke makes reference to Nazareth 8 times (1:26, 2:4, 2:39, 2:51, 4:16, 4:34, 18:37, 24:19) and John’s gospel 5 times (1:45, 1:46, 18:5, 18:7, 19:19). In addition to these places Jesus is tied with Jerusalem in many of the synoptic gospels, 12 in Matthew, 10 in Mark and 30 times in John’s gospel.

The good historian and physician Luke also clearly places the birth of Jesus in an irrefutable time frame. Luke records: “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.” Luke 2:1-5

Here we learn Joseph and expecting mother Mary, makes the journey for the registration by decree of Caesar Augustus. The authenticity of the life and rule of Augustus, who is considered to be the first ruler of the Roman Empire, from 27BC until 14AD, is a well documented fact by historians. Also Luke ties Jesus’ 30th year to the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, (27-28 AD) placing Jesus birth at 4BC. (Luke 3:1-3) The times of Tiberius (and Augustus) are known exactly from Ptolemy’s Canon, and the time of the death of Herod is fixed for us by Josephus (Antiquities XVII. 4).

So the year our Lord Anno Domini is not the actual year of the birth of Jesus Christ. It is important to note the AD calendar was not commenced during Jesus’ earthly life or in the Apostolic era. A monk in Rome called Dionysius Exiguus computed that the year he was in was 525 years after the birth of Christ. But he was ‘out’ by 4 years. Considering the number of calendar revisions this was a good calculation.

Calendar Calculations

The main area of confusion obviously lies with the different calendars that have been invented by men over the past few thousand years. These need to be considered, so a brief overview is necessary.

The Julian, Gregorian and the Jewish calendars are of special importance. Most calendars have three chief methods of time-reckoning. The lunar calendar based on the phase observations of the moon resulted in lunar months, some of which were 29.5 days. In addition to this there was the solar calendar, based upon the earth’s orbit of the sun, approximately 365 days. And finally the civil calendar which was dictated around civil or religious events. The discrepancies become apparent right away between the lunar and solar calendar since 12 x 29.5 = 354 (lunar cycles) compared with the solar calendar of approximately 365 days. Keeping the calendars in pace with one another involves the process of ‘intercalation’. This simply means the addition of a specified period of time every so often. The early Roman calendar was based upon 12 lunar months of varying length.

The Pontifices (high ranking priests) controlled the calendar and were also responsible for intercalation. By the time of Julius Caesar the calendar was getting rather confusing, so in 46BC Caesar undertook a reform to correct it. He introduced the ‘Julian’ calendar, and it’s this one that is basically used today. He abolished the lunar year and established a calendar of 12 months of 28, 30 or 31 days, with February taking a 29th day every 4th (leap year). The leap year compensates for the fact that a 365 day calendar year is actually a few hours shorter than the solar year.

But the Julian calendar was still out of sync with the sun by 11 minutes per year. This came to the attention of Pope Gregory XIII who introduced a further reform in 1582. Motivated to determine the Easter day celebration, and to place the calendar back in sync with the solar year he dropped 10 days in 1582. October 4th was immediately followed by October 15th. The intercalation of the leap year’s extra day was omitted on all centenary years except for multiples of 400, thus avoiding the Julian error of 3 days in 400 years. (For this reason the year AD 2000 was a leap year, but AD 1900 wasn’t.) The dropping of 10 days was very unpopular and it took decades and in some cases centuries for different countries to adopt these changes.

So when taking into consideration the calendar changes and revisions and what has been left on record by the four different gospel authors, a chronological timeline of history can be mapped out regarding the correct birth year of Jesus. The Biblical facts have also been backed up and verified through secular historical sources. The Biblical accounts, along with secular historical data, provide compelling evidence for a 4BC birth using the Gregorian Calendar and his death some 33 yrs later to pay the price of your sin and mine which is the best gift God has ever given, so accept it humbly as we remember the season of his birth.

Sources: The Date of the Crucifixion and the Era of New Birth by David Davidson Whiston, William; Josephus: The Complete Works, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998.

What about the month of Jesus birth?

It was in A.D. 325 that the Roman Church settled that the 25th December was to be observed as Christ’s birthday. The actual time of the year is disputed and most scholars go for a late summer birth. The gospel of Luke with its detailed account offers the most valuable clues surrounding the time of the year for Jesus birth. By placing the birth of John the Baptist alongside the birth of Jesus, an accurate picture of a chronological timeline can be drawn.

Luke’s gospel commences with the story of John the Baptist’s parents, Zacharias and Elizabeth . While Zacharias was ministering in the temple he received the visit from the angel Gabriel concerning the birth of John. Soon after Zacharias finished his duties at the temple, Elizabeth conceived. It was in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy that Gabriel informed Mary she too would bear a Child, Jesus (Luke 1:26-36). Jesus then was born about six months after John. If the time of Zacharias service in the temple can be traced out, an approximate time of the year for Jesus’ birth can be worked out.

The clue for this lies in Zacharias being “of the division of Abijah” (Luke 1:5). The course of Abijah will provide a point of reference from which the time of the year can be deciphered. 1 Chronicles 24 not only provides the time of the year when the course of Abijah was but how long it lasted. The courses were made up of the different heads of two different fathers, Eleazar and Ithamar. The father of these two was Aaron where the Aaronic priesthood had its roots. So the course of Abijah was one of 24 courses, 16 heads of house from Eleazar and 8 from Ithamar. The different courses were responsible for ministering in the temple and its duties at different times of the year. Each course ministered twice per year leaving 3 extra weeks that were filled with events such as feasts and celebrations, (the Hebrew year normally has 51 weeks). In the Jewish calendar Nisan 1 was the first shift cycle going through the whole year. The course of Abijah was the eighth shift. These shifts were observed right up until the time of the destruction of the temple in 70AD.

If Jesus was born sometime in 4 BC, counting back 9 months of the gestation period and the 6 month difference in age, John must have been conceived in the first half of 5 BC. Knowing this we need to attach it to the first course of Abijah as the time when Gabriel visited Zacharias in the temple. Frederick Coulter calculates it as follows: In the year 5 BC, the first day of the first month, the month of Nisan, according to the Hebrew Calendar, was a Sabbath. According to computer calculation synchronizing the Hebrew Calendar and the stylized Julian Calendar, it was April 8. Projecting forward, the assignments course by course, and week by week, were: Course 1, the first week; Course 2, the second week; all Courses for the Passover and the feast of unleaved bread the third week; Course 3, the fourth week; Course 4, the fifth week; Course 5, the sixth week; Course 6, the seventh week; Course 7, the eighth week; Course 8, the ninth week; and all courses the tenth week, which was the week of Pentecost. If Zacharias worked on his assigned course this period ran from the Hebrew calendar Iyar 27 through to Sivan 12. By the Julian calendar that is June 3rd through to 17th. If he returned to his home after his assigned course, and Elizabeth conceived in the following 2 weeks that places the time approximately between June 18th through July 1st. So Elizabeth’s sixth month would have been in December, during which time Mary conceived. If we project six months after John’s expected birth time (late March 4BC) then Jesus would have been born approximately the later part of September, right around the Feast of Trumpets.


All the glory be to God.

~ Daniel Durston
By Daniel Durston 12 Mar, 2014

‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ – Genesis 1:1

The Christian holy scriptures open with a sentence that puts itself on a collision course with all humanistic systems of thinking. In ten words, this sentence of proclamation smashes Atheism, Agnosticism, Polytheism, Pantheism, Evolutionism and Materialism to pieces. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’

The root of evolutionism is materialism, the idea that all can be explained away by matter, by that which can be seen and touched, (a feature of the enlightenment or ‘golden age’). A notable advocate of this world view would be Richard Dawkins. Materialism would opine that it alone can provide all the necessary answers that surround our existence.

The beginning of 2009 commenced with a Darwin exhibition at the London Natural History Museum. Motivated by Darwin’s 1809’s birthday, the exhibit was advertised widely across London. With pursed lips sealed by a finger, it pictured Charlie Darwin with the caption, ‘If you had an idea that outraged society, would you keep it to yourself?’ It could be seen all over London’s busy rail networks. Ironically the same can be said about the biblical account of origins that outrages many. Though, through years of neglect bible believing men and women have abandoned their duty to defend the faith, paving the way for the secularists to take foot holds in areas of education, science and ethics that belong to the church.

Many scoff at the notion of special creation, wrestling not so much with a belief in God but more with the idea of the narrative in the Genesis account, which clear stamps God’s authority upon the Created order. The scoffing and disbelief comes from years of pre-programmed responses from which the propagation of Darwin’s ideas have worked their way into the deep recesses of our cultural belief system. The all too familiar beat of the old drum, ‘millions of years ago…’ can be heard over and over and has worked its way through our education, entertainment, social and political systems. Where museums, Hollywood, schools and universities have been hood winked into propagating this same old rhythm. The mantra, ‘millions of years ago’. The belief that science has proved evolution has given rise to the ridicule, yet it is not from an educated properly researched conclusion. Phrases such as, “but hasn’t Science proved…” are all too common.


This will be a good point to pause and briefly mention science. All too often science is viewed as being in conflict with religion. Science versus Religion. Two major points to draw attention to. Firstly the bible is not a science text book, it does however contain scientific statements and ideas, and Genesis, first chapter doesn’t play this down in the slightest. There is a very specific outlined account of our world and its origins.

When scripture draws our attention to scientific aspects of our world, investigation and research has always enhanced our understanding of that science. This to some may sound like a radical, bold and outrageous claim, the truth remains, however, that when considering the aspects of scripture that have been portrayed as not being in agreement with science, through further honest investigation and presentation of the whole truth, it can be confirmed that there is indeed absolute harmony between the two.

Many of the great fathers of science were young earth or literal Genesis, six day creation believers. An example is Isaac Newton. Newton was a very keen reader of scripture and a great theologian describing how often, through meditation upon scripture, he be led to further scientific discovery. Some would say, “But we are so much more advanced now and have more developed scientific equipment”. This is true as a statement but wrong as a conclusion. Our advances in science have enabled us to understand more about the working of molecular cells and our world, opening us evermore to its increasing complexity. It cannot, however, and does not give any insight and evidence towards the why and when? The ‘why does life occur’ and ‘when did life start’ cannot be addressed using science. Science is very limited and can only further understanding of our world. Scientific discoveries move us even further towards humility through the sheer brilliance of our creator, God.

Secondly from a brief survey of scripture, one can conclude, God not only created but is the maintainer and sustainer. God is the Master Scientist! God thought about, designed and created Chemistry, Biology and Physics! Like any designer, the designer is always greater than the designed! It would serve well for man that as honourable as the quest for science is, there is a limit we will reach in our understanding. What we do know though, through Genesis account and current findings, is abundantly more than necessary to give God glory for His creative genius.

A thought for the evolutionist - if our origins are from such a process of random, mindless chaos, then how can such a mind know what is true? How can we be competent to explain our own origin, where is the logic or sense, where is the reason, where is the science?

Science, the study of how our physical realm, which God brought into existence from the invisible realm, functions, reveals a measure of Gods nature and character, bringing all the glory to Himself. ‘The Heavens declare your Glory oh Lord’ - the words of David in Psalm 8. There is no glory in a random process and certainly none in decay and death. To put Science on a plateau versus Religion is absurd! This is, however, the very essence of Materialism. No need for God.

For purposes of clarification, and this is essential, many Christians have been lied to by powerful secular philosophy and feel driven to choose between Genesis or Science. Many have wrestled with their faith, trying to make sense of the glaring conflicts and implications. And rightly so! The claims of evolutionism are so far removed from orthodox scripture, that one has to butcher large text’s of scripture and its intended doctrinal meaning, to find some kind of union. In the end though It can never form a union, only a compromise and biblical compromises always lend toward heresy.

When one meditates on scripture, an immediate Philosophy becomes apparent. God who is All and above all is pre-eminent and supreme with His Word, becoming life’s point of reference. When ever a humanistic philosophy of man such as evolutionism sets it self up alongside scripture, there will be immediate discord and disharmony as one has its origin of wisdom in Him who is All powerful and All Knowing and one has its wisdom in man which is sensual, carnal and earthly. Its because of its carnal and anarchistic foundation that results Gods word being doctored rather than scripture ruling in man’s wisdom.

There is a very popular belief in the Church called ‘Theistic Evolution’. The greatest Christian oxymoron! The idea that God used the mechanism of evolution to bring forth life. It is this humanistic philosophy which the scope of this article will confront. Using the Word of God and honest deliberation, its intended purpose is that this philosophy, when presented before any honest jury, will be exposed for its nakedness and heretical nature.

Richard Dawkins is right about one thing when he ridicules Christians for this and rightly so. We do have to choose as Christians between The gospel (scripture) and evolution - we really do. This is said in direct opposition to a recently written book by Denis Alexander, ‘Creation or Evolution, Do We Have to Choose?’ It is riddled with sweeping statements and, in my opinion, a total omission of the theological heresies that rise when attempting to tally up creation and evolution. This is a dangerous book, attempting to put out the controversial fire of the creation/evolution discussion, and one that ought not to be put out until the truth is established. For good reasons that fire is burning strong as creation is a polar opposite to evolutionism .

The wonderful news is, God says what He means and means what He says. (2 Timothy 3.16) If one takes their faith seriously and literally interprets Genesis as its intended to be, there is no conflict with Science.

“But hasn’t science been proved..?”

All too often when trying to assert 6 day creation, the pre-programmed wild card, ‘but hasn’t science proved’ comes out and is presented. Rightly so this deserves mention. Secular scientific findings and opinions are presented through secular media corporations. Anything against evolutionism (that fiercely defended religious philosophy) will be censored out immediately, and there are many instances that have occurred supporting this. What we do see being presented is baffling, intimidating science by Professor Atheist Billy Big Spuds - an Evolution advocate in story form with no or little evidence. Special creation scientists will not get a hearing unless sponsored by a Christian media affiliated institution.

There are many PhD, degree bearing holding to a young earth, literal Genesis reading, who are operating in the realms of science. Both parties can make a convincing argument.

So what’s amiss?

When researching this topic you are the jury. Like any good jury who cannot be informed of every detail and crucial pieces of information, you are called upon to reach a verdict. As both sides can present a persuasive argument, alongside their chosen evidence, what is absolutely essential is not the evidence, (both evolutionist and creation scientists have access to the same evidence) but the evaluation of the evidence!

This is the core of the evolution/creation ‘debate’. It’s a matter of a persons’ starting point or their bias and everyone has a bias - even the ‘objective’ scientist. What is my world view? In the beginning God or in the beginning dirt? What glasses do I have on that interpret or tarnish my world? We all have a bias! Every scientist when evaluating the evidence has a bias which is their ‘starting point’. To illustrate consider the following. When standing upon the rim of the Grand Canyon in Arizona, an evolutionist will say, “A small amount of water over a long period of time carved this canyon.” Compare this to a special creationist who will say, “A large amount of water over a short period of time carved this canyon.” (as fitting with a global catastrophic flood in Genesis 6). Both are viewing the same situation with their world view but both are coming up with very different conclusions about what they see. So as Jury you have to weigh the evidence and you do have to choose.

One of Websters definition of 'religion' is, 'a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith' It is a fair and accurate to say that Evolution is a religion. And that’s why I will refer to it as Evolutionism. Its a philosophy about our origins and therefore by inference is a religion and a fiercely guarded state religion at that. All secular disciplines and studies now bow to evolutionary thinking . Consider, Science is defined as that which is observable and repeatable. This is known as empirical science. Evolution cannot be repeated under observation. So it certainly is not science. Therefore faith is the necessary ingredient in those who hold onto the evolutionary belief. The evolutionists faith statement is, ’millions of years ago nothing exploded’. The Christian (bible believing) faith statement is, ‘In the beginning God created’. Two polar opposite religions. As Evolutionism is not science, it is actually more of a hindrance as it seeks to place scientific findings in a neatly arranged Darwinian package rather than the quest of discovery.

Its no surprise that God’s world (and Word) has been hijacked by evolutionists as scripture informs us that it declares the glory of God. Behind the evolutionism movement I am fully convinced are the powers and principalities that seek to set themselves up against the knowledge of God . Darwin was just a pawn through which Evolutionism propagated and floats around in our textbooks and programs not because of credible empirical scientific findings, but rather a philosophy that offers sinful man a way out of confronting his sinful nature through the omission of God.

There is a good reason why in a Jury the witness is told to speak the Truth , the Whole Truth and nothing but the truth. We all know to well that we can hear partial truth, but if its not the whole truth, then a drastically different understanding will effect the ability of the verdict . SO how really does evolutionism stand in a court of law?

This article is intend to present what the Scripture has to say. If you believe all scripture is God breathed, God inspired, (2 Tim.3:16) then very early on doctrinal problems develop when considering the verdict . In John 5.47 Jesus Himself validates the writings of Moses. If you don’t believe God’s Word is God inspired and accurate then you have bigger problems than Evolutionism. Too long we have been sold a lie. Theistic evolution, is an attempt to embrace secular evolution and falls short of theological soundness not to mention common sense.

No less than ten times Genesis chapter one goes to length repeating, God created the different plant and animals after their kind. Gen 1:11, twice in 1:12 ,twice in 1:21,twice in 1:24 and three times in 1:25. And this is exactly what we see today. Dogs give birth to dogs, horses to horses and the same great observation that Charlie Darwin was made famous for on the Galapagos Islands, the finches. Finches who differed in beak size, (natural selection, variation amongst the kinds) but they are still the same kind. Birds!

As a side note, its from this observation through that the whole evolution idea is birthed from and hung upon. We have been told that because there are variations amongst kinds this means that at some point there had to have been ‘jumps’ to other kinds, this is completely unobserved, unscientific and unscriptural. (Variation amongst the kinds is also known also as micro evolution, an unfortunate term as its not evolution at all, but rather the brilliance of our Creator God that places diversity in the genes of the created life) One cannot accept evolutionism and competently accept the Genesis account.

The gospel has its origins in Genesis right after the fall. The theme for the Christian faith is the restoration of all things. That which was lost through the fall in Genesis 3 will one day be restored by Christ. In part we have been reconciled back to God. But there is much more here than salvation. The original plan and design of God was corrupted and spoilt.

In Genesis we are introduced with two tree’s, the tree of good and evil and the tree of life. These are real tree’s not symbolic as they come up again in Revelation as part of the reconciliation. God’s warning to Adam that if he was to partake of the tree of good and evil, he would surely die. Right here we are given our first negative from God. God had created everything wonderful, and it was ALL very good (Gen 1.31), but here we get a warning from God to man. You will surely die. Death is first defined right here. It stands in polar opposites to that which exists as good up to that point in the garden. Its essential to note death is a result of sin. Death is a product of sin. The same carries on into much of Paul’s writing’s, when going through his list of those who practice sin, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but will surely die.(1 Cor. 6.10) also the seed of sin gives birth to death(James 1:15).

The hero of evolutionism is the survival of the fittest, death and decay,

Question, what was God talking about? “You will surely die”, if the very mechanism by which God used to produce man was death? This naturally leads on to another question, What sort of god is demented enough to look at his creation, and say of it “it is very good” (Genesis 1.31). What kind of god can say of aeons of years of death and decay as being good? Scriptures tell us God is good as God himself has defined bad by virtue of death in his warning to original man, Adam.

Because of their delusion in prostituting Evolutionism with Genesis, some have tried to get around Gen 1:31, ‘God said it was good’ and proposed it wasn't good at all. This is a key feature of theistic evolutionism and is an outright heresy. It’s a perverted twisting of scripture that runs into direct contradiction to what we are told. Its outright and blatantly wrong,. The word good in Genesis 1.31 is the same in as in Psalm 14.1 and interesting conveys also a moral goodness, the same that Jesus uses in Matthew 19:17. A goodness that is only know in the realm of the goodness of God.

Consider.... The gospel began in Genesis 3. God created perfect man, man sinned, God gave and sent his son to fix the problem. Well, if evolution was the means God used, aeons of years of survival of the fittest and death and decay , what really was so bad about the fall ? Genesis 3 (the fall, the root problem of man) is a nonsense if death was existent before that. If evolution be true, why is the fall such a problem? Its very obvious to the authors of scripture and Christ Himself that death is an issue and requires ultimately to be conquered.

If God had so willed, billions of years could have been used. God could have used a picosecond if desired, but that’s not what we are told. We are told God worked in creation for 6 days and rested on the 7th simply to set the work and rest pattern for man.

The Hebrew for day is ‘Yom’. Meaning a literal day or a period of time such as in the ‘days of Elijah’. In Genesis though there can be no mistake upon its usage as there are several indications of its meaning. Firstly ‘Yom’ is accompanied by the number of that day. God tells us what He did on day 1, day 2 etc. Secondly there is mention of the first evening and morning. This was the composite parts of a day (Gen. 1:5). To give a long period of time an evening and a morning is a grand stretch. Thirdly what is known as the ‘Law of First Mention’.

From David L. Cooper, Th. M, PhD,, this law of first mention is defined as;

The law of first mention may be said to be the principle that requires one to go to that portion of the Scriptures where a doctrine is mentioned for the first time and to study the first occurrence of the same in order to get the fundamental inherent meaning of that doctrine. When we thus see the first appearance, which is usually in the simplest form, we can then examine the doctrine in other portions of the Word that were given later. We shall see that the fundamental concept in the first occurrence remains dominant as a rule, and colours all later additions to that doctrine. In view of this fact, it becomes imperative that we understand the law of first mention

Psalm 33.6 tells us by Gods word the heavens were made and the host of them, verse 9 tells us God spoke and it was done and stood fast. A sense of absolute authority and supreme power is being conveyed here. God commanded, everything was done and it stands fast. It would be difficult to insert evolution as the process in which God created and then follow up with a statement such as ‘it holds fast’. For something to hold fast there needs to be a sense of it having reached a final point of completion to be held fast.

A thousand years as one day has been used by many as a defence for accepting long ages. Firstly it’s thousands of years, not millions. The two biblical references and their authors had no concept (and inspiration from God) of millions of years and rightly so, there had only been multiples of thousands! Secondly scripture used in this way is a text without a context. Within context these scriptures are drawing attention to the fact that God created time (Gen 1:1, In the beginning) we are locked into time, God is not. God is outside of time domain.

Consider Genesis 1:14, “And God said , Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs , and for seasons, and for days, and years.” God is telling us the function of the stars. God specifically uses the term day and year and rightly so, as the earth spins one rotation on its axis in a 24 hour day defining what a day is (a tad less) and the earth completing one revolution around the sun defines what one year is. So in God’s brilliance crafted through His creation, seasons were introduced to establish and govern what you and I so often glibly call time. In our western arrogance so often we can patronise civilizations labelling them as primitive. This often surfaces through such statements as, ‘that’s how they wrote in those days, and that was their understanding of time’. What nonsense!


Genesis is full of specific statements, place names , people and events that have been verified through Archaeology. Also verified by New Testament scriptures, especially Romans. Genesis tells us it’s Astronomy that gives us our seasons, and we come up with notions that these people had a different concept of time than we do! How arrogant.

Attempting to symbolise the Genesis historical account, how would one explain away the specific ranges of the deaths of people who lived pre-flood. Adam died at 930 years, Methuselah 969 and so on, (as a side note these years are fully possible considering pre flood earth conditions and also provable). Given these specific years then, when did Genesis swap to going from being symbolic to being precise? Using specific ages of man's death and specific days when discussing the flood account, the Genesis account is displaying its accuracy based on its understanding of how time and seasons were understood.

In Exodus 20, God is giving Moses the 10 commandments – a very significant event for mankind, Verse 9 God Himself explains why we are to work 6 days and rest on the 7th, ..”For in 6 days the Lord made heaven and earth , the sea and all that in them is.” By establishing the Sabbath God Himself is declaring the duration of the creation week. Again we see this pattern. The idea that the days are aeons of time is nonsense, creating for millions of years and then resting lacking seriously in mental integrity.

According to God, His work is finished as He declared in Genesis 2:1 – This moves us on to day 7 where God rested. If evolution be true, by definition requires a continuing process – it cannot be finished. But the word of God has something very different to say, When discussing marriage with the Pharisee’s Jesus (in Mark 10:6) took them right back to the beginning – “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female”. Right here Christ infers completion, right back at the beginning of creation (the creation week) God made them male and female. Finished.

Had this not been true Gen 1.31 again produces an issue , If God created and finished, calling it very good makes complete sense, but setting aside the time line issue momentarily, of what good is man, through the mechanism of death and survival of the fittest (evolution) who is still evolving? Gen 1.26 refers to man bearing God’s image, Whose or what image does a ‘evolving’ thing bear? An evolving man would be made in the image of a god whose by very nature is death, disease and suffering. Genesis does not portray this in any sense , no matter how much effort is placed on butchering the text.

The mechanisms of evolutionism are chaotic disorder, random chances, genetic mutations, survival of the fittest, pain, suffering and disease contrasting the theme established in Genesis which is God. God who thought. God who designed and God who created. Genesis one and two is good with no mention of randomness, chance, badness, corruption, suffering, disease and certainly not death. To even entertain the idea of evolutionism into the Genesis, origin of life account is not only heretical its completely illogical.

The nature of man ought to be discussed. Scripture gives us some insight into original created man. Man and woman were designed and built by God, a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned in glory and honour (Psalm 8). God did a very good job when He made man (Gen 1.31). Three specific attributes are going on here, Firstly, made a little lower than the heavenly beings, well its hard to know with certainly exactly what that is, maybe a sphere of authority, whatever the case though, we were made, a verb that conveys completion. There is no essence of unfinished work, are the angels who are a litter higher than us still evolving? Or have they been evolving and have now stopped? Seems absurd to entertain the idea of ‘beings of a spiritual nature’ evolving, so why do we assume God’s physical representation would need it?

Secondly, Man was crowned with glory and honour. Again crowned, a verb conveying completion . What sort of imaginative thinking would one have to do to butcher this text? These are amazing insights into the original attributes of man all coinciding with whose image we bear (Gen1:26). This is the Shekinah glory of God, it’s the glory that the Hebrew is referring to when it says, man was naked and unashamed. Man was clothed with God’s Shekinah glory!

When God’s temple was completed by Solomon we read of God’s glory falling. We read of the items in the temple that were to be holy (set apart for God’s use). Nothing that has not been set apart can have the glory of God upon it. It’s a pattern that runs through scripture heavily. God created perfection and it was very good. Man was created and set apart for God. God’s glory was all over creation and especially over man who was made in God’s image! Clothed in glory! Immediately after the fall, man was aware of his nakedness, but this is NOT a physical nakedness! Man was physically naked before, it’s the glory! The glory was lost. God’s Shekinah glory that Psalm 8 discusses was lost! It’s this same sense we feel as men and woman now, we feel desperately unattached and apart from our Creator God. And that’s the nakedness that the original man and woman experienced, a separation from their Creator God and that is what sin does, it separates us from God. But praise be to God, Jesus came to set us free, Jesus is the last Adam. 1 Corinthians 2.9 tells us some attributes of Jesus, glory and honour again! This is the glory! Jesus is reconciling what was lost back to man. Scripture contrasts Gods glory with fallen man often. Its this chasm that one day will be dealt with. As one man brought death into the creation, (Romans 5.17- 5.19) it was one man Jesus the second Adam, to remove it! So following this through it was the corruption that entered into our nature and a Holy God could not be associated any longer in an intimate way with fallen man. This is the centrality of our faith as Christians! Our brokenness (fall of man) is made right through the life, death and resurrection of Christ!

Question, could ‘evolving man’ really be clothed in the glory of God? Could something that is a depiction of death and disease (the mechanism of evolution) be endowed or clothed with God’s glory.? This brings us back to an earlier point, what was so bad about the fall? What did God's warning about ‘You will surely die’ mean? If by nature our existence was brought by death and disease then what the heck was God talking about? Man was already death and dying! But it was a disaster, the worse disaster that has ever come upon man.

One thing has to be known and Immediately here we head to 2 passages in the New Testament, Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15.21. Its clear and central to the Christian faith, Man brought sin into the world not God! 1 Corinthians 15.21 says it was through man’s sin death came into the world. It then mentions Adam right away, the first man. Yet again we have verification of man's time line. Adam was the first man, Adam sinned. One human, one life. Evolutionism maintains aeons of time of death and decay, so as a ‘theistic evolutionist’ what butchering of God’s word would have to be done here’? when did sin come along? Theistic evolution states death and then ultimately sin. The Word of God declares Sin and then death, a reversion and complete polarisation on points of doctrine. Its simply not possible to tally up evolutionism and the Word of God. They declare two viewpoints and ultimately two very different world views.

The whole reason for joy as Christians is that Jesus, (the last Adam) had victory over death. Why does Paul make a point in 1 Cor. 15.54 about death as being swallowed up in victory? Death is bad! It always has been. It was not God’s desire at all.

We know Jesus came to undo the works of the enemy! (1 John 3:8) to fix the damage of the fall in Genesis 3, but why? Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 15:26 that the last enemy to be destroyed is death. If Jesus is portrayed as the last Adam, (where Adam as original man was crowned by honour and glory) and died to restore all things unto himself (Colossians 1:20), but God by aeons of years of death (which was the catalyst for the 1st man Adam), then what use was the death of Jesus and what is he restoring to Himself? What would the death of another man benefit? It’s a nonsense and carries no significance at all. The cornerstone of our faith would be a joke.

This is just some of the theological implications a theistic evolutionist has to deal with or just accept as faith.

All the glory be to God.

~ Daniel Durston

By Daniel Durston 09 Jun, 2010


By way of introduction and before embarking on examining any scientific claim, an understanding of secular foundational world view needs to be considered. World view, we all have one. That which equips us with a set of lens by which we process things, experiences, people and life itself. Ironically, it is things, experiences, people and life which form our world views.

So often the controversy behind these scientific claims is not the science itself but the philosophy behind it, ‘the world view’. Professor of Bible Theology Marvin L. Lubenow says, “It is becoming increasingly evident that the so-called “Bible-Science War” is not a science war but a philosophical war.” Or as Oxford Professor of mathematics and Philosopher of Science, John Lennox, says, “Two opposing scientists can give two equally opposing and convincing statements, this tell us the disagreement is not in the science but the world view.”

In a culture that is programmed and ruled by post-modern thought, there is no room for God. No room for an Absolute, therefore no room for absolutes . No room for a world view that sets God up as Moral Dictator, Law Giver and Judge. In turn just a melting pot, of humanism, materialism, anarchy and relativity, where you establish your own set of truths and values to live by. So its of no surprise to find man seeking to answer by his own sense of autonomy questions of life, questions of morality and in this instance questions of origin.

One such lens was sold to the west over 150 years ago by one man, Charles Darwin. In his book, ‘Origin of Species’ (1859), Darwin offered a revolutionary new world view for sinful man. A way in which rebellious man could view his created world and understanding of its origins as a series of natural events and genetic freak mutations with minimal or no commitment to an all powerful God who one day will reckon all peoples to give an account of their lives.

As we all have a world view, it needs to be said scientists are no different! A scientists world view will strongly determine their ‘starting point’ in which they view and interpret any 'evidence' they come across.

Darwin’s ideas were heavily influenced by British born Geologist Charles Lyell, who himself set out to, "free the science from Moses". Darwin’s book however ‘Origin of Species’ speaks nowhere of the origin of species, let alone any evidence for his theories, just a fairytale notion that a ‘simple cell’ came from nothing and increased in complexity and produced all the complexities and phylum of life we have today. How wrong could Darwin have been, what so arrogantly in his day was referred to as the ‘simple cell’, is known to be vastly more complex than anything man could ever conceive to build. This ‘simple cell’ is nothing less than a miniature city with staggering complexity facilitating the existence of life.

At this point it would be worth mentioning a popular misconception. The ‘Fossil Record’.

Guess what? There isn’t a fossil record! When bones or skull fragments are found, they come not with scribed inscriptions referencing date of origin and genus. In this case of the found Australopithecus sediba skull, no records were found with it. This may sound apparently obvious, however the point needs to be illustrated that the interpretation of the evidence is 100% one sided. 'Records' have been established by geologists, palaeontologists and in this case the paleoantologists who have been influenced by Charles Darwin, from which current day fossil finders interpret their finds by. Classification is essential of course regarding the natural world, but if one is classifying based on ‘increased complexity’, from simple to complex, as Darwin proposed ,their classification is seriously flawed for a number of reasons.

Consider the Genesis account;

Chapter One

(v.24) And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

(v.25) God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Three things stand out here, firstly what God said, was done. ‘And it was so’.

Secondly, we read, 'each according to its kind', This is why cats give birth to cats, dogs give birth to dogs and elephants give birth to elephants and humans, humans.They produce after themselves the same kind. The bible uses its own classification system, 'kinds'. Today we speak in terms of species, because of different classification systems in use, care needs to be exercised when using the words interchangeably, but simply put (and to this day it has never been fully agreed upon) an animal who can breed with another animal and whose offspring is fertile is generally regarded as the same kind. God has enabled through genetic programming variations within the kinds,(this is not evolution) but they are still the same kind of animal! Any 'specie' barrier jumping as Darwin and modern day evo's (evolutionist) claim, has never been observed.

Thirdly God saw it was good. It’s clear these animals were completed, finished and fully functional. Nothing half or partially complete could be of any functional use and therefore unable to bring glory to God and hardly something God would be able to call good. (Gen 1:21,25)

Consider also a glaring issue with the evolutionary world view, The ‘simple’ to more complex. It is absurd to say that different animals range in complexity. Is it possible to make a dog any simpler and maintain its functionality? Could a better Kudu be built? Maybe it can be explained this way; all life forms are complex, every one. Unless there is full completion (complexity) of the beast life is not possible. This has come to be termed as ‘irreducible complexity’. To illustrate this point consider a mouse trap.

A mouse trap has five parts.

1 – catch

2 - spring

3 - hammer

4 - bait holder

5 - platform


All of these parts have to be present and assembled before there is available functionality of the trap. If just one part is absent, it will not equate to 4/5ths possible mice catches, no mice could be caught. Our Creator God has made and completed all living systems fully functional and ready to reproduce after its kind. (Genesis 1:20-31)

Lee Berger , discoverer of the Australopithecus sediba is quick to tell us, 'it is the missing link crucial in our understanding for human evolution.' Quote; (BBC News April 9 2010, 'Science and Environment')

“This sits right at a critical moment in human evolution between those early Australopithecines like Lucy and between our immediate ancestors, Homo erectus like Turkana boy, it fills that gap an its different than what we’d been filling that gap with which is always a fantastic thing for science to find.”

Here another flaw in the evo’s world view is highlighted and best illustrated by Marvin L. Lubenow’s book, ‘Bones of Contention’

‘In a certain graduate course I took in palaeontology at a state university, the professor attempted to teach us the concepts of taxonomy and the construction of those familiar evolutionary family trees. He handed each student a packet of about 150 metal objects such as nails, tacks, and paper clips. Utilizing the various rules of evolutionary taxonomy, such as small to large, simple to complex, and generalized to specialized, we were each expected to arrange these objects in evolutionary order. Starting with generalized nails, we went on to nails 'gradually increasing in size and then branching off into various specialized types of nails and tacks. Naturally no two students arranged their objects in exactly the same way, although there was a similar overall similarity. When the project was finished, we all had created a beautiful series of phylogenetic trees showing the “evolution” of nails, tacks and paper clips.

What I found fascinating about the project was that as we played with our object lesson, no one sensed that the illustration was totally invalid; it had no relationship to reality. Each of the objects that we had arranged in such a convincing evolutionary sequence had in fact been individually created for a specific purpose by humans. There was no actual evolutionary relationship between them. We were able to arrange then in an “evolutionary” sequence even though none of them had evolved.

Rather than being led by the evidence and seeing where it leads, Lee Berger is ‘force fitting’ the evidence into pre-conceived ideas and classifications that Charles Darwin has handed down.

Actually at the time of his writing Darwin had no physical evidence such as ‘transitionary’ fossils to support his claim. He believed in time however some would be found. At least Darwin was honest enough himself to include the below extract in his book;

“Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and series objection which can be urged against the theory.” (Origin of Species 6th edition 1872 P.413)

So where are we at today? If evolution be true we should be finding millions and millions of transitionary fossils and skeletons. We should be finding invertebrate to vertebrate, fish to amphibian, reptile to bird and so on, but this isn’t the case. Even ex senior Palaeontologist (evolutionist) Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History, had himself acknowledge that of all their 60,000 plus fossils, not a single transitional fossil could be found.

It should be clear by now that our lens or ‘starting point’ play a key role in viewing and interpreting evidence and information. In the book , ‘Bones of Contention’, Lubenow illustrates this point well in the following extract;

‘One of the lines of evidence promoting the concept of human evolution involves studies on living chimpanzees-their behaviour, genetic makeup, and anatomy. All of these studies are fundamentally flawed. The flaw is known in logic as begging the question. In begging the question, you assume to be true the very thing you are trying to prove. Let me illustrate…

A man was observed walking down in Chicago, snapping his fingers. Finally, someone was driven by curiosity to ask him why he repeatedly snapped his fingers. “It keeps the elephants away,” the man replied.

“Why, man, there aren’t any elephants within ten thousand miles of this place!” responded his questioner.

“Pretty effective, isn’t it?” exclaimed the man. He first assumed that snapping his fingers kept elephants away. He then used the absence of elephants to prove that his snapping worked. To presuppose the truth of what you are trying to prove is the illogical practice of begging the question.

Evo’s first assume that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. They then use superficial similarities between humans and chimpanzees to prove their assumption.

They should take a course of logic. Studies on Chimpanzees could cast light on human nature only if evolution were first proven to be true. If evolution is not true, chimpanzee studies, although valuable in their own right, are worthless in shedding light on human origins.’

The evo’s though are desperate to defend the god of evolution, no matter how much mental gymnastics need to be performed to achieve it. Scratching at anything that could be interpreted as a transitional fossil, and Australopithecus sediba found in South Africa was no different.

The Article

April 8 2010, BBC News Channel published an article titled ‘South African fossils could be new hominid species’. “Science” journal the next day also had a publication on this ‘ape-like’ ancestor.

Ascribing the fossil in question with the name Australopithecus sediba (‘Southern Ape of the Spring’) its discoverer American Professor Lee Berger, explains how the remains of two ancient human-like creatures discovered in the Malapa caves in South Africa’s Sterkfontein region, could be a new species which bridge the gap between the older Homo hails (supposedly 2.3 to 1.4 millions years ago) and the more modern Homo sapiens.

Berger is claiming this fossil find is the link between ‘Lucy’ and ‘Turkana boy’. Who is ‘Lucy’ though? And who is ‘Turkana boy’.

Well according to the Evo’s, ‘Lucy’ 'Australopithecus afarensis' was a member of the ape-like Australopithecus (meaning southern ape) who lived in Africa 3.2 million years ago. Found by U.S. palaeontologist Donald Johanson in Ethiopia 1974, it is still universally regarded as a fossil of human descent and is used as an example of human evolution in the majority of school textbooks.

However, when the bones were studied using a spectrograph they match that of a chimpanzee, not of a man. The bones that supposedly made up ‘Lucy’ were assembled from bones found in different locations. The knee joint was found over a mile away from the rest of the skeleton! National Geographic even made reference to ‘Lucy’s knee’ and without correction.

Johanson thought Lucy was becoming a human due to the fact that an ape has a straight femur which it does, but Lucy’s knee was angled to the side like a human. However tree climbing monkeys have an angled femur, she was a tree climbing monkey! And possibly some still exist today in parts of Southeast Asia.

So what about ‘Turkana Boy’. Discovered By K. Kimeu in 1984 at the Nariokotome site in West Kenya, Turkana was believed to be part of the Homo erectus specie. The most complete skeleton ever found but with hands and feet missing. Based on the cranial capacity , about 1000 – 1050cc, similar to a young child but too large for an ape, in contrast to its larger eye brow ridges, like that of an ape , Turkana was believed to be another missing link.

Of interest discovered in 1891 by Eugene Dubois in Indonesia is ‘Java man’. All Dubois found though was a skull cap, 3 teeth and a femur which was found 50 feet away from the skull cap a year later. After serious study it was discovered 2 of the other pieces from ‘Java man’ were from 2 different skulls from two different areas in the island. Dubois closer to his death confessed the in-authenticity of his find and admitted the pieces were that of a human and a femur bone of a giant gibbon. And yet it remains in the text books and ‘science’ journals as evidence for human evolution.

Piltdown man is one such find which had been acknowledged as a deliberate hoax. Collected from a gravel pit at Piltdown (a village in Sussex, UK) in 1912, a combination of a human cranium and a lower jaw of an orang-utan were assembled together. With the teeth of the orang-utan mandible which had been filed down to make them look human.

So Berger has classified his find, to fit in-between two deliberate frauds. And the frauds go on, ‘Peking man’ , ‘Orce’, ‘Ramapithicis’ ‘Neanderthal man’.

Even fellow evo’s have their doubts regarding Lee Berger’s claim. One of which is covered by Science and Tech Mail Online April 11 2010)

'Dr Darren Curnoe a specialist in human evolution from the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney said: 'The discovery of one, let alone two, partial skeletons of the fossil relatives of humans is a rare and truly amazing thing. Added to this, is the remarkably young geological age of these new finds. 'But he claimed the discovery had been surrounded by 'hype and over-interpretation' .'To claim that these new fossils represent an ancestor of living humans is misleading and founded in error,'

It should be said that these fossil finds are not readily available for scientists to examine and scrutinise. In the evolutionary mindset finding such a ‘missing link’ is of incredible value as it belongs to part of human heritage. These fossils which have been claimed to be transitionary fossils usually remain in the country where they are found in and are heavily guarded! Not to mention the fragility of them. Being buried and packed with dirt, soil and mineral deposits has kept them preserved, (not suggesting millions of years here), this makes them vulnerable when exposed to the elements. Also during their cleaning, many become ever more frail after the support they once had (the sediments) gets removed. As Lubenow puts it, ‘In some countries the protection of these fossils seems more important than the study of them’.

Therefore it needs to be said only a very few scientists actually get to handle and examine the fossils without much challenge in their interpretation. In addition to this from Marvin Lubenow, ‘Bones of Contention’;

“Since the original fossils are virtually beyond access to even to most who teach and write in the field of Paleoanthropology, and only a few of the fossils are available as reproductions, and reproductions are not recommended in the preparation of scientific papers, and those scientific papers themselves cannot adequately convey differences between fossils, the “science” of Paleoanthropology seems to have a problem.

The myth in the minds of the public is that the human fossil material is readily available and is thoroughly studied by all who teach and write on the subject. The truth is that Paleoanthropology is in the awkward position of being a science that is several steps removed from the very evidence upon which it claims to base its findings."

John Fleagle Department of Anatomical Sciences, State University of New York;

“The big awkwardness right now is when someone announces they have found a specimen that overturns everything we know, but almost no one has seen it “

To date approximately 4000 human fossil remains have been found. Out of this amount only a few have been selected and attempted to be used for human evolution. It would be good to briefly mention something about brow ridges. In all of these skulls the brow ridge appears somewhat prominent. This is easy to understand for the ape skulls, as apes have prominent brow ridges! However some human remains have been found with prominent brow ridges. This is in harmony with the biblical account where humans and animals not only grew much larger (plenty of fossil evidence to support this) but lived longer as well. The brow ridge is the only bone in the human body that does not stop growing, with humans living many hundreds of years its plausibly at least to suggest they would have had larger sized brow ridges. It was after the fall of man that human longevity began to decrease and especially noticeable post flood where the average age of a person dropped considerably.

Its always of interest to note how the scientists comment on the possible cause of deaths. In every instance of found fossils, being rapidly buried through drowning is always the imagined scenario. Even dinosaur fossils, who have supposedly drowned in such flash floods.

An extract from the BBC write up under the heading ‘Rapid Burial’ says;

‘The scientists speculate the creatures either fell into the cave complex or became stuck in it. It is likely their bodies were then swept into an underground lake or pool, perhaps during a rainstorm. Their bones were laid down with the remains of other dead animals, including a sabre-toothed cat, antelope, mice and rabbits. The fact that none of the bodies appear to have been scavenged indicates that all died suddenly and were entombed rapidly.’

Or Professor Paul Dirks from James Cook University in Queensland, Australia; (team member)

“We think that there must have been some sort of calamity taking place at the time that caused all of these fossils to come down together into the cave where they got trapped and ultimately buried,"

And there is a good reason for this. In order for a life form to be fossilized it has to be covered and buried rapidly. If not decay and decomposition will set in and destroy it, if it hadn’t been already scavenged by a predator. So the only way to account for all the thousands upon thousands of fossils we have are thousands upon thousands of ‘rapid burial’ events. Or perhaps a more biblical interpretation would be, just one catastrophic event. A global flood. (Gen. 6)

In light of this, fossil finders take it for granted that what they find has been rapidly buried, aiding its preservation. However these same paleontologists ascribe to the idea that earths strata was laid down layer by layer over millions and millions of years as the theory of evolution dictates.

Of all these thousands upon thousands of fossils, imagine the dying animal lying exposed for millions and millions of years whilst the layers slowly bury around them. Its an illogical impossibility. They would be eaten up or decomposed within weeks. This is yet another serious problem the evo’s have to deal with when embracing Darwinian evolutionism as their worldview. The very existence of fossils points to a world wide flood as fossils do not form under normal conditions, they have to be buried rapidly.


Artwork

Just a few notes on artwork. A visit to the museum, the biology textbooks or national geographic is enough to see a great spectrum of glossy complete pictures of our ‘human ancestors’.

The artist rendition of the found fossil is completely down to the subjectivity and the imagination of themselves. Of all the supposed transitional fossils, the majority are partially assembled with just a selection of bones. The artist (‘guided’ by the paleoanthropologist) fills the gaps in and conveys exactly what they want to viewer to see. Consider ‘Lucy’ Australopithecus afarensis, no foot bones were found whatsoever, yet St Louis zoo had her on display with human like feet! As do all the images of ‘her’.


In God's Image

Professor Lee Berger tells us, ‘It's at the point where we transition from an ape that walks on two legs to, effectively, us," (BBC News Report April 2010)

But the God of creation who was there gives us a very different account. Genesis chapter one.

(v26) ‘Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let then rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Embracing the idea of human evolution as a plausible way that mankind came into being promises major doctrinal issues. Much can be said, but consider just some of the issues.

Man was created in Gods image, either man was or was not. If man came about through a series of transitional humans, then man could not have been made in Gods image. At what stage through the evolutionary process did man become a man bearing the image of his God? At what stage did man become a tri-composite being of Spirit , Soul and Body? (1 Thess. 5:23)

We are told Jesus was the ‘last Adam’. Jesus accomplished through love, faith and obedience what Adam had failed to do. (Rom. 5:12) This is based on the foundational truths in Genesis that there was one man Adam. Working backwards if Jesus was the last Adam, a ‘first Adam’ had to have lived. Secondly if the one man Jesus was obedient so many could be made righteous, (Rom. 5:19) then the first made Adam must have been able to be obedient himself. Naturally the question arises how capable of rational thinking and choice let alone obedience, is a slowly progressing transitioning ape/human.?

 

As mentioned a whole book could be written on the lack of compatibility with Gods Word and human evolutionism. However one last issue needs to be discussed. The sanctity of humanity.

Evolution teaches we are all animals. This is polar opposite to what God would have us know.

Unlike animals we have a spirit. This is the part of our composition which separates us from animals and plants and makes us Image bearers of God. Chemistry, biology and physics are not enough to produce life! Science is just the study of things we can test in a laboratory.

We are told it was upon the Wisdom of God, (Proverbs) that life was brought forth, and upon Gods Word it was established. Regarding Mankind , Genesis 2:7 tell us that man was formed from the dust of the ground, (chemistry and biology working together) But it was not until God breathed into the mans nostrils the breath of life, רוח, (RU-ah) that man became a living being. This is the part of the very God that built us that unites us as human beings and separates us from animals and everything else created, God’s Spirit, Gods Image. Life comes from God, not the ground.

As we bear the very Image of God, we are holy, we are sacred, we are set apart from all of Gods creation. This is why the institution of capital punishment was given to Noah by God after the flood. (Gen.9:6) Humans are of immeasurable worth, of immeasurable value and sacred because of Whose image we bear.


Finally

Our world view is of the upmost importance. As it bears influence on the choices we make from day to day right up to legislation passed by our governments, its of absolute importance we seek to get a right and Godly one.

Ironically on the website of prominent Atheist Richard Dawkins, the slogan can be seen, ‘A Clear-Thinking Oasis’.

Dawkins does not understand that none of us live in a vacuum, and that our thinking is influenced and established by what we feed on and embrace, (those things we ultimately worship)

Absolute objectivity is an unrealistic condition to be placed on our fallen state and depraved thinking. Worldviews are formed in a child predominantly by their parents followed by the schools and reinforced (or not) by the media. To know the worldview of our age, one just has to switch on the television, observe the movies watched, music listened to and friends kept. None of us are free agents, we will be influenced by the philosophy of our age. We are however free choosers, we can choose to adopt a different worldview, a biblical worldview. Scripture has a lot to say about a persons thinking.

In the book of Proverbs, which is primarily written to young men to teach and guide them into manhood, we find ‘Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding’

(Proverbs 3:5)

Paul in to the church at Rome tells us, ‘Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.’ (Romans 12:2) By feeding on Gods Word we are pushing out the philosophies and vain thinking of our age and embracing the ultimate and perfect thinking of God.

As fallen man we have a disposition for sin, it comes most natural, Gen 6:5 tell us ‘how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.’ This was the main reason why God wiped mankind from the face of the earth by the global flood.

In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul call us to fight with weapons that are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 6And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete. (2 Cor. 10:4,5) Again the idea of punishing the disobedient comes out here.

Godless thinking will lead to a Godless and heathenistic life which in turn will lead to destruction. We are called to renew our minds and be thinkers like Christ .In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul affirms them that the mind of Christ dwells within them, and call them to realign their thinking with that of Christ.(1 Cor. 2:16) There is something essential about getting our thinking aligned to the inspired Word of God and turning from the uninspired words of man.

 

‘As a man thinks in his heart, so is he’ ~ Proverbs

May this be our Prayer;

Father God, we repent that we have for too long been swept by doctrines of demons, where Your power and glory is stripped away and reduced to natural, random, mindless processes.

Father God, we thank you that you first loved us and thought about us and through Your Wisdom brought forth the physical realm into existence by Your Word.

Thank you Lord that when You spoke it, it was done. And all that You had done was very good.

Father, we confess there is much we don’t know, but thank You Lord you left us an account of our origins.

Thank you Father that what we do know enables us to bring glory to You,

Thank you Creator God that You have left us the study of chemistry, biology and physics bounded by laws in which to learn more about our world.

To You God be the glory forever and ever. Amen


Share by: