The GAP theory a theory no longer? Long ages STILL possible in a previous creation.......Hmmmm!

THE GENESIS 1:1  GENESIS 1:2

 

 

 

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE GAP TIMEFRAME

 

God exists in the eternal past

 

Psalms 93:2

 

"Thy Throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting."

Before he made the universe and the heavens God makes his plans

Hebrews 1:1-8

 

"God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father and he will be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, and let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy Kingdom. 

 

The Creation of the Heavens, this means God's heaven and his Angels because they were made before the rest of creation, then he created the two heavens around the earth, it's atmosphere and the starry heavens above it!

Genesis 1:1

 

 "In the beginning God created the Heaven(s) and the Earth."


The Creation of the Spirit World

 Job 38:4-8
 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?  Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?"

The Earth made perfect the first time


Isaiah 45:18 
   For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.


Creation of the world (Kosmos, social order) that then was


2 Pet 3:5-7
 

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

Lucifer's (The bearer of God's Light) reign over the world that then was, no one knows the exact length of this reign but could have been a long one before he fell.



Other thrones, dominions, principalities and powers placed over other parts of the universe

Colossians 1:15-19 

  "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; "

 

The kingdom of God universal; God the Supreme Moral Governor of the universe, and all in harmony with him:

Daniel 4:17

"This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men."

Lucifer, the original ruler of the earth, conceives the idea that he can get the cooperation of other angelic beings of the universe, dethrone God, and become the exalted supreme ruler of the universe.
 

Ezekiel 28:12-17 

 

 "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.  Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.  Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee."

 

 

Lucifer carries out his plans, and through pride falls and incites rebellion by slander and accusations against the Almighty. He causes his own subjects and one-third of God's angels to rebel against him. The earth enters it's first sinful state.

 

 

 

Revelation 12:4

"And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born."

 

Revelation 12:7-9 

^" And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

 

 

Lucifer instigates rebellion and persuades others to rebel. He openly breaks relations with God and his government, and leads his rebels from the appointed place of mobilization on earth into Heaven to dethrone God.

 

 

Isaiah 14:12-17

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

 

 

 

He is then met by Michael and the faithful angels, and is defeated and cast as lightning back to the earth:

 

 

Revelation 12:7-9 

 "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

 

Luke 10:18

"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."

 

God completely destroys Lucifer's kingdom and curses the earth by destroying all life. A great flood leaves the earth an empty wasteland, there is the possibility that it was a frozen wasteland until it all melted by Genesis 1:2

 

 

 

 

Genesis 1:2 

 

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Job 38:30

 "The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen."

Jeremiah 4:23

^" I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light."

The possibilities for the geologic ages are endless here and at the same time it keeps the 6,000 years intact, no reason to panic. It seems to fit well with a literal interpretation of Genesis once the other scriptures are brought to bear on it. And please keep in mind that scripture can have double meanings without losing it's integrity.

This theory is also called the restitution or recreation theory. Arthur C. Custance, who has written an excellent book in the theory’s defense, traces it to certain early Jewish writers, some of the church fathers, and even to some ancient Sumerian and Babylonian documents.

It crops up in the Middle Ages as well. It was in Scotland at the beginning of the last century, through the work of the capable pastor and writer Thomas Chalmers, that the idea gained real coherence and visibility. And this was LONG before Darwin's theory of beginnings took hold so we are not copying the World's views at all.

This theory is biblical first and commented upon before Evolution was conceived.





Pember wrote, “It is thus clear that the second verse of Genesis describes the earth as a ruin; but there is no hint of the time which elapsed between creation and this ruin.

Age after age may have rolled away, and it was probably during their course that the strata of the earth’s crust were gradually developed. Hence we see that geological attacks upon the Scriptures are altogether wide of the mark, are a mere beating of the air.

 There is room for any length of time between the first and second verses of the Bible. And again, since we have no inspired account of the geological formations, we are at liberty to believe that they were developed just in the order in which we find them.

The whole process took place in preadamite times, in connection, perhaps, with another race of beings, and, consequently, does not at present concern us”

 (G. H. Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages and Their Connection with Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy. London and Glasgow: Pickering & Inglis, n.d., 28).

 Harry Rimmer was another influential writer. In 1941 he authored a book entitled Modern Science and the Genesis Record. In it he said, “The original creation of the heaven and the earth, then, is covered in the first verse of Genesis. Only God knows how many ages rolled by before the ruin wrought by Lucifer fell upon the earth, but it may have been an incalculable span of time.

Nor can any students say how long the period of chaos lasted; there is not even a hint given. But let us clearly recognize in these studies that Moses, in the record of the first week of creation, is telling the story of God’s reconstruction; rather than the story of an original creation”

 (Harry Rimmer, Modern Science and the Genesis Record (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941, 28).

 

The "Gap Theory" or Ruin, reconstruction Theory was NOT invented by Christians trying to fit evolution into the creation story, that's a lie perpetuated by Young Earth creationists. It goes without saying that the earth in this present creation is only around 10.000 years to just over 6,000 years old BUT if we look at scripture there are many verses that describe a destruction of the EARTH not just a kingdom of Israel that DID NOT HAPPEN IN NOAH'S FLOOD.

 

It must also be remembered that in the young earth creation of 6,000 plus years, that every genealogy has major gaps in them, also the understanding of Adam's creation in no way dictate's a timeframe for the Fall of man after his walking with God.

 

The literal 6 days of remaking the surface of the earth into a paradise is the only actual dating that took place, prior to this making, the Ice age after previous destruction took place!

 

Adam could have walked with God for thousands of years before Eve and many more years after that BEFORE THE FALL, so dating is very premature concerning the young earth dates! 

  

"Many of the early Church Fathers and other biblical scholars interpret the creation days of Genesis 1 as long periods of time. The list includes the Jewish historian Josephus (1st century); Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, apologist and martyr (2nd century); Origen, who rebutted heathen attacks on Christian doctrine (3rd century); Basil (4th century); Augustine (5th century); and, later, Aquinas (13th century), to name a few!

 

The significance of this list lies not only in the prominence of these individuals as biblical scholars, defenders of the faith, and pillars of the early church (except Josephus), but also in that their scriptural views cannot be said to have been shaped to accommodate secular opinion. Astronomical, paleontological, and geological evidences for the antiquity of the universe, of the earth, and of life did not come forth until the nineteenth century." (Ross 1991: 141)

 

In saying I believe in an OLDER CREATION date it does not mean that I have rejected the 6,000 year creation or better re-make date of Genesis 1:2 I simply have added the original creation period BEFORE this current one.

 

Think of it this way, you own a Car from the 1970's but it needs new parts put on that are just as exact as the parts being replaced. Part of your Car is newer than other parts of it, no confusion or contradiction it's simply one Car with Older and newer parts! God's original creation in Genesis 1:1 was perfect, Lucifer's fall from heaven to earth and consequent rebellion ruined it's perfection, God destroys this creation leaving it without form and void. Enter Genesis 1:2 and God remakes the earth's surface because we must remember that the EARTH was already made in 1:1.

 

 

 

HOW STRONG IS THIS EVIDENCE?

 

First, in the Masoretic text of Genesis, in which ancient Jewish scholars attempted to incorporate a sufficient number of “indicators” to guide the reader in proper pronunciation and interpretation of the text, there is a small mark known as a rebia following verse 1.

The rebia is a disjunctive accent. That is, it serves to inform the reader that there is a break in the narrative at this point and that he should pause before going on to the next verse.

The rebia might also indicate that the conjunction that begins verse 2, a waw, should be translated “but” rather than the more common “and.”

This has bearing on how the second verse should be translated because, as we will see, it could be rendered “But the earth became a ruin.”

 To be sure, the rebia was not in the original text of Genesis and therefore represents only the considered judgment of the Masoretes, but their opinion may guide us to a correct interpretation.

Second, there is the structure of the creation account itself. Each of the accounts of the activity of God on one of the creative days ends with the words, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the first [second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth] day.”

 In other words, there is a very marked parallelism. Moreover, on the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days, those same sections begin, “And God said. …” It is only natural, therefore, to assume that the account of the first day of creation begins, not with verse 1 but with verse 3 where the parallel phrase occurs (“And God said, ‘Let there be light’ ”).

 

 If this is so, then the first two verses stand apart from the rest of the account and describe a creation prior to the work of God on the first day.

Third, there is the possibility (some would say necessity) of translating the Hebrew verb “to be” (hayah), which occurs in verse 2, not “was” but “became.” So the verse would read, “But the earth became formless [that is, a ruinous mass] and empty [that is, devoid of life].”

It is also possible that the verb is to be taken as pluperfect with the meaning, “But the earth had become… .”

 

 

This also clears up the Creation week without mixing up things as young Earth creationism have had to do, the stars, the sun, the moon were previously created in verse one but their light because of judgment wasn't allowed to shine and thus God SAYS "LET THERE BE LIGHT" instead of creating light after the earth was made.

In Arthur Custance’s defense of the gap theory’s exegetical base, the point is made that the Hebrew verb hayah, while frequently translated “was” rather than “became,” nevertheless primarily means “became” for the simple reason that the Hebrew language does not really need a verb for “be.”

 That is, if a Hebrew-speaking person wanted to say “The man is good,” he would not use a verb at all but would simply say, “The man good.”

The verb would be implied. This sentence differs from the descriptive phrase “The good man,” because the Hebrew way of saying that is “The man the good.”

 

 Fourth, the words “formless and empty” (tohu wa bohu) may be verbal clues to a preadamic judgment of God on our planet. True, the words have various shades of meaning and do not necessarily indicate the destruction of something that had formerly been beautiful.

But they sometimes do. Besides, there is the important text in Isaiah 45:18 that says, using the words of Genesis 1:2, that God did not create the world a ruin. If this is a direct reference to Genesis, as it may be, it says that God did not create the world in the state portrayed in Genesis 1:2.

One serious criticism of the gap theory is that it gives one of the grandest and most important passages in the Bible an unnatural and perhaps even a peculiar interpretation.

 

This is hardly a conclusive argument, but it is probably the point at which most other Bible students and scholars begin to hesitate.

Ramm puts it like this: “From the earliest of Bible interpretation this passage has been interpreted by Jews, Catholics and Protestants as the original creation of the universe. In seven majestic days the universe and all of life is brought into being. But according to Rimmer’s view the great first chapter of Genesis, save for the first verse, is not about original creation at all, but about reconstruction.

The primary origin of the universe is stated in but one verse. This is not the most telling blow against the theory, but it certainly indicates that something has been lost to make the six days of creation anticlimactic” (Ramm, Christian View, 201).

This same argument may also be stated biblically, which Ramm does not do but which would presumably have more weight with the gap theory advocates.

To give just one example, we read in Exodus 20:11, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.” A person might point out that the verb used here is “made,” not the powerful Hebrew verb “created” (baraʾ), and that this allows for a recreation or reforming.

 But that aside, the verse does sound like a description of an original creation. “It neither states nor implies recreation to most people”

(L. Duane Thuman, How to Think about Evolution & Other Bible-Science Controversies . Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978, 121).

Second, the exegetical data, while impressive, is nevertheless far from certain. And it must be certain if we are to be expected to embrace such an unusual theory. I have argued above that critics of the gap theory have been far too cavalier in dismissing its supporters’ exegetical arguments, but those arguments are still not clearly right.

 The Hebrew verb hayah may mean “became,” but there is no doubt that it is also correctly translated “was” and that far more frequently. Again, waw may even mean “but,” although it more commonly means “and.” And as for tohu wa bohu, this may simply mean that the land in question was uninhabitable. Whether that condition was the result of God’s judgment on the earth or was due to some other factor is to be determined from the context and not from the words themselves (cf. Isa. 24:1 and 45:18; Jer. 4:23–26).

It is significant in this regard that, although the New International Version supports the possibility of translating the Hebrew hayah as “become” in a footnote to Genesis 1:2, it does not render Isaiah 45:18 in a way that would support the gap theory.

HERE'S PART 2

 

 

 



Trans-Neptunian objects: including dwarf planets and smaller objects with moons, where did they come from? Noah's Flood?

Here is a new theory about the flood that has great potential in revealing what it was like during Noah's flood!

No one really knows where the trans-Neptunian objects, including dwarf planets and smaller objects with moons, came from. Here's a radical theory: they came from the earth! They're made of the same stuff the asteroids are made of--at least they have the same low density and reddish color that asteroids have. And the twelve most distant of them have the same key orbital element, and even the astrophysicists say that cannot be a coincidence.

Here's Walt Brown's compete description of where the TNOs came from, and how he figures that.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids4.html

This might just blow the lid off  Macro-Evolution as a choice forever if it is spread like wildfire

Read it, and read the article that has the links to the articles in the journal Nature that finally convinced him to speak up.

Then decide.

CONSERVATIVENEWSANDVIEWS.COM reports: 

Trans-Neptunian objects may have formed from the megatons of water, rock and mud ejected into space at the breakout of the Global Flood.

HOW WE ATTAIN TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF CERTAIN TRUTHS. The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY'S SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (1851)

As long as I have been presenting this evidence of Creation, of God and any thing clearly proven by the scientific facts at hand, I have been ridiculed and cut down in my intelligence INSTEAD of personal investigation being done by those who fear this evidence. 

For those who read here, there must be civility in our discourses or there is no point in communicating at all because this insulting and name-calling for the sake of avoiding the proof is Childish. 

If you cannot accept the clear evidence presented because of what your peers would say or what others believe, you are not worthy of the truth. Accepting real truth requires us to drop anything that opposes that truth including Religious and Scientific presumptions that run crosswise of the facts!

 The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY'S SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (1851)

 

LECTURE I.
 

HOW WE ATTAIN TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF CERTAIN TRUTHS. 

ALL teaching and reasoning take certain truths as granted. That the unequivocal, à priori affirmations of the reason are valid, for all the truths and principles thus affirmed, must be assumed and admitted, or every attempt to construct a science, of any kind, or to attain to certain knowledge upon any subject, is vain and even preposterous. 

As I must commence my lectures on moral government by laying down certain moral postulates, or axioms, which are, à priori, affirmed by the reason, and therefore self-evident to all men, when so stated as to be understood, I will spend a few moments in stating certain facts belonging more appropriately to the department of psychology. Theology is so related to psychology, that the successful study of the former without a knowledge of the latter, is impossible.

Every theological system, and every theological opinion, assumes something as true in psychology. 

Theology is, to a great extent, the science of mind in its relations to moral law. God is a mind or spirit: all moral agents are in his image. 

Theology is the doctrine of God, comprehending his existence, attributes, relations, character, works, word, government providential and moral, and, of course, it must embrace the facts of human nature, and the science of moral agency.

All theologians do and must assume the truth of some system of psychology and mental philosophy, and those who exclaim most loudly against metaphysics, no less than others.
 

There is a distinction between the mind's knowing a truth, and knowing that it knows it. Hence I begin by defining self-consciousness.
 

Self-consciousness is the mind's recognition of itself. It is the noticing of, or act of knowing itself. Its existence, attributes, acts, and states, with the attributes of liberty or necessity which characterize those acts and states. Of this, I shall frequently speak hereafter.
 

THE REVELATIONS OF SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS.
 

Self-consciousness reveals to us three primary faculties of mind, which we call intellect, sensibility, and will. The intellect is the faculty of knowledge; the sensibility is the faculty or susceptibility of feeling; the will is the executive faculty, or the faculty of doing or acting. All thinking, perceiving, intuiting, reasoning, opining, forming notions or ideas, belong to the intellect.
 

Consciousness reveals the various functions of the intellect, and also of the sensibility and will. In this place, we shall attend only to the functions of the intellect, as our present business is to ascertain the methods by which the intellect arrives at its knowledges, which are given to us in self-consciousness.
 

Self-consciousness is, itself, of course, one of the functions of the intellect; and here it is in place to say, that a revelation in consciousness is science, or knowledge. What consciousness gives us we know. Its testimony is infallible and conclusive, upon all subjects upon which it testifies.
 

Among other functions of the intellect, which I need not name, self-consciousness reveals the three-fold, fundamental distinction of the sense, the reason, and the understanding.
 

OF THE SENSE.

The sense is the power that perceives sensation and brings it within the field of consciousness. Sensation is an impression made upon the sensibility by some object without or some thought within the mind. The sense takes up, or perceives the sensation, and this perceived sensation is revealed in consciousness. 

If the sensation is from some object without the mind, as sound or colour, the perception of it belongs to the outer sense. If from some thought, or mental exercise, the perception is of the inner sense.

I have said that the testimony of consciousness is conclusive, for all the facts given by its unequivocal testimony. We neither need, nor can we have, any higher evidence of the existence of a sensation, than is given by consciousness.
 

Our first impressions, thoughts, and knowledges, are derived from sense. But knowledge derived purely from this source would, of necessity, be very limited.
 

OF THE REASON.

Self-consciousness also reveals to us the reason or the à priori function of the intellect. The reason is that function of the intellect which immediately beholds or intuits a class of truths which, from their nature, are not cognizable either by the understanding or the sense.

Such, for example, as the mathematical, philosophical, and moral axioms, and postulates. The reason gives laws and first principles. It gives the abstract, the necessary, the absolute, the infinite. 

It gives all its affirmations by a direct beholding or intuition, and not by induction or reasoning. The classes of truths given by this function of the intellect are self-evident. 

That is, the reason intuits, or directly beholds them, as the faculty of sense intuits, or directly beholds, a sensation. Sense gives to consciousness the direct vision of sensation, and therefore the existence of the sensation is certainly known to us. The reason gives to consciousness the direct vision of the class of truths of which it takes cognizance; and of the existence and validity of these truths we can no more doubt, than of the existence of our sensations.

Between knowledge derived from sense and from reason there is a difference: in one case, consciousness gives us the sensation: it may be questioned whether the perceptions of the sense are a direct beholding of the object of the sensation, and consequently whether the object really exists, and is the real archetype of the sensation. 

That the sensation exists we are certain, but whether that exists which we suppose to be the object and the cause of the sensation, admits of doubt. The question is, does the sense immediately intuit or behold the object of the sensation. 

The fact that the report of sense cannot always be relied upon, seems to show that the perception of sense is not an immediate beholding of the object of the sensation; sensation exists, this we know, that it has a cause we know; but that we rightly know the cause or object of the sensation, we may not know.

But in regard to the intuitions of the reason, this faculty directly beholds the truths which it affirms. These truths are the objects of its intuitions. They are not received at second hand. 

They are not inferences nor inductions, they are not opinions, nor conjectures, nor beliefs, but they are direct knowings. The truths given by this faculty are so directly seen and known, that to doubt them is impossible. The reason, by virtue of its own laws, beholds them with open face, in the light of their own evidence.

OF THE UNDERSTANDING.
 

The understanding is that function of the intellect that takes up, classifies and arranges the objects and truths of sensation, under a law of classification and arrangement given by the reason, and thus forms notions and opinions, and theories. 

The notions, opinions, and theories of the understanding, may be erroneous, but there can be no error in the à priori intuitions of the reason. The knowledges of the understanding are so often the result of induction or reasoning, and fall so entirely short of a direct beholding, that they are often knowledges only in a modified and restricted sense.

Of the imagination, and the memory, &c., I need not speak in this place.

What has been said has, I trust, prepared the way for saying that the truths of theology arrange themselves under two heads.
 

I. Truths which need proof.
 

II. Truths which need no proof.
 

I. Truths which need proof.

 

First. Of this class it may be said, in general, that to it belong all truths which are not directly intuited by some function of the intellect in the light of their own evidence.

Every truth that must be arrived at by reasoning or induction, every truth that is attained to by other testimony than that of direct beholding, perceiving, intuiting, or cognizing, is a truth belonging to the class that needs proof.

Second. Truths of demonstration belong to the class that needs proof. When truths of demonstration are truly demonstrated by any mind, it certainly knows them to be true, and affirms that the contrary cannot possibly be true. To possess the mind of others with those truths, we must lead them through the process of demonstration. When we have done so, they cannot but see the truth demonstrated.

The human mind will not ordinarily receive, and rest in, a truth of demonstration, until it has demonstrated it. This it often does without recognizing the process of demonstration. The laws of knowledge are physical. The laws of logic are inherent in every mind; but in various states of developement in different minds.

If a truth which needs demonstration, and which is capable of demonstration, is barely announced, and not demonstrated, the mind feels a dissatisfaction, and does not rest short of the demonstration of which it feels the necessity. It is therefore of little use to dogmatize, when we ought to reason, demonstrate, and explain. 

In all cases of truths, not self-evident, or of truths needing proof, religious teachers should understand and comply with the logical conditions of knowledge and rational belief; they tempt God when they merely dogmatize, where they ought to reason, and explain, and prove, throwing the responsibility of producing conviction and faith upon the sovereignty of God. 

God convinces and produces faith, not by the overthrow of, but in accordance with, the fixed laws of mind. It is therefore absurd and ridiculous to dogmatize and assert, when explanation, illustration, and proof are possible, and demanded by the laws of the intellect.

To do this, and then leave it with God to make the people understand and believe, may be at present convenient for us, but if it be not death to our auditors, no thanks are due to us. 

We are bound to inquire to what class a truth belongs, whether it be a truth which, from its nature and the laws of mind, needs to be illustrated, or proved. If it does, we have no right merely to assert it, when it has not been proved. Let us comply with the necessary conditions of a rational conviction, and then leave the event with God.

To the class of truths that need proof belong those of divine revelation.

All truths known to man are divinely revealed to him in some sense, but I here speak of truths revealed to man by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible announces many self-evident truths, and many truths of demonstration. These may, or might be known, at least many of them, irrespective of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 

But the class of truths of which I here speak, rest wholly upon the testimony of God, and are truths of pure inspiration. Some of these truths are above reason, in the sense that the reason can, à priori, neither affirm nor deny them.

 

When it is ascertained that God has asserted them, the mind needs no other evidence of their truth, because by a necessary law of the intellect, all men affirm the veracity of God. But for this necessary law of the intellect, men could not rest upon the simple testimony of God, but would ask for evidence that God is to be believed. But such is the nature of mind, as constituted by the Creator, that no moral agent needs proof that God's testimony ought to be received. 

Let it be once settled that God has declared a fact, or a truth, and this is, with every moral agent, all the evidence he needs. The reason, from its own laws, affirms the perfect veracity of God, and although the truth announced may be such that the reason, à priori, can neither affirm, or deny it, yet when asserted by God, the reason irresistibly affirms that God's testimony ought be received.
 

These truths need proof in the sense that it needs to be shown that they were given by a divine inspiration. This fact demonstrated, the truths themselves need only to be understood, and the mind necessarily affirms its obligation to believe them.
 

Under this head I might notice the probable or possible truths; that is, those that are supported by such evidence as only shows them to be probable or possible, but I forbear.
 

My present object more particularly is to notice--
 

II. Truths which need no proof.
 

These are à priori truths of reason, and truths of sense; that is, they are truths that need no proof, because they are directly intuited or beheld by one of these faculties.
 

The à priori truths of reason may be classed under the heads of first truths: self-evident truths which are necessary and universal: and self-evident truths not necessary and universal.
 

1. First truths have the following attributes.
 

(1.) They are absolute or necessary truths, in the sense that the reason affirms that they must be true. Every event must have an adequate cause. Space must be. It is impossible that it should not be, whether any thing else were or not. Time must be, whether there were any events to succeed each other in time or not. Thus necessity is an attribute of this class.
 

(2.) Universality is an attribute of a first truth. That is, to truths of this class there can be no exception. Every event must have a cause, there can be no event without a cause.
 

(3.) First truths are truths of necessary and universal knowledge. That is, they are not merely knowable, but they are known to all moral agents, by a necessary law of their intellect.
That space and time are, and must be, that every event has and must have a cause, and such like truths, are universally known and assumed by every moral agent, whether the terms in which they are stated have ever been so much as heard by him, or not. This last is the characteristic that distinguishes first truths from others merely self-evident, of which we shall soon speak.
 

(4.) First truths are, of course, self-evident. That is, they are universally directly beheld, in the light of their own evidence.
 

(5.) First truths are truths of the pure reason, and of course truths of certain knowledge. They are universally known with such certainty as to render it impossible for any moral agent to deny, forget, or practically overlook them. Although they may be denied in theory, they are always, and necessarily, recognized in practice. No moral agent, for example, can, by any possibility, practically deny, or forget, or overlook the first truths that time and space exist and must exist, that every event has and must have a cause.

It is, therefore, always to be remembered that first truths are universally assumed and known, and in all our teachings, and in all our inquiries we are to take the first truths of reason for granted. It is preposterous to attempt to prove them, for the reason that we necessarily assume them as the basis and condition of all reasoning.

The mind arrives at a knowledge of these truths by directly and necessarily beholding them, upon condition of its first perceiving their logical condition. 

The mind beholds, or attains to the conception of, an event. Upon this conception it instantly assumes, whether it thinks of the assumption or not, that this event had, and that every event must have, a cause.

The mind perceives, or has the notion of body. This conception necessarily developes the first truth, space is and must be.
The mind beholds or conceives of succession; and this beholding, or conception, necessarily developes the first truth, time is, and must be.

As we proceed we shall notice divers truths which belong to this class, some of which, in theory, have been denied. Nevertheless, in their practical judgments, all men have admitted them and given as high evidence of their knowing them, as they do of knowing their own existence.

Suppose, for example, that the law of causality should not be, at all times or at any time, a subject of distinct thought and attention. Suppose that the proposition in words, should never be in the mind, that "every event must have a cause," or that this proposition should be denied. Still the truth is there, in the form of absolute knowledge, a necessary assumption, an à priori affirmation, and the mind has so firm a hold of it, as to be utterly unable to overlook, or forget, or practically deny it. 

Every mind has it as a certain knowledge, long before it can understand the language in which it is expressed, and no statement or evidence whatever can give the mind any firmer conviction of its truth, than it had from necessity at first. This is true of all the truths of this class. 

They are always, and necessarily, assumed by all moral agents, whether distinctly thought of or not. And for the most part this class of truths are assumed, without being frequently, or at least without being generally, the object of thought or direct attention. 

The mind assumes them, without a distinct consciousness of the assumption. For example, we act every moment, and judge, and reason, and believe, upon the assumption that every event must have a cause, and yet we are not conscious of thinking of this truth, nor that we assume it, until something calls the attention to it.

First truths of reason, then, let it be distinctly remembered, are always and necessarily assumed, though they may be seldom thought of. They are universally known, before the words are understood, by which they may be expressed; and although they may never be expressed in a formal proposition, yet the mind has as certain a knowledge of them as it has of its own existence.

All reasoning proceeds upon the assumption of these truths. It must do so, of necessity. It is preposterous to attempt to prove first truths to a moral agent; for, being a moral agent, he must absolutely know them already, and if he did not, in no possible way could he be put in possession of them, except by presenting to his perception the chronological condition of their developement, and in no case could any thing else be needed, for upon the occurrence of this perception, the assumption, or developement, follows by a law of absolute and universal necessity. And until these truths are actually developed, no being can be a moral agent.

There is no reasoning with one who calls in question the first truths of reason, and demands proof of them. All reasoning must, from the nature of mind and the laws of reasoning, assume the first-truths of reason as certain, and admitted, and as the à priori condition of all logical deduction and demonstration. Some one of these must be assumed as true, directly or indirectly, in every syllogism and in every demonstration.

In all our future investigations we shall have abundant occasion for the application and illustration of what has now been said of first truths of reason. If, at any stage of our progress, we light upon a truth of this class, let it be borne in mind that the nature of the truth is the preclusion, or, as lawyers would express it, the estopple of all controversy.

To deny the reality of this class of truths, is to deny the validity of our most perfect knowledge. The only question to be settled is, does the truth in question belong to this class? There are many truths which men, all sane men, certainly know, of which they not only seldom think, but which, in theory, they strenuously deny.

2. The second class of truths that need no proof are self-evident truths, possessing the attributes of necessity and universality.
Of these truths, I remark-- 

(1.) That they, like first truths, are affirmed by the pure reason, and not by the understanding, nor the sense.

(2.) They are affirmed, like first truths, à priori; that is, they are directly beheld or intuited, and not attained to by evidence or induction.

(3.) They are truths of universal and necessary affirmation, when so stated as to be understood. By a law of the reason, all sane men must admit and affirm them, in the light of their own evidence, whenever they are understood.

This class, although self-evident, when presented to the mind, are not, like first truths, universally and necessarily known to all moral agents.

The mathematical axioms, and first principles, the à priori grounds and principles of all science, belong to this class.

(4.) They are, like first truths, universal in the sense that there is no exception to them.

(5.) They are necessary truths. That is, the reason affirms, not merely that they are, but that they must be, true; that these truths cannot but be. The abstract, the infinite, belong to this class.

To compel other minds to admit this class of truths, we need only to frame so perspicuous a statement of them as to cause them to be distinctly perceived or understood. This being done, all sound minds irresistibly affirm them, whether the heart is, or is not, honest enough to admit the conviction.

3. A third class of truths that need no proof, are truths of rational intuition, but possess not the attributes of universality and necessity.

Our own existence, personality, personal identity, &c., belong to this class. 

These truths are intuited by the reason, are self-evident, and given, as such, in consciousness; they are known to self, without proof, and cannot be doubted. They are at first developed by sensation, but not inferred from it. Suppose a sensation to be perceived by the sense, all that could be logically inferred from this is, that there is some subject of this sensation, but that I exist, and am the subject of this sensation, does not logically appear. 

Sensation first awakes the mind to self-consciousness; that is, a sensation of some kind first arouses the attention of mind to the facts of its own existence and personal identity. 

These truths are directly beheld and affirmed. The mind does not say, I feel, or I think, and therefore I am, for this is a mere sophism; it is to assume the existence of the I as the subject of feeling, and afterwards to infer the existence of the I from the feeling or sensation.
 

4. A fourth class of truths that need no proof are sensations. It has been already remarked, that all sensations given by consciousness, are self-evident to the subject of them. Whether I ascribe my sensations to their real cause may admit of doubt, but that the sensation is real there can be no doubt. The testimony of the sense is valid, for that which it immediately beholds or intuits, that is, for the reality of the sensation. The judgment may err by ascribing the sensation to the wrong cause.

But I must not proceed further with this statement; my design has been, not to enter too minutely into nice metaphysical distinctions, nor by any means to exhaust the subject of this lecture, but only to fix attention upon the distinctions upon which I have insisted, for the purpose of precluding all irrelevant and preposterous discussions about the validity of first and self-evident truths. 

I must assume that you possess some knowledge of psychology, and of mental philosophy, and leave to your convenience a more thorough and extended examination of the subject but hinted at in this lecture.

Enough, I trust, has been said to prepare your minds for the introduction of the great and fundamental axioms which lie at the foundation of all our ideas of morality and religion. Our next lecture will present the nature and attributes of moral law. We shall proceed in the light of the à priori affirmations of the reason, in postulating its nature and its attributes. 

Having attained to a firm footing upon these points, we shall be naturally conducted by reason and revelation to our ultimate conclusions.

Evidence for Christianity By Bob Dutko

As long as I have been presenting this evidence of Creation, of God and any thing clearly proven by the scientific facts at hand, I have been ridiculed and cut down in my intelligence INSTEAD of personal investigation being done by those who fear this evidence. 

For those who read here, there must be civility in our discourses or there is no point in communicating at all because this insulting and name-calling for the sake of avoiding the proof is Childish. If you cannot accept the clear evidence presented because of what your peers would say or what others believe you are not worthy of the truth. Accepting real truth requires us to drop anything that opposes that truth including Religious and Scientific presumptions that run crosswise of the facts!

Evidence for Christianity
By Bob Dutko

Christian apologetics, or a study of the evidence for Christianity is important for all believers who hope to defend the faith effectively and prove the reliability of the Bible. 

By comparing Jesus to other religions using facts, logic and history, you can show that all other religions crumble under intellectual scrutiny except Christianity:

The Only True Religion. There are, of course, many evidences for Christianity, so let's look at one simple example by using a little logic and reasoning.

All religions claim they are the one true faith and certainly Christianity is no different in that it also claims to be the one true faith, so how can we know who is right? First, we have to understand and accept the fact that they can not ALL be right because they contradict each other. 

Some Eastern religions teach that you can become fully “enlightened” through a reincarnation process if you do enough good deeds. Islam teaches you must follow the teachings of the Qu'ran and the Hadiths and accept Mohammad as God's true prophet for the hope that Allah may grant you entrance into paradise. 

Jesus taught that he was God in the flesh, who came to Earth in human form to die for the sins of mankind, so that “whosoever would believe on Him would not perish, but have everlasting life”. So who's right?

If we are to approach this logically, we need to see that all religions began with a founder who had a philosophy and then convinced others to follow that philosophy. (Mohammad, Buddha, Krishna, etc.) The next logical step is to determine which of these religious leaders was speaking with the authority of Heaven, the authority of God, the real God, the God who created the Universe. So lets examine the evidence. 

Jesus is the only “religious leader” who actually claimed to be God on Earth, in the flesh. Of course, he was the Son of God while in human flesh, and yet also fully God and fully human. (While our finite minds are not yet capable of comprehending how the Son of God can also be fully God and fully human, we must acknowledge the fact that Jesus himself claimed this to be true, whether we can comprehend this mystery or not.) So we first need to determine whether or not Jesus really did, in fact, claim that he was God. Here's some evidence.

In Isaiah 9:6 it is prophesied the Messiah that comes to Earth in the flesh will be called “Mighty God, everlasting Father” and in Isaiah 7:14 the coming Messiah is prophesied to be called Emmanuel, which means “God with us”.

(It is important to remember that while Scripture is God's Word, it is also historical documentation and accounts of events written down by real people in history) Jesus came along hundreds of years later and declared that he was the Messiah prophesied about, that he was indeed “God with us”. 

Amazing Evidence for the Trustworthiness of the Bible 

Ancient Evidence Collection (Mysteries of the Old Testament/Mysteries of Jesus/Mysteries of the Apostles) 

The Way Of The Master Evidence Bible 

Evidence the Bible is True 

Ancient Secrets of the Bible: Shroud of Turin - Fraud or Evidence of Christ's Resurrection? [VHS] 

Now faith is the substance of things hoped' for, the evidence of things not seen T-shirt Large White 

The Politically Incorrect GuideTM to the Bible 

The Stones Cry out 

The Exodus Revealed: Searching for the Red Sea Crossing 

Scientific Facts in the Bible: 100 Reasons to Believe the Bible is Supernatural in Origin (Hidden Wealth Series) 

Compelling Evidence for God and the Bible: Finding Truth in an Age of Doubt 

Revelations of the Bible: The Bible's Greatest Secrets (Mystifying Stories, Claims, Scientific Experiments) 

The Exodus Decoded (History Channel) 

AND TO BE BALANCED AND FAIR TO THE SKEPTICS: Just so you can know how they regard your Evidence....

Bible Bloopers: Evidence That Demands a Verdict Too! A Skeptic Answers Josh McDowell 

He said in John 6:41 that he “came down from Heaven” and in verse 62 that he would ascend to “where he was before”. He said in John 8:23 that he is “from above”, in John 10:30 “I and the Father are one” and in John 8:58 “Before Abraham was born, I am”, using the same “I AM “ self reference God used with Moses at the burning bush.

Remember, in addition to Scripture, these are the actual historically recorded words of Jesus by John, an eyewitness who recorded them within the lifetimes of other eyewitnesses who were in a position to refute John's account if it wasn't historically accurate. 

While there certainly were people at that time who rejected the conclusions drawn by the disciples that Jesus was who he claimed to be, there are no writings from the time ever found in archeology or epigraphy from anyone who disagreed with what the disciples claimed Jesus did and said.

Also, remember, Jesus allowed himself to be worshiped as recorded in places such as John 9:38 and Matthew 14:33.

In the Old Testament we see that God is a jealous God and declares that no one besides God is to be worshiped, so for Jesus to allow himself to be worshiped establishes that he did in fact consider himself to be God. He also declared that he was to only true religion in that he said many times that he is the only way to get to Heaven.

The next logical step is to determine whether Jesus was right or wrong about his claims. So let's examine this. Jesus backed up his claims by doing things no regular human being could do.

It is historically recorded by eyewitnesses that Jesus changed the weather with his spoken word, walked on water, changed water into wine, instantly healed the blind, the deaf and paralyzed, created fish and bread to feed thousands, brought the dead back to life and rose from the dead himself, after which he appeared before 500 brethren over 40 days. Back then, only men were counted in crowd size estimates, so factoring in women and children, Jesus would have appeared to probably 1500 to 2000 people.

Again, this is not just Scripture, but actual recorded historical accounts by eyewitnesses. Now, compare this to every other religious leader and the difference becomes clear. Every other founder of every other religion was just a regular human being with a philosophy who convinced others to follow that philosophy. 

They possessed no power to defy the Laws of Physics. Anyone can invent a religion, but not anyone can claim to be God and then back it up with the power to control sickness, disease, the weather, the Laws of Physics and even death itself.

When Mohammad, Buddha, Confucius, Krishna or any of these other people were in a storm, they couldn't change the weather, they merely got wet. When they came across blind, deaf or paralyzed people, those people stayed blind, deaf and paralyzed. If they attended a wedding where the wine ran out, water would have to do. 

If they had only 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish to feed 5000, 4990 would have to go hungry. When they came across dead people, those people stayed dead and when they died themselves, they stayed dead.

Remember, if any of these other religions are true, then Jesus, with all of his proofs, would have to be wrong and one of these regular human religious leaders would have to be right. That's something I can not logically or intellectually accept. 

You can get over an hour of logical and historical evidences for Christianity in the Top Ten Proofs Christianity is the Only True Religion. Christian apologetics, or defending the faith is really not that hard when you logically examine the proofs and evidence for Christianity and the reliability of the Bible compared to other religions.

The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity 

Outlines of the Evidences of Christianity. for the Use of the Syrian College, Cottayam 

The Outline Of Paley's Evidences Of Christianity: For The Use Of Students Preparing For Examination (1881) 

Manual Of The Evidences Of Christianity: For Classes And Private Reading (1867) 

Consider Christianity: Evidence for the Bible 

The Exodus: ByFaith - In Search of the Exodus. The Quest to find the Evidence for Joseph, Moses and Ancient Israel in Egypt. Plus the Red Sea and Mount Sinai 

Evidence for Jesus: Discover the Facts That Prove the Truth of the Bible 

The Case for Christ: A Six-Session Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus 

The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict Fully Updated To Answer The Questions Challenging Christians Today 

Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Volume 1: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith (Evidence That Demands a Verdict) 

Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 2 

A Ready Defense The Best Of Josh Mcdowell 

Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith 

Evidence That Demands a Verdict Study Guide 

More Than a Carpenter 

Don't Check Your Brains at the Door: A Book of Christian Evidences (Know What You Believe and Why) 

The New Evidence That Demands Translated to Arabic Language The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict To Answer The Questions Challenging Christians Today / Josh McDowell / Bonus CD supplement 

The marks of the nail: A survey of the evidence for Christianity 

Evidence for Christianity in Roman Southern Pannonia (Northern Croatia): A Catalogue of Finds and Sites (bar s)