Clickbank Products

Was Jesus invented through ancient myths?


Where in the World?


The Bible bends all natural laws and rules because it is a supernatural book.
It cannot POSSIBLY be understood by a natural mind focused upon natural understanding. That is what Nicodemus discovered when he came to Christ trying to understand, with a natural mind, supernatural events and teachings.

Because scientists being naturally skeptical, have minds trapped in the box of the five physical senses they cannot focus therefore on the supernatural aspects to understand the biblical 'Birdseye view' of God, who sees things from OUTSIDE time and space, the box that we as finite are limited within .

There was a reason why Jesus said you must be born again. It is a SPIRITUAL rebirth [Both of Mind and Spirit] that is needed to release the hidden evidence of things we cannot witness from inside this physical 'BOX' universe.

I KNOW from personal experience that the Bible is true but I cannot convince you, you must find the truth yourself. THAT'S HOW LIFE WORKS!

Spend less time developing your skeptical natural mind and THAT'S WHAT YOUR DOING, and more time focusing on what Christ taught and you will discover as I have, the truth. You can only interpret the Universe through the shaded lens of your own understanding!
There was an error in this gadget

Friday, February 11, 2011

Part 3 - Skeptical Questioning of the Skeptical Mind Answered!

Who was CAIN’S WIFE?


It is not lawful to marry your sister, so who did Cain marry?
Were there other people on the earth besides Adam and Eve?
Does this have any relevance to the BIBLE’S VIEW OF SALVATION?

Skeptics have used Cain’s wife time and again to try to discredit the book of Genesis as a true historical record.

Completely ignoring the FACT that this very same question could be asked of Evolution, after all "Who did the first ape-man's son sleep with?" 

The Same issue affects BOTH theory's equally if it really were a problem, but they know as I do just how DNA worked in early human history but they seem to apply a different standard to the Bible than they are willing to apply to themselves!

Sadly, most Christians have not been able to give an adequate answer to this question, in the past because of not knowing a lot about DNA at the time. As a result, the world thinks Christians cannot defend the authority of Scripture and, thus, the Christian faith.

For instance, at the historic Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925, William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor who stood for the Christian faith
(Who had NO scientific prowess…He was a Lawyer after all.) , failed to answer the question about Cain’s wife posed by the outspokenly anti-Christian ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow,who consulted with the science teachers of the day who were evolutionist’s.

The world’s press was focused on this trial, and what they heard has affected Christianity to this day—Christians are seen as unable to defend the Biblical record. 

And skeptics then make the logically fallacious jump of concluding that the Biblical record is indefensible!

We are not told when Cain married or any of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that some brothers had to marry their sisters at the beginning of human history.

Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve’s sons and daughters married each other by appealing to the law against brother-sister intermarriage a THOUSAND YEARS LATER. 

Some say that you cannot marry your relation. Actually, if you don’t marry your relation, you don’t marry a human! A wife is related to her husband even before they marry because all people are descendants of Adam and Eve—all are of ‘one blood.’  The same is true in Evolution all would be related by blood to the first Ape-man and Ape-Women, the same logic apply's in one as the other.

The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18–20). 

Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based on Genesis 1 and 2), there was no disobedience to God’s law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other.

Remember that Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob.

It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages,WHY WAS THAT ?

Did God JUST realize 400 years later, that it was “Perverted to have “Incest” in the ranks and decided to invent NEW LAWS to avert it ?

Let’s be real here, do Evolutionist’s believe that at one point in their VAST TIME-LINE; AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF HUMANS THAT THERE WASN’T SEX BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS ?



Today, brothers and sisters (and half-brothers and half-sisters, etc.) are not permitted by law to marry because their children have an unacceptably high risk of being deformed.
The more closely the parents are related, the more likely it is that any offspring will be deformed.

There is a very sound genetic reason for such laws that is easy to understand. Every person has two sets of genes that specify how a person is put together and functions. Each person inherits one gene of each pair from each parent.

Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes (because of sin and the Curse), and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways.

For instance, some people let their hair grow over their ears to hide the fact that one ear is lower than the other—or perhaps someone’s nose is not quite in the middle of his or her face, or someone’s jaw is a little out of shape—and so on.

Let’s face it, the main reason we call each other normal is because of our common agreement to do so!

The more distantly related parents are, the more likely it is that they will have different mistakes in their genes. Children, inheriting one set of genes from each parent, are likely to end up with pairs of genes containing a maximum of one bad gene in each pair. 

The good gene tends to override the bad so that a deformity (a serious one, anyway) does not occur. Instead of having totally deformed ears, for instance, a person may only have crooked ones!

(Overall, though, the human race is slowly degenerating as mistakes accumulate, generation after generation.)

However, the more closely related two people are, the more likely it is that they will have similar mistakes in their genes, since these have been inherited from the same parents.
Therefore, a brother and a sister are more likely to have similar mistakes in their genes. A child of a union between such siblings could inherit the same bad gene on the same gene pair from both, resulting in two bad copies of the gene and serious defects WOULD RESULT.

However, Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes, AND therefore their Children had none until many Generations later of accumulated bad genes.

When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect—no mistakes! Can evolution even come close to that claim?

But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam—Genesis 3:6ff, Romans 5:12), SIN entered and cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22) Sin was a genetic disorder caused by disobedience to that which held matter together.

Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things, animal, plants and Human beings.

Cain was in the first generation of children ever born. He (as well as his brothers and sisters) would have received virtually no imperfect genes from Adam or Eve, since the effects of sin and the Curse would have been minimal to start with (it takes time for these copying errors to accumulate).

In that situation, brother and sister could have married with God’s approval, without any potential to produce deformed offspring.

By the time of Moses
(a few thousand years later)

degenerative mistakes would have built up in the human race to such an extent that it was necessary for God to forbid brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18–20).
(Also, there were plenty of people on the Earth by now, and there was no reason for close relations to marry.)


Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. 

At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant.
While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation.

Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution.

An explanation of how the races came into being is quite puzzling for the average Christian.
It is not uncommon to hear Christians responding to this question with explanations which have roots in evolution ( God CREATED and then LET EVOLUTION TAKE OVER!)
and other unbiblical teaching. 

Many times we hear false explanations such as tanning effects of the sun on the people who settled in Africa caused them to develop very dark skin, or those in the East, because of a more moderate climate, developed the yellow tones of the Oriental peoples. 

The Caucasian peoples of the Northern hemisphere have lighter or white skin because of being exposed to a lesser degree of sun light.

Other explanations often offered as the origin of race are the curse on Cain (Gen. 4:10-15) and on Ham’s son Canaan (Gen. 9:20-25). Such explanations are false not being supported by the Bible or by science.

At some point in life every Christian will be confronted with what is called the “racial problem.”
When this occurs Christians and churches have often responded in ignorance to the truth as to the origin of race . 

The problem is often compounded both by false interpretations of the Bible and the erroneous teachings of evolution which has caused many to doggedly support false ideas. In order to face the issue and make a correct Biblical response, the Christian first needs to understand what the Bible has to say on the matter. 

Second, he needs to accent this Biblical knowledge with information from modern unbiased scientific investigation.

“Can race be Biblically defined?”

The term race does not appear in the Bible and it refers to differing peoples in terms such as family, tribe, people and nation. It groups people according to familial relationships and then into nationalities. 

An example of familial relationship is found in Genesis 10, where the genealogies listed are grouped by family. It should be noted that nowhere are the sons of Noah associated with race or color. 

An important passage on this matter is found in Genesis 10:5:

“By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations” (Gen. 10:5).

NATION IS DEFINED AS ” ethnos” in the Greek New Testament

eth’-nos :

a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): – Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

And from the Hebrew word :

gôy gôy
go’ee, go’-ee

Apparently from the sense of massing; a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (figuratively) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts: – Gentile, heathen, nation, people.

Nowhere in the Bible is prejudice based on what we determine as race; i.e. color of hair, skin, eyes or physical characteristics.

When God commanded the children of Israel to be a separated people or to utterly destroy other peoples, it was always based on the principle of separation from sin, NOT because of being of a certain skin color or sex. 

The same principle of separation is presented in the New Testament when Christians are commanded to come out of the world

(The System under Satan’s deception)

and not be unequally (spiritually) yoked (Tied too in a way that DIMINISHES YOUR POWER to OVERCOME SIN,which is the natural result of “EVIL:

The void left when “Good” departs any system) with the unsaved (Those whose “Spiritual Essense,D.N.A. has been Darkened by the void of evil ). (See 2 Cor. 6:14) The principle here is clear,that the Bible defines “RACE” in spiritual NOT physical terms: 



Popular Posts

About Me

My photo

Before you look at the links below know this about me, I do not know everything about anything, I know only what God has revealed to me.

Proving God exists CANNOT be done for the person who is not open to hearing and seeing the evidence as God sees it. Faith is the KEY to releasing all the evidence contained in creation, in man's heart and his mind. Without FAITH no one can ever please God so to throw away faith as unimportant destroys our receptivity to the evidence!

I was a hypocrite, a sinner and a fool, sometimes even as a believer but as long as God is in control I'm forgiven and healed of every form of human shortcoming. Nothing can stand before the evidence contained in Faith.....NOTHING!

Overall rating

It Stands Unrefuted by Scientists ANYWHERE!

The following reports are in one of three formats. To view the ones in PDF format, use
Adobe Acrobat Reader. To view the ones in RTF format, you may use MS Word.

Reports Dealing with Radiohalos

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1968. "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos." Science 160, 1228. HTML PDF
  2. Gentry, R.V. 1970. "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?" Science 169, 670. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R.V. 1971. "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727. PDF
  4. Gentry, R.V. 1973. "Radioactive Halos." Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347. PDF
  5. Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62. HTML PDF
  6. Gentry, R.V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin's Comments on "Spectacle Halos." Nature 258, 269.
  7. Gentry, R.V. 1977. "Mystery of the Radiohalos." Research Communications NETWORK, Breakthrough Report, February 10, 1977. HTML PDF
  8. Gentry, R.V. 1978a. "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press. PDF
  9. Gentry, R.V. 1978b. "Implications on Unknown Radioactivity of Giant and Dwarf Haloes in Scandinavian Rocks." Nature 274, 457. HTML PDF
  10. Gentry, R.V. 1978c. "Reinvestigation of the α Activity of Conway Granite." Nature 273, 217. HTML PDF
  11. Gentry, R.V. 1979. "Time: Measured Responses." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 60, 474. PDF RTF
  12. Gentry, R.V. 1980. "Polonium Halos." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 61, 514. HTML PDF
  13. Gentry, R.V. 1982. Letters. Physics Today 35, No. 10, 13.
  14. Gentry, R.V. 1983a. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 4, 3.
  15. Gentry, R.V. 1983b. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 11, 124.
  16. Gentry, R.V. 1984a. "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38. HTML PDF
  17. Gentry, R.V. 1984c. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 4, 108.
  18. Gentry, R.V. 1984d. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 12, 92.
  19. Gentry, R.V. 1987a. "Radioactive Halos: Implications for Creation." Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, 89. HTML
  20. Gentry, R.V. 1998. "Fingerprints of Creation." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12, 287. HTML
  21. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1973. "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos." Nature 244, 282. HTML PDF
  22. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. "'Spectacle' Array of Po-210 Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma." Nature 252, 564. HTML PDF
  23. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976a. "Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification." Science 194, 315. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Helium and Lead Retention in Zircons

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1984b. "Lead Retention in Zircons" (Technical Comment). Science 223, 835.
  2. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982a. "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Science 216, 296. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982b. "Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Geophysical Research Letters 9, 1129. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Astronomy and Cosmology

  1. Gentry, R. V. 1997. "A New Redshift Interpretation." Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 12, No. 37, 2919. (This paper was also posted in 1998 on the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: astro-ph/9806280.) HTML PDF
  2. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: gr-gc/9806061. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The New Redshift Interpretation Affirmed." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/9810051. HTML PDF
  4. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology Points to the New Cosmic Center Universe Model." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-021. HTML PDF
  5. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "New Cosmic Center Universe Model Matches Eight of Big Bang's Major Predictions Without the F-L Paradigm." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-022. PDF
  6. Gentry, R. V. 2004. "Collapse of Big Bang Cosmology and the Emergence of the New Cosmic Center Model of the Universe." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, 4. HTML PDF

The first three astronomy and cosmology papers may also be obtained by going to the the web sites of either Los Alamos National Laboratory or is currently adminstered by Cornell University.

NOTE: For more information about the Big Bang's fatal flaws and "The Great 21st Century Scientific Watergate," please check out our sister site,

1987 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

  • Our open letter of March 24, 1987, to Dr. Frank Press, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Press claimed that "evidence for creationism" has been scientifically invalidated, though he well knew this has not been the case for the polonium-halo evidence. Our letter once again requests him and other evolutionists to publicly explain how the polonium-halo evidence for creation has indeed been invalidated, this time on April 13 at the University of Tennessee. We suggest that Dr. Stephen Gould be the first one to speak on behalf of the academy, given his strong language denouncing the term, "creation science." HTML GIF

  • Our Knoxville Sentinel ad on April 12, 1987, announcing our presentation on the evening of the 13th at the University of Tennessee. Included in the ad was a copy of the above open letter to Dr. Press. HTML GIF

  • A press release from the Society for Creation Science, announcing the reading of Dr. Press's written reply that evening, April 13, 1987, at the University of Tennessee. HTML GIF

Year 2000 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
  • Our letter of March 22, 2000, to Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Alberts claimed that evidence for special creation has been experimentally falsified.

  • This letter requests the Academy to publicly explain at Wichita State University on March 30, 2000, why it has chosen to reject the published evidence for the Genesis creation, evidence which after more than twenty-five years still stands unrefuted in the open scientific literature. HTML

Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood?

Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature?

Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?

Watch a real debate about God right here!

Professors Richard Dawkins and John Lennox go head-to-head once again for another remarkable match of intellect.
This time, the same two Oxford Professors who debated in Birmingham's 'God Delusion' Debate are at it again on their home turf at the site of the famed 1860 Evolution debate between Huxley and Wilberforce.