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

Monday, February 18, 2013

Answering a Skeptic PART 1: From Adam to Hell!

PFROM BOB: A Posting reply to my page on , it was both improperly stated and improperly posted on the wrong page of my site. Guess he really didn't know the answers to his 'Logicly Lacking" questions were on the other pages.

I thought it wise to post it here as a teaching on just how illogical Atheistic thought is and how to rebut it in simple formats!

What transpires here is a muddled mess of what he thinks disproves the bible and thus God, and while ON THE SURFACE it seems logical at least to him....IT IS AS FAR FROM THE CONTEXT AS IT COULD EVER GET!

I will rebut each misunderstanding one at a time in continuing blogs as it will take awhile to do, but the entire mess of illogical "Buckshot" will be answered, probably not to HIS satisfaction but to any thinking persons mind. Christianity has been attacked by much worse criticism by far smarter people for centuries and has NEVER BEEN DEFEATED BY IT; BUT MADE STRONGER, this will be no different.

Bob says many things here, on many subjects from vast points of view...seems like he's trying to be his very own scripture but the problem is clear, he never nails down his true point once, he attempts too but fails.

Towards the bottom of this RANT he quotes many sources from Jewish history to prove they are Racist in their bottom line beliefs and are as bad as Hitler himself.

Funny how these people are constantly trying to vindicate Hitler or some other despot isn't it? This is the Progressive Liberal idea of getting to the facts, mixing actual history with false context to better their outcome to the public mind who seldom check the facts against the context.

 This of course is simply a contextual mess which he ether purposely made or just doesn't understand context in the first place, but either way it is just not truth.

Atheists and Skeptics always do this concerning scripture, THEY MUST, if they are to make any form of sense from their so-called logic.

What all their skepticism amounts to is always putting the cart before the horse, always forcing the puzzle together into an improper configuration just to "Create the illusion of Logic", asking wrong questions to apply the wrong answers, to come to a wrong conclusion!

"If the Foundation is built on Sand,
the whole structure will collapse."

This would be funny if it were not sad, this quote is VERY, VERY TRUE but not for the reason he thinks. If it applies to anything it applies to Evolutionary thought not Christian thought. But that being what it is we shall deal with his absurd reasoning concerning this!

"The whole of Christian theology is based on a conversation between a Man, a Woman and a Snake. Straight off one would be saying, “This is a MYTH, right”?"

The whole of his problem is a false narrative built upon false context and misapplied scripture. One could build a similar issue with ANY atheistic thought by taking an out of context statement and putting it into another context thereby changing the idea originally made and making it appear to be something different. This approach is common practice for those who LIE to protect a belief or cover a crime.

What he fails to see, on purpose or by ignorance is the simple fact that the story he tells is only half the story, the back story of the serpent, the women and the man in question is much different than his assertions.

He asserts that :

"The Canons of Dordt

Article 1:

God’s Right to Condemn All People

Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin."

BUT the fact is HE DIDN'T leave us in that state when he had the full right to do so, he sent his Word (Jesus) to heal us and set us free.

The point here is simple...The death here is DISOBEDIENCE, not the conversation. Adam was IN CHARGE of all of God's creation, its protection, its upkeep and its outcome. Anyone who understands 'Chain of Command' can see what happened here in plain English. God gave Adam and by extension his wife Eve complete control of creation as God's representatives in the Earth.

God invested in Mankind EVERYTHING and in one act of disobedience EVERYTHING was lost, and to get back to the original intent of creation SHORT OF DESTROYING IT AND STARTING OVER God had to start a process of Re-creation in the earth though the sacrifice of Jesus.

"As the apostle says:

 The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God (Rom. 3:19), All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), and The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23)"

These statements have been removed from surrounding context on purpose to greater influence our ignorance concerning the intent of God. They manipulate the words to misinform us of God and make us doubt his intent towards us. Its the same old story, man can't be to blame for his state of being so it must be something or someone else, but if God doesn't exist....WHO'S TO BLAME BUT MAN?

This is the great issue that is created by Atheistic reasoning, IF God doesn't exist and according to him he CANNOT EXIST then how can they prove it by using the bible against itself? Is this not simply circular reasoning of the sort they accuse us of?
"Original Sin

Original Sin– In the fifth chapter of Romans Paul created a concept–Original Sin–that is crucial to Christianity. He alleged humanity is under a curse because of Adam’s failings in the Garden of Eden.

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” (Romans. 5:12).

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians. 15:22).”(Also note Rom. 5:17-19).

This is a self created 'Issue' that doesn't exist, its making a problem where none is necessary. He assumes that Paul has ADDED what was not there to reinvent a doctrine to captivate mankind in a kind of 'Catch 22' damned if we do and damned if we don't. This could not be further from the truth, every word of Paul's doctrine is found in Genesis as the cause of mankind's problem's IF RIGHTLY DIVIDED from the context.

Yet, despite Paul’s assertions it’s difficult to see ( But not impossible) how the condemnations pronounced upon Adam, Eve, and the Serpent in the third chapter of Genesis (Genesis 3:14-19) condemned all mankind to eternal punishment. Paul’s interpretation is just not warranted by the narrative.

Not warranted by the Narrative? What he means is the Narrative AS I SEE IT not as it really is. He has reconstructed Paul's meaning so as to make it appear different from the meanings in Genesis, but they really are the same; its just that Paul reveals a deeper understanding of the curse and its implications to us. He added NOTHING but expanded everything to get a better understanding.

He seems to be the victim of bad reasoning skills, since he doesn't have the ability to PROVE what he's saying is true, he simply adds doubt instead of evidence to the narrative.

What happened to Adam, Eve and the Serpent has NOTHING to do with the DEATH of sin except in SMALL WAYS. This was never meant to explain the vast and far-reaching effects of sin in the future, only to give a picture of how it started. Anyone with a brain to think can conceive that Sin didn't start as it is now, it progressed to this point.

Death didn't start out killing everyone instantly, it progressed over time to kill in shorter and shorter increments. The Bible has NEVER indicated anywhere that things have instantly happened or that doctrine of Sin was a simple subject.

Because Atheists CANNOT prove that God doesn't exist, they resort to OVER SIMPLIFICATION OF DEEP DOCTRINAL SUBJECTS, such as 'Original Sin', the Resurrection of Christ or the Doctrine of Salvation by making improper connections and insinuating warped reasoning ending in wrong conclusions.

Genesis 3:14, for example, says:

“And the Lord God said unto the serpent, ‘Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life”.

Clearly this bestows no curse upon Adam and doesn’t materially affect the serpent. How did the serpent move before, if not upon its belly?

 It’s difficult to imagine a serpent walking upright or finding one that eats dust. Even if he had walked on legs, the alteration is not relevant to the issue. It is the curse on Adam that matters.

It would seem more a diversion is in play here by the Atheist who admits it matters not at the end of his sentence. So what matters to him he says is the curse upon Adam not the curse upon the serpent, what is his real point? In the end there is none, its all a matter of misdirection with Atheists. What he's doing here is a game of questions to straw men he can easily knock down and say 'there, see it's as I said no mention of Adams curse!'

Death entered man at the moment of disobedience and began its SLOW progress of eating away at God's perfection within us, changing the very DNA in us to accept death rather than renewal.

Genesis 3:15 says:
“And I will put enmity (Meaning WAR) between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers (her seed- KJV, RSV); he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.”

These curses sound ominous but are of little consequence for several reasons. In the first place, the serpent, i.e., the Devil, didn’t have offspring.

This is absurd, the serpent which was possessed by Satan as the physical snake had billions of offspring since the fall, Satan being the spiritual representation of evil produced billions of his own kind through mankind. Of course evil reproduced throughout history, this is the Devil's offspring and those who sin are HIS SPIRITUAL CHILDREN.

 According to Christianity the battle between good and evil is between the Devil and all others.

Wow, talk about missing his own point! Satan is against all of God's creation, why? Because of jealousy of former position with God, this is not in dispute. What is being said is clearly not what he thinks is going on.

Nothing is said about the Devil’s children. Secondly, if “the woman” refers to Eve, then her offspring could refer to any person who lived.

Now he's on to the real point.......ANY MAN, ANY WOMEN of Eve's children are ALL THE CHILDREN OF SIN and ALL MEN, and ALL WOMEN have the same exact chance to be saved. Sin is no respecter of persons and nether is God who Judges and Redeems.

When he states that 'nothing is said of the devil's children' he is so wrong as I have already proven it so but in their blindness they cannot see. The Bible here is referring to the seed of Adam through Eve BOTH PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY.

Adams physical seed produced all mankind on earth but because Adam disobeyed God's direct command NOT TEST HIS WARNING ABOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN (Meaning experiencing sin's practice) the spiritual seed of sin was to be passed on to all his physical seed.

 By what rationale can Paul say this verse is referring to one specific individual, Jesus, who lived thousands of years later in another part of the world? Her seed (RSV) must be referring to one person.

If not, if it is referring to all of Eve’s descendants, then to whom does “he” refer?

Thirdly, the waters are muddied even further by the fact that the KJV and the RSV say “her seed” and seed is always plural in the Old Testament. It’s never used to refer to a single individual, such as Jesus.

The verse refers to ALL but specifically to the ONE MAN who could reverse the problem caused by the ONE MAN ADAM. Jesus came through the physical seed of women and thereby through EVE but his Father wasn't tainted by the spiritual seed of Adam....SIN DID NOT HAVE ITS HOLD UPON HIM so he fulfilled this verses prediction to the letter. Though ALL MEN are from Eve's physical seed ONLY one man was ever of God's spiritual seed which Satan would bruise upon the cross and by that death Jesus would CRUSH SATAN'S HEADSHIP over mankind!


And lastly, the “he” couldn’t be Jesus, as Paul contends, because Jesus never crushed the head of Satan. If he had, then how could there still be “sinners” and how could the Serpent still be doing injury?

This argument sounds reasonable until one understands the nature of God's salvation, Jesus DID defeat Satan on the CROSS SPIRITUALLY but all the physical defeat comes one soul at a time as men repent and accept what he accomplished for them.

This has never been an issue nor a dispute in the true church, but false religions have truly muddied the water concerning Jesus and his sacrifice. Satan's injury is ONLY to God's creation not directly to God. God could never be defeated by so weak an enemy as Satan. Salvation coupled with Obedience shows Satan's defeat moment to moment before God.

Romans 16:20, which says:
“And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” and 1 Thessalonians. 2:18, which says:

“Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us” show that even after the death of Jesus, Satan still lived and exercised control over people.

The best Christians can do with this problem is allege Jesus will destroy Satan when Christ returns.
Really? I think not, the bible said NOWHERE that the death of Jesus KILLED SATAN. What his death accomplished was to TAKE BACK what Adam lost and since what Adam lost DID NOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT but took generations to take root the same is true of God's cure, Salvation doesn't happen in a instant physical way, it BEGINS in the spirit and spreads to the mind and body over time. The best Satan can do to the believer is to hinder their connection to their true home, he cannot stop them from getting there!

Genesis 3:16 says:
“Unto the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee’.”

Even if this verse were true, it would not mark the establishment of Original Sin, but only explain why women have pain during childbirth and have been dominated by men. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband” doesn’t sound like a curse or punishment.

Did you hear him? 'Even if' 'Dosen't sound like' he bases his conclusions upon his feelings about scripture not upon what scripture acually says. Well weather or not it sounds like it or not to his reasoning or not these announcements by God are not THE CURSE but only a few of the results of the curse of separation from God which not only cursed mankind but the entire earth as well.
Genesis 3:17 says:
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life(RSV).”

This verse does little more than condemn man to work for a living and curse the ground upon which he labors.

Genesis 3:18 says:
“…thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field (RSV).”
Listen to the context he avoids getting into, he then uses a verse from BEFORE THE CURSE WAS INSTITUTED to prove the curse isn't a real curse, sounds like he's afraid to admit to admit his reasoning is all over the place. The Curse contains multiltple areas of cursing, like of mankind, the ground, relationships, work, this is obvious to any thinking person!
The Curse extends out from man to all creation and Jesus took back the right through God to have dominion again but only if we obey the way of salvation. WHY? Because in order to gain what Jesus purchased you must enter through him, he is the doorway of escaping the curse. 

According to Genesis 1:29: Please note that this verse was given BEFORE Adam sinned and thus doesn't count as an argument to prove the curse isn't real!
“And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food’,”
The plants of the field were already bestowed upon man for food. It’s difficult to see this as a curse, in any event.

What he fails to understand is that the Curse was not having to work the land but how the land itself was cursed and in turn cursed man. The land produced weeds and harness as a result of man's fall. Before the fall the earth wasn't cursed because of sin and therefore man who was in charge of its care tended the Garden east of eden, but ease was soon to give way to hard, toil and sweaty labor under the curse of sin and death!

Genesis 3:19 says:
“In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground…(RSV).”

Eating bread in the sweat of his face or working to produce food partly explains why man was created in the first place.

Genesis 2:5 says: “…and there was not a man to till the ground (RSV)”
Another epic failure in reasoning, man's original WORK was not hard to do because God was blessing his work, blessing the ground to produce, sin did not exist until the fall.

Genesis 2:15 says:

“And the Lord took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it (RSV)”

This shows man was put into the Garden of Eden to work and keep it up– a blessing of healthful work instead of idle existence. Except for having to work for a living, this is no curse upon Adam or mankind.
In summary, much of the “Curse” is upon the helpless earth which God had just created. There is not a single word or remotest hint at sin, at death, or eternal damnation.

Every clause of the “curse” is no curse at all. God told Adam that because of what he did the ground is cursed, he must toil for food, thorns and thistles shall be brought forth to him, and he must eat the plants of the field.
Where is the curse of Original Sin?

From the first curse in Genesis 3 to the end of Malachi, amid all the ravings threatening death upon the Chosen People, there is not the remotest reference in all the Old Testament to the Snake Story, the Curse of Adam, the Fall of Man, or the necessity of Redemption from “Original Sin” and the fires of Hell.

Hell and its fires are totally non-existent in the Hebrew scheme. All the furies of God are temporal terrors and end with death of the accused.

Jesus never once mentioned Adam or the pretended curse and fall. He never implied his mission was to undo what Adam had done. Not one of the gospel writers uttered anything about Adam, the Curse, or Redemption.

Original sin WAS and IS NOW simply disobedience to the commands of God, it was not obeying God that released sin into the world through the first sinner Satan, known then as Lucifer the light bearer. Atheists do not conceive of SIN as the bible presents it therefore they cannot see it where its presented differently.

His failure here is not in what he sees as obvious interpretation of the text but in his failure to dig a little under the surface of the obvious. It is obvious that much of the concept of hell was developed over time from the pictures of its existence through descriptive ideas in the Hebrew bible to the set in stone biblical teaching that Christ preached!

This Athiest cannot correctly interpret the idea of hell because he doesn't fully comprehend how God revealed the afterlife to those who had little understanding of theological concepts. Just because he'll is only spoken of in terms that the non theological mind can understand does not mean that he'll was not a real place. That would be like saying that because science did not reveal at the time in question ALL it's many facets that, that particular area of science wasn't in existence.

Hell as a theological concept wasn't known as such YET, but was developing through the mental pictures the Prophets and teachers were telling as God revealed it to them just as all knowledge was gradually delivered over time, no one ever got all their was to know all at once.

Monday, February 11, 2013

There's always something-part II By: Thomas Lindley

Part II

Tom is a mathematician working as a technical consultant for NASA and commercial companies. He researches and writes about purely scientific proof that the entity described as God in the Holy Bible, the Qur'an, and the Tanakh must exist. 
Last time, we began a discussion of existence. The object of our discussion is still to determine which of the following is correct:
(1) The universe has always existed
(2) The universe came from nothing

(3) The universe came from something

To that end, we continue this discussion of the universe with the impact of gravity.

The sudden appearance of the Universe indicates that the Universe was once much smaller.

Gravity is what holds the planets, moons, asteroids, comets, stars, galaxies, gas, and dust, so that there is a universe. It holds us to the Earth. Gravity has the same influence on the universe as it has on stars.

After the nuclear fuel is exhausted within a star, gravitation compresses the star surface inward towards its center. As the star begins to contract, its mass becomes increasingly concentrated into an ever smaller volume.
Gravity behaves in a special way when the amount of matter is large, and the occupying volume is small. Stars provide the pattern for what happens when there is a large mass in a small volume.

The effects of gravity become increasingly pronounced. If the star's final mass exceeds a value that is twice the mass of our Sun, Sol (that is, the final mass is more than two solar masses), gravitational attraction increases to infinity.

What do we mean by infinity?
We use numbers to count, in terms of the sequence (1,2,3,…N), to determine quantity. There is, however, a special number, υ. The number, υ, is different than all the other previous numbers. If we continue to count from any other number before υ, we will eventually reach the number υ. So, we call the number υ, the greatest finite number. When we add one to any of the natural numbers: (1, 2, 3,…, N), we get the next higher number.
This is not true for υ.
When we add one to υ, we get infinity.
Gravitational attraction increases to infinity while, at the same time, it shrinks the entire mass of material it’s acting upon.
The gravity is so intense that a beam of light directed from the star will fall back to that star.
The star is now a region where matter collapses to infinite density. Based on Einstein's equations, the radius of that region can be calculated. It’s called the gravitational radius for the item. That region called the Schwarzschild Radius, if the object is not rotating. It is the Kerr Radius when the object is rotating. Every item has this region at which it becomes a black hole.
When the collapsing star passes its Schwarzschild radius, it vanishes because its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Nothing, not even light itself, can escape. Hence, this region is called a black hole.
At the center of the black hole, is the location of the matter that is crushed to infinite density. This location is called a singularity.
The radius of our Sun is about 43,000,000 (43 million) miles. Based on its mass, the Schwarzschild radius is about 2 miles. So, if we shrank the Sun to a radius of about 2 miles, it would collapse to a black hole.
A black hole whose mass equals 50 million (50,000,000) suns has a Schwarzschild radius of about 93 million (93,000,000) miles. That is a black hole with a circumference equal to the earth’s orbit around the Sun.
The radius of the universe is about 14 x109 (fourteen billion) light years. Its mass is 3 x1053 kilograms. Its Schwarzschild radius is about 5 x109 (five billion) light years. If it was not rotating, it was a black hole at about a third of what its radius is now. Its Kerr radius is about 2 x109 (two billion) light years. The universe was probably rotating, so it was a black hole at about an eighth of what its radius is now.

Isaac Newton proved that an object at rest or in uniform motion will stay that way unless acted upon by an external force. If you don’t think this is true, when driving, try stopping your car by pushing on the back seat.
 That force from pushing on the back seat is internal. So, pay up your insurance and make out your will before you try it. Pushing on the brake pedal, however acts on the tires within in turn act on the ground. The tires acting on the ground is an external force.

Since the universe exists as it is today, we recognize that the behavior of the Universe is the same as the gravitational collapse of massive stars. The gravitational collapse process can only be reversed if there is an infinite force. This infinite force is necessary to overcome the infinite gravitational attraction of the black hole process, the gravitational collapse.
This infinite force had to be external to the Universe, not within it.
We have the problem of two different sets of attributes:
Among the attributes in the list that describes our universe based on present day observation, we have:

(1) Contains all that is material

(2) It is expanding

Among the attributes in the list that describes our universe based on the past history observation of gravity, we have:

(a) Contains all that is material

(b) Can’t expand (because it was a black hole)

(Remember: Nothing, not even light itself, can escape from a black hole. When the collapsing star passes its gravitational radius, it vanishes because its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.)

(c) Disintegrates due to being a black hole

The two descriptions are opposites of each other. The universe is expanding. The universe, however, should have never expanded. It was a collapsed object, a black hole.

Stephen Hawking has proved that a collapsed object eventually disintegrates. It does not continue to exist. It disappears.

The Universe should not exist. It should have disappeared. It should not have expanded. We should not be here.
We are now in a position to eliminate one of the following former possibilities:

(1) The universe has always existed

(2) The universe came from nothing

(3) The universe came from something

From our discussion, “(1) The universe has always existed” cannot be true.
So, we have:
(2) The universe came from nothing
(3) The universe came from something

To establish whether, “(2) The universe came from nothing, or “(3) The universe came from something”, is true, we examine opposites and why they can never be the same in, There’s Always Something, Part III.
Some References
1. Penrose, R (1965). Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities, Physical Review Letters 14, pp 57-59.
2. Hawking, Stephen (1996). The Illustrated, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, New York.
3. Copi, I. and Cohen, C. (2001), Introduction to Logic, Prentice Hall, New York
4. Lindley, Thomas (2008). Eternal Origin, Volume II, Observation, A Teacher, Xlibris Corporation, New Jersey

Sunday, February 10, 2013

There's always something-part I

By -, Phoenix Science & Theism Examiner

Part I
We have a wondering about what came before,
A longing to know the roots of our past,
A searching to understand the secrets of our beginning
A reaching to find the origin of our existence
We are beginning a discussion of existence. It will span this and some subsequent articles.
We regard the universe as comprising all that is material.
The study of the origin of the universe is therefore a study of the origin of all that is material. That is, it is a study of the universe and all that is in it. The result of that study will prove that something must always exist.
We will find, however, that the something is neither the universe nor anything within it. The something will be found to have the following seven attributes:

(1) Eternal in existence,

(2) Origin of the universe,

(3) External from the universe,

(4) Non-material,

(5) In possession of infinite power,

(6) Not-detectable by the senses, and

            (7) One individual object.
That this discovery can be made is based on Paul’s words, with reference to God, at Romans 1:20:

“There are things about him that people cannot see—his eternal power and all the things that make him God. But since the beginning of the world those things have been easy to understand by what God has made. So people have no excuse for the bad things they do.” (New Century Version)
When questioning the existence of the universe, there are only three possibilities:
(1) The universe has always existed

(2) The universe came from nothing

(3) The universe came from something
We begin our discussion of existence having the goal of proving which of these is correct.

Cosmogony is the study of the origin of the universe. Cosmology is the study of the laws which control the universe. Cosmology, however, has been the term used in most recent discussions, as the study of the origin of the universe.

If we flipped a tape measure around the waist of the Earth, it would read a snug 25,000 (twenty five thousand) miles.
 Hold one end of that tape measure at the Earth’s core and unravel it to the moon, the line would read 240,000 (two hundred forty thousand) miles. Really get ambitious and anchor one end on the surface of the Sun and dash around in the opposite direction back to the starting point, you measure 3,000,000 (three million) miles.
The orbit of the moon is about 1,500,000 (one million five hundred thousand) miles. That means we could set the moon, the earth, even the orbit of the moon around the Earth, into the area occupied by the Sun and still have about 1,500,000 (one million five hundred thousand) miles left over.


We and the earth are nothing compared to the sun. It holds at least eight planets, their moons, orbiting rocks, assorted dust, and gases. The circumference of the material in the grasp of the Sun stretches to more than 70,000,000,000 (seventy billion) miles.

This is the Solar System. It carries the name of its parent star, or sun, Sol. Ninety nine percent (99.9%) of all the material in the Solar System is in the Sun itself.
Stars too form systems.
These stellar collections contain populations numbering into the billions. The largest of these collections are galaxies. They come in varied shapes and sizes.
Sol is just one of 400,000,000,000 (four hundred billion) stars in what is known as a spiral galaxy.
It has the shape of a disk. Our galaxy is rotating such that Sol is moving within the disk, sprinting along at 40 miles a second. Yet our galaxy is so large that it takes 250,000,000 (two hundred fifty million) years for it to make just one rotation.
At these distances, terms, even in multiples of trillions of miles, is just too small. We need a new kind of measuring rod. This measuring ruler must straight edge distances in excess of multiples of trillions of miles.
 It must scope the length, height, width of a galaxy, pace off the distance to our nearest spiral galactic neighbor, span the areas occupied by clusters of galaxies. It must even have the capability to measure the dimensions of the entire Universe.
Light is the answer!

 A ray of light can span a distance of 6,000,000,000,000 (six trillion) miles is one light year. If one light year is six trillion miles, two light years is twelve trillion miles, three light years is eighteen trillion miles, four light years is twenty four trillion miles, five light years is---well, you get the idea. We simply multiply the number of light years times six trillion miles, to get the number of miles. We have linked light years to miles.

We are now able to use smaller numbers. For instance we can measure immense distances associated with galaxies. Our galaxy, The Milky Way, is 100,000 (a hundred thousand) light years across, 16,000 (sixteen thousand) light years thick. The distance to our nearest neighbor spiral galaxy, Andromeda, is 2,000,000 (two million) light years.
Both The Milky Way and Andromeda are part of a cluster of galaxies called the Local Group. This collection of galaxies is 6,000,000 (six million) light years across. It stretches over 400,000,000 (four hundred million) light years. This is part of an even greater group of galaxies, called the Super Cluster, 1000,000,000 (a billion) light years in diameter.


 The entire visible uiverse is about 28,000,000,000 (28 billion) light years in diameter. The Universe is the largest material thing there is. Now, when we look at these objects that make up this Universe, we get a look back in time.



Light illuminates the path to yesterday. The length of time it takes light to reach us is how far into the past we are seeing. The time lag causes us to see what was, at the light source when light left it.


 For us to see, light must first strike the object to be viewed, and then enter our eyes. Although it seems that we see close objects immediately, actually it takes enough time that we always view the after rather than the when.

 It is the 186,000 (one hundred eighty six thousand) miles a second travel time that makes the sighting of near objects seem instantaneous. When the distance between eye and object are large, however, the time lag becomes evident.
The Sun is 93,000,000 (ninety three million) miles from Earth. To swim that cosmic gulf, light takes eight minutes. The star nearest Sol is Alpha Centauri. Over four years is necessary for its image to ramble the 30,000,000,000,000 (thirty trillion) miles to our human eyes.
We are seeing the past. Since light meets our eye eight minutes after it departs the Sun, we see that star as it was eight minutes before. We see eight minutes into the past. If somehow the Sun winked out after that, we would not see it disappear for another eight minutes.
A gaze at Alpha Centauri is a look four years into the past. We see it now, so it was there four years ago. We’ll have to wait four more years to see if it’s there now.
The Andromeda galaxy is a set of events that saw action 2,000,000,000 (two million) years ago.


To observe the nearest galaxy beyond Andromeda in the Local Group of galaxies, is to experience existence as much as 6 million years ago.

Examining the most distant galaxy in the Super Cluster collection of galaxies is to see 1,000,000,000 (a billion) years in the past.
Galaxies extend 10,000,000,000 (ten billion) years into the past. From one and a half billion years and extending to about twelve billion years, are other small beacons of light. These have been labeled quasi-stellar (star-like) objects, or quasars.
 They have the unusual characteristic of putting out a hundred times more energy than a spiral galaxy of four hundred billion stars. They appear to be the centers of present day galaxies as they appeared in the past undergoing extreme forces of gravity.
Most galaxies are moving away from each other.
The farther back in the past we look, the greater distance from Earth we view, the closer they were to each other. By looking at the speed of these galaxies and their distances from each other, we find that every galaxy-sized object in the in the universe was squeezed together at a specific time in the far past.
In There’s Always Something, Part II, we will see how the striking impact of gravity directs us to the correct conclusion about the existence of the universe.
Some References
1. Livio, Mario (2000). The Accelerating Universe: Infinite Expansion, the Cosmological Constant, and the Beauty of the Cosmos, John Wiley & Sons, New York
2. Dickinson, T. (2004). The Universe and Beyond. Firefly Books Ltd., Toronto, Canada
3. Editors: Horwood, Blondel, and Mason. (2006) Solar System Update. Springer-Praxis
4. Lindley, Thomas (2008). Eternal Origin, Xlibris Corporation, New Jersey
, Phoenix Science & Theism Examiner
Tom is a mathematician working as a technical consultant for NASA and commercial companies. He researches and writes about purely scientific proof that the entity described as God in the Holy Bible, the Qur'an, and the Tanakh must exist. Such research led to his writing the three-volume book...

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.