the defect that makes us all human

October 30, 2008

Did you know that all humans suffer from an ancient mutation that left thousands of apes with weak jaws and odd, deformed skulls? In 2003, a surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania looking for possible muscular dystrophy treatments found two missing base pairs in the MYH16 gene which builds jaw muscles in both apes and humans. But it wasn’t all bad. With small, weak jaw muscles, the skull had more time to grow and was able to house a larger brain. Humans, it turns out, became intelligent by a side effect of a genetic snag and science has once again proven creationists wrong.

gene sequence

According to the creationist and ID worldview, a flagellum of a bacteria is way too complex to appear on its own. Human intelligence coming from a genetic defect just two base pairs long? Impossible! Balderdash! Evolutionist cultists losing their minds! It’s not like a single gene can produce a protein that determines how big a jaw muscle can grow and where it will ultimately attach, shaping the brain case. Oh wait, that’s exactly what MYH16 does.

By providing a blueprint to encode the protein myosin (or myosin heavy chain 16 if you want to get specific), it determines how big the muscle is going to be and with two missing base pairs, it just didn’t have enough protein to anchor the jaw muscles to a crest at the top of an ape skull as it should’ve. Instead, the muscle attached itself to the side of the head. In a normal ape, the fusion of the muscle with the crest forced the brain case to seal itself shut in just a few years. Without a huge jaw muscle sealing the skull, hominids would grow much larger heads. It was an evolutionary trade-off. We didn’t have killer jaws anymore, but we had a big new brain and with it, the beginnings of intelligence.

The haughty Victorians who first read Darwin’s theories would probably consider having a weak jaw a defect and the hominids who were shaped by it at a major disadvantage. But with a bigger brain, they could outwit competitors and predators, living long enough to pass on their genes and create a new species of smart primates with weird heads. Same happened with their oddly shaped hips which let them stand upright, see food and predators from farther away and free their hands to carry things and make tools. Ditto for the thinned out body hair and skin which allowed them to better regulate body temperature, giving them better stamina and endurance than their competitors. Several million years of evolutionary trade-offs and changes made our hominid ancestors into modern humans about 60,000 years ago.

Dr. Hansell Stedman’s discovery of this genetic error is a notable reminder that our genes are in constant flux and gene replication isn’t perfect. A snip here, a snag there, an extra base pair down the hall and to the right can trigger a major change in the way an organism will grow and develop. It could give us an extra limb, one less finger on each hand or even make us smarter. And it’s all the more reason to start including genetic toolkits and specifics of gene replication and mutations in science class. With how much we know about genetic processes and their role in evolution, it’s disconcerting that we’re still teaching Punnet squares, stammer about vague “adaptations” as the basics of evolution in science classes and then wonder aloud why so many people scoff at the “vagueness of evolution” and look to creationism for answers…

Share
  • http://dad2059.wordpress.com dad2059

    Biology isn’t one of my strong suits either, but I do understand some concepts of heredity, genetic mutation and purity.

    Mainly because of growing up a farm kid using practical applications of such.

    I think the overall decline of all of the sciences taught in American schools are criminal, not just the less than enthusiastic teaching of evolution.

    But what do you expect, this continent was colonized by Northern Europeans who were considered religious zealots even by the standards of the day.

    Not to mention genocidal.

    We have been schizophrenic since.

  • Brandon M. Sergent

    There’s more to it than merely brain size, else why aren’t elephants showing signs of intelligence?

    It’s not about more or faster processing, its about what kind of processing as well.

    As with a computer, hardware isn’t the only issue. Firmware and software also plays a part.

  • Greg Fish

    Actually, elephants are very intelligent. They even seem to be somewhat sentient. For example, when they come across the bones of another elephant, they brush their trunks across them, hold them and spend some time slowly circling the remains before continuing on their path much like we would show our respects to a dead human.

    But the elephant’s brain compared to the rest of its body isn’t as large as our brain is compared to ours. The brain to body ratio is what scientists like to talk about when they equate brain size with intelligence.

  • http://urikalish.blogspot.com/ Uri Kalish

    I’m not sure the image is right for this article… It’s an image of gel electrophoresis, a process used for a very gross comparison of DNA strands, but not for determining an actual sequence of a specific DNA strand. Just two missing base pairs will result in a non-visible difference in this process.

  • Greg Fish

    I just wanted a rough representation of a DNA sequence. The technical details are in sources to which I link.

  • http://www.nailedband.tk Jeremiah

    Anyone who has read Genesis 111 realizes that the modern teachings of molecules-to-man evolution are at odds with what God says. So what is the response to evolution from a biblical and scientific perspective? Lets take a closer look.

    Evolutionists often say that evolution simply means change. However, in reality it means a certain kind of change. The word is now accepted to mean the change of nonliving chemicals into simple life-forms into more complex life-forms and finally into humanswhat might be called from-goo-to- you-via-the-zoo. We are informed that this change occurred over millions of years, and the dominant mechanism that is supposed to have driven it is natural selection coupled with mutations.

    Furthermore, the word evolution has also been applied to nonliving things. Almost everything is said to have evolvedthe solar system, stars, the universe, as well as social and legal systems. Everything is said to be the product of evolution. However, the three major forms of evolution are

    Stellar evolution

    Chemical evolution

    Biological evolution.

    The story of evolution leaves no room for a supernatural Creator. Evolutionary processes are supposed to be purely naturalistic. This means that even the need for a supernatural Creator disappears because it is argued that the natural world can create new and better or more complex creatures by itself. The implication of this is very revealing: evolution means no God and if there is no God, then there are no rulesno commandments, no God-given rules which we must obey. We can therefore live our lives as we please, for according to evolutionary philosophy, there is no God to whom we have to give an account. No wonder molecules-to-man evolution is attractive to so many, for it allows them to live as they please. This is called relative morality.

    Does the Bible Teach Evolution?

    The simple answer to this question is No. In Genesis 1 we read the account of the creation (not the evolution) of everythingthe universe, the sun, moon, and stars, the planet earth with all its varied plant and animal kinds, including the pinnacle of Gods creationhumans. Nowhere in this account do we read about molecules-to-man evolution. Furthermore, there was no time for evolution, for God supernaturally created everything in six literal days (Exodus 20:11, 31:17).

    There are those who argue that Genesis 1 is a simplified account of evolution. But such a hypothesis does not stand up to scrutiny. A quick look at the order of the events in Genesis 1 and in evolution shows this (see chart below1). The order of events is quite different, and the Genesis account of creation bears no relation to the evolutionary account of origins.

    Evolution Genesis

    Sun before earth Earth before sun

    Dry land before sea Sea before dry land

    Atmosphere before sea Sea before atmosphere

    Sun before light on earth Light on earth before sun

    Stars before earth Earth before stars

    Earth at same time as planets Earth before other planets

    Sea creatures before land plants Land plants before sea creatures

    Earthworms before starfish Starfish before earthworms

    Land animals before trees Trees before land animals

    Death before man Man before death

    Thorns and thistles before man Man before thorns and thistles

    TB pathogens & cancer before man (dinosaurs had TB and cancer) Man before TB pathogens and cancer

    Reptiles before birds Birds before reptiles

    Land mammals before whales Whales before land animals

    Land mammals before bats Bats before land animals

    Dinosaurs before birds Birds before dinosaurs

    Insects before flowering plants Flowering plants before insects

    Sun before plants Plants before sun

    Dinosaurs before dolphins Dolphins before dinosaurs

    Land reptiles before pterosaurs Pterosaurs before land reptiles

    In spite of this, some argue that there is a major difference between make and create (the Hebrew words are asah and bara, respectively). They argue that God created some thingsfor example, the heaven and the earth as recorded in Genesis 1:1 and the marine and flying creatures as recorded in Genesis 1:21. They then argue that God made other things, perhaps by evolution from pre-existing materialsfor example, the sun, moon, and stars as recorded in Genesis 1:16, and the beasts and cattle as recorded in Genesis 1:25. Though these words have slightly different nuances of meaning, they are often used interchangeably, as seen clearly where asah (to make) and bara (to create) are used in reference to the same act (the creation of man, Genesis 1:2627). Nothing in Genesis 1 leads to the conclusion that God used evolutionary processes to produce His creation.

    There is a further problem with believing that the Genesis account of creation should be interpreted as an evolutionary account. One of the things that drives evolution is death. Yet the Bible teaches quite clearly that death was introduced into the perfect world as a result of Adams sin. Neither human nor animal death existed until this eventboth humans and animals were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:2930 shows that plants are not living creatures, as land and sea creatures, birds, and people are). The original world that God created was death-free, and so evolution could not have occurred before humans were created.

    Stellar Evolution: The Big Bang

    The big bang is the most prominent naturalistic view of the origin of the universe in the same way that Neo-Darwinian evolution is the naturalistic view of living systems. The difference between what the Bible teaches about the origin of the universe and what the evolutionists teach can be summed up as follows: the Bible teaches that in the beginning God created and the evolutionists teach, in essence, that in the beginning nothing became something and exploded.

    According to the big bang, our universe is supposed to have suddenly popped into existence and rapidly expanded and given rise to the countless billions of galaxies with their countless billions of stars.

    In support of the idea that nothing can give rise to the universe, cosmologists argue that quantum mechanics predicts that a vacuum can, under some circumstances, give rise to matter. But the problem with this line of reasoning is that a vacuum is not nothing; it is somethingit is a vacuum that can be made to appear or disappear, as in the case of the Torricellian vacuum, which is found at the sealed end of a mercury barometer. All logic predicts that if you have nothing, nothing will happen. It is against all known logic and all laws of science to believe that the universe is the product of nothing. This concept is similar to hoping that an empty bank account will suddenly give rise to billions of dollars all on its own.

    However, if we accept that the universe and everything in it came from nothing (and also from nowhere) then we have to follow this to its logical conclusion. This means that not only is all the physical material of the universe the product of nothing, but also other things. For example, we are forced to accept that nothing (which has no mind, no morals, and no conscience) created reason and logic; understanding and comprehension; complex ethical codes and legal systems; a sense of right and wrong; art, music, drama, comedy, literature, and dance; and belief systems that include God. These are just a few of the philosophical implications of the big bang hypothesis.

    Chemical Evolution: The Origin of Life

    It is commonly believed (because it is taught in our schools and colleges) that laboratory experiments have proved conclusively that living organisms evolved from nonliving chemicals. Many people believe that life has been created in the laboratory by scientists who study chemical evolution.

    The famous experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953 is often quoted as proof of this. Yet the results of such experiments show nothing of the sort. These experiments, designed as they are by intelligent humans, show that under certain conditions, certain organic compounds can be formed from inorganic compounds.

    In fact, what the intelligent scientists are actually saying is, If I can just synthesize life in the laboratory, then I will have proven that no intelligence was necessary to form life in the beginning. Their experiments are simply trying to prove the oppositethat an intelligence is required to create life.

    If we look carefully at Millers experiment, we will see that what he did fails to address the evolution of life. He took a mixture of gases (ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor) and he passed an electric current through them. He did this in order to reproduce the effect of lightning passing through a mixture of gases that he thought might have composed the earths atmosphere millions of years ago. As a result, he produced a mixture of amino acids. Because amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and proteins are considered to be the building blocks of living systems, Millers experiment was hailed as proof that life had evolved by chance on the earth millions of years ago.

    There are a number of objections to such a conclusion.

    There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller in his experiment.

    The next problem is that in Millers experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma facing the evolutionist can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

    The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two formsthe right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Millers experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.

    Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from? Chance does not generate information. This observation caused the late Professor Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleague, Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe of Cardiff University, to conclude that the evolutionist is asking us to believe that a tornado can pass through a junk yard and assemble a jumbo jet.

    The problems outlined above show that, far from creating life in the laboratory, the chemical evolutionists have not shown that living systems arose by chance from nonliving chemicals. Furthermore, the vast amount of information contained in the nucleus of a living cell shows that living systems could not have evolved from nonliving chemicals. The only explanation for the existence of living systems is that they must have been created.

    Biological Evolution: Common Descent?

    Comparative anatomy is the name given to the science that deals with the structure of animals. Comparing the anatomy of one kind of animal with another is supposed to prove descent from a common ancestor. This is often put forward as strong evidence for evolution. However, the science of comparative anatomy can just as easily be used as evidence of creation, as we shall see.

    The bones of a horse are different from our bones, but there is such a similarity that if we are familiar with the human skeleton, we could easily identify and name the bones of a horse. We could do the same if we studied the skeleton of a salamander, a crocodile, a bird, or a bat. However, not only are the bones similar, but so also are other anatomical structures, such as muscles, the heart, the liver, the kidneys, the eyes, the lungs, the digestive tract, and so on. This is interpreted by the evolutionists as proof that these various animals are all descended from a common ancestor.

    One of the classic examples that is often used in biology textbooks to illustrate comparative anatomy is the forelimbs of amphibians, reptiles, humans, birds, bats, and quadrupeds. In the illustration, it can be seen that all the forelimbs of these six different types of creatures have an upper arm bone (the humerus) and two lower arm bones (the radius and the ulna), although in the case of the bat there is only one bone, called the radio-ulna.

    Evolutionists teach that these structures are said to be homologous when they are similar in structure and origin, but not necessarily in function. But notice how subtly the notion of origins is introduced into the definition. The bats wing is considered to be homologous to the forelimb of a salamander because it is similar in structure and believed to have the same origin. However, it is not considered to be homologous to the wing of an insect because, even though it has the same function, it is not considered to have the same origin. However, the fact that the two structures are similar does not necessarily mean that they are derived from a common ancestor.

    We have to realize that the entire line of reasoning by evolutionists is based upon a single assumption: that the degree of similarity between organisms indicates the degree of supposed relationship of the said organisms. In other words, it is argued that if animals look alike, then they must be closely related (from an evolutionary point of view), and if they do not look very much alike, then they are more distantly related. But this is just an assumption.

    The presence of homologous structures can actually be interpreted as evidence for a common designer. Contrary to the oversimplified claim in this figure, the forelimbs of vertebrates do not form in the same way. Specifically, in frogs the phalanges form as buds that grow outward and in humans they form from a ridge that develops furrows inward. The fact that the bones can be correlated does not mean that they are evidence of a single common ancestor.2

    In fact, there is another logical reason why things look alikecreation by an intelligent designer using a common blueprint. This is the reason that Toyota and Ford motor vehicles look so much alike. They are built to a common planyou only have to look at them to realize this. However, the problem with the living world is that in many cases either explanation (i.e., evolution or creation) appears to be logical and it is often impossible for us to tell which is the more reasonable explanation. This is why it is important for us to understand which worldview we are using to interpret the evidence.

    There is, however, one discovery that appears to make the evolutionary view of descent from a common ancestor look illogical and flawed. This discovery is that structures that appear homologous often develop under the control of genes that are not homologous. If the structures evolved from the same source, you would expect the same genes to make the structures. The fact that these structures are similar (or homologous) is apparent, but the reason is not because of Darwinian evolution. It is more logical and reasonable to believe in a common Creator rather than a common ancestor.

    Many evolutionists readily admit that they have failed to find evidence of the evolution of large structures such as bones and muscles, so instead they argue that they have found homology among the complex organic molecules that are found in living systems. One of these is hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in red blood cells. Although this protein is found in nearly all vertebrates, it is also found in some invertebrates (worms, starfish, clams, and insects) and also in some bacteria. Yet there is no evidence of the evolution of this chemicalin all cases, the same kind of molecule is complete and fully functional. If evolution has occurred, it should be possible to map out how hemoglobin evolved, but this cannot be done. To the creationist, however, hemoglobin crops up complete and fully functional wherever the Creator deems it fitting in His plan.

    Missing Links

    Our English word fossil is from the Latin fossilis, which means something dug up. The present-day meaning of the word fossil is a relic or trace of past life preserved in the rocks. This can be a preserved hard part of the plant or animal, such as a stem or a leaf or a shell or a bone or a tooth; it can also be a soft part such as skin or even excrement (called coprolites), or it can be a trace made by the creature when it was alive, such as a footprint. All the fossils that are found in all the sedimentary rocks are regarded together as the fossil record.

    Charles Darwin proposed the gradual evolution of life-forms over a long period of time. If this has happened, you would expect to find this gradual evolution of one kind of life-form into another kind to be recorded in the fossil record. However, this evolutionary account of one kind of life-form changing into another kind is not recorded in the fossils. There are many instances where variations within a kind are found (for example, different varieties of elephant or dinosaur) but there are no examples of in-between kinds. Both evolutionists and creationists agree that the intermediate transitional forms expected on the basis of slow gradual change of one kind of creature into another kind is not found fossilized in the sedimentary rocks. In other words, the transitional forms are missinghence the term missing links.

    Charles Darwin himself realized that his theory was not supported by the fossil record, for he wrote in his Origin of Species:

    The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.3

    When Charles Darwin penned these words, he attributed this absence of transitional forms to what he called the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. Since that time, however, literally millions of fossils have been found, but still the transitional forms are absent. The fossil record does not show the continuous development of one kind of creature into another, but it shows different kinds of creatures that are fully functional with no ancestors or descendants which are different kinds of creatures.

    It cannot be overemphasized that there are many places in the fossil record where it is expected that plenty of intermediate forms should be foundyet they are not there. All the evolutionists ever point to is a handful of highly debatable transitional forms (e.g., horses), whereas they should be able to show us thousands of incontestable examples. This is very noticeable when looking at the fossil record of some of the more peculiar kinds of animals such as the cetacean (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), the sirenia (manatees, dugongs, and sea cows), the pinnipedia (sea lions, seals, and walruses), kangaroos, bats, dragonflies, and spiders. Their supposed evolutionary origins and descent are represented by missing links and speculations rather than factual evidence.

    Even alleged transitional forms in supposed human evolution fall short. In fact, most so-called missing links fall into three categories: extinct ape, living ape, or human. The following chart gives some of the most common scientific names and their classifications.

    Name What is it?*

    Australopithecus afarensis, such as Lucy Extinct ape

    Australopithecus africanus Extinct ape

    Australopithecus boisei Extinct ape

    Australopithecus robustus Extinct ape

    Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus (chimpanzee) Living ape

    Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei (gorilla) Living ape

    Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii (orangutan) Living ape

    Ramapithecus Extinct ape (extinct orangutan)

    Homo habilis Junk category mixing some human and some ape fossils

    Homo floresiensis Human (dwarf, pygmy)

    Homo ergaster Human

    Homo erectus, such as Peking man and Java man Human**

    Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) Human

    Homo heidelbergensis Human

    Homo sapiens (modern & archaic) Human

    * An accurate classification of these kinds of fossils depends on an accurate starting point. Some fossils have been misclassified. The ones labeled as humans (Homo heidelbergensis, Homo erectus, etc.), indeed show variation, but they are still human. This is also true of the different ape kinds. Variation, not evolution, is what we would expect from the clear teachings of the Bible.

    ** For the most part these two classifications are anatomically human. However, a number of finds that are not human but rather apelike have been included as part of the Homo erectus category, due to evolutionary beliefs. These apelike finds should be reclassified.4

    It is obvious that the evolutionists have faith in the original existence of the missing transitional forms.

    Evolution of New Kinds?

    Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands and brought back samples of the different finches that lived on the different islands. He observed that they had different shaped beaks, which appeared to suit the type of food that the finches ate. From this observation, Darwin concluded that a pair or flock of finches had flown to these islands at some time in the past and that the different beaks on the finches had evolved via natural selection, depending on what island they lived on and consequently what they fed on. From these types of simple observations and conclusions, Darwin developed not only the idea of the evolution of species but also the idea of chemicals-to-chemist evolution!

    But let us consider exactly what Darwin actually observedfinches living on different islands feeding on different types of food having different beaks. What did he propose? That these finches had descended from a pair or flock of finches. In other words, he proposed that finches begat finchesthat is, they reproduced after their own kind. This is exactly what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1.

    It cannot be overemphasized that no one has ever seen one kind of plant or animal changing into another different kind. Darwin did not observe this, even though he proposed that it does happen. There are literally thousands of plant and animal kinds on the earth today, and these verify what the Bible indicates in Genesis 1 about plants and animals reproducing after their own kind.

    Plants and animals reproducing after their own kind is what we observe, and it is what Charles Darwin observed in finches on the Galapagos Islands. For example, we see different varieties of Brassicakale, cabbage, cauliflower are all varieties of the wild common mustard Brassica oleracea. Furthermore, another perfect example of a kind is the hundreds of different varieties of dogs, including spaniels, terriers, bulldogs, Chihuahuas, Great Danes, German shepherds, Irish wolfhounds, and greyhounds, which are all capable of interbreeding, together with wolves, jackals, dingoes, and coyotes. All are descended from the two representatives of the dog kind that came off Noahs Ark.

    Conclusion

    We have seen that the Bible does not teach evolution. There is no demonstrable evidence for the big bang, and chemical evolution has failed miserably in spite of evolutionists attempts to create living systems in the laboratory. Similarities in the structure found in living systems can be interpreted better as evidence for a common design rather than a common ancestry. In spite of billions of fossils being found, there are no unquestionable fossils that show a transition between any of the major life-forms.

    Natural selection (done in the wild) and artificial selection (as done by breeders) produce enormous varieties within the different kinds of plants and animals. It has proved an impossible feat, however, to change one kind of creature into a different kind of plant or animal. The so-called kind barrier has never been crossed. Such evolution has never been observed. This has been pointed out by none other than evolutionary Professor Richard Dawkins, who confidently asserted in an interview that evolution has been observed but then added, Its just that it hasnt been observed while its happening.5

    http://answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

  • http://www.nailedband.tk Jeremiah

    This is part one of Jeremiahs series Creation 101.

    Hi, my name is Jeremiah, and Im the drummer for the Christian rock band, Naild. Here recently my history teacher taught on something not historic, evolution. He mainly taught on different types of neanderthal men. Here is proof that evolution, and neanderthals are both LIES.

    Nebraska man was created from one tooth found in Nebraska. Based on one tooth, and alot of imagination scientists sketched it with a body, tools, and a family. But it has been proven that that tooth, was from a dead pig.

    Piltdown man is a deliberate hoax. The skull fragment came from a MODERN human, and the jawbone, and teeth were from an orangutan, just filed, and stained to look ancient.

    Java man was created on bones found FAR FAR away from one another. They were actually bones from several MODERN humans.

    Peking man wa based on monkey skull that were smashed in, in the back. It was found with tools near it. BUT it was proven that these tools were used by MODERN human on these creatures, to eat them.

    Neanderthal man was proven to be completely MODERN human. Just a plain person with a MODERN culture.

    Lucy was said to be the first monkey to evolve, and walk, but it has been proven that MODERN man walked the Earth before scienists even made up Lucy, so that theory, and ll the rest of these go down the drain.

    ALTHOUGH there is MORE evidence that Jesus came to this Earth, lived, died, and ROSE from the grave, then there is of George Washington even touching Earth, and more than evolutions theorys PUT TOGETHER. Jesus came to this Earth, because everyone is a sinner, and deserves Hell where you spent forever in fire, torment, thirst, pain, and it NEVER EVER ends. God loved the world so much He gave Hs son Jesus to suffer, and die in our place so that we can miss Hell, and go to Heaven, where there is no more pain, suffering, sorrow, NOTHING BAD WILL EVER HAPPEN AGAIN. And 3 days later He arose from the grave to becomeour pardon of sin. All you have to do is admit to Him that you are a sinner, that you believe He died, and rose from the grave after 3 days, and repent(turn away from) your sin, and accept Him as your savior, and Lord. The choice is yours, Heaven, or Hell. To see the evidnce that God created the Earth, and it did not evolve. Go to http://www.answersingenises.org.

    Check in later for a new CREATION 101 article. Please use this article as a witnessing tool, in school, the street, WHEREVER!

    – Jeremiah

  • http://www.nailedband.tk Jeremiah

    This is part two of Jeremiahs series Creation 101.

    Probability shows the impossibiblity of life coming from non-life. And this information from both articles come from the book, One Heartbeat Away written by Christian author Mark Cahill. There was an English astronomer who said this If one counts of trials assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes(required for life) the probability of their discovery by random shuffling turns out to be less than 1 in 11040,000. Carl Sagan (another astronomer) said that the probability of something evolving on Earth is 1 chance in 102,000,000,000. Editors Note: The probability of the big bang happening (without help from a higher power) is 1 x 10134, which is nothing in comparison to what it would take to create life.

    The REAL answer to Earth, and mans being..God. Even evolutionists have to admit in some kind of intelligent designer(God) once shown NO full proof evidence of evolving. For example, evolutionist Richard Lewontin said Our willingness to accept claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between between science, and the supernational (God), we take the side of science IN SPITE of the patent absurity of some of its constructsin spite of tolerence of the scientific community for unsubstanciated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism.Moreover, the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. To appeal to an omnipotant deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities to nature be ruptured, that miracles may happen(creation by God).

    Many have fallen into the lie of evolution, truth is, we all make mistakes, the Bible says There are none righteous, no not one. This means the human race is doomed to an eternity in torment forever in Hell, where thirst is never quenched, you burn in fire that is thousands times hotter than earthly fire, and you dont die from it, you burn, and burn, and burn. BUT God gave us a pardon of sin, to miss Hell, and go to the place whee God is, Heaven, where NOTHING will hurt you, youll be at peace, and happy forever. Jesus was beat up, whipped, mocked, he had to walk miles after He was beaten so bad, no one recognized Him. Then He took the harshest of penalties for you, and medeath on a rugged cross, He was nailed to the cross, by His hands, and feet. Then He cried It is Finished because your pardon was finished, all you have to do is accept it. Then 3 days later, He proved He was truly the Almighty God. He rose from the dead. Now all you have to do is repent(turn away from)your sins, believe Jesus Christ died for your sins, and rose again, and accept Him as your Lord, and savior. Youll never be faced with a more important decision, now the time comes to choose: Heavenor Hell. The choice is YOURS everlasting paradise, or everlasting torment. Its kinda obvious what the better choice is, and it should be easy. But you HAVE to accept Christs gift. He loves you, and wants to spend eternity with you.

    – Jeremiah

  • http://www.nailedband.tk Jeremiah

    n this article I want to show you some animals that are SO AMAZING, that they could not have just happened by random evolution.

    THE GIRAFFE: The giraffe is a rather large animal averaging 18 feet in height. And the neck is the largest part. The thing about a giraffe is, it needs an EXTREMELY strong heart to get blood to the neck, and brain. If people want to say it evolved, lets imagine the very first giraffe managed to evolve a two foot heart so that it can give it the blood it needs. This heart is now so powerful that when it bends down for water, the powerful blood pressure causes the brain to burst. So the first giraffe must have been smart enough to realize there was a problem, and that it needs to grow an incredibly complex organic structure to fix this problem. and it must do this in a matter of days before it dies of thirst or brain damage-or else this species would be extinct. So there mustve been a God to create this animal, or else it would be extinct by now. And remember, if one creature is created EVERYTHING is.

    THE TICK: The tick has dozens of elaborate chemicals in its saliva, which it injects into a wound. To help it stay on the host,and feed of the host without being noticed it has an anesthetic so the host cant feel it, and interupt the meal. To keep the meal going, the ticks saliva contains a compound to disable the clotting mechanism. Also, it tricks the immune system into keeping white blood cells away so it can feast on the red ones it needs. Do you REALLY think this could come from RANDOM evolving, or would an intelligent God have tocreate it. I say created by God.

    THE GECKO LIZARD: OK, the gecko lizard can walk across ceilings without falling off. On its toe pads are 500 million fibers tipped with suction cups. And the toes bend upward soit can peel off so the gecko wont get stuck to a surface. Why would random evolving put suction cups on a geckos feet? Only half a suction cup, and it couldnt stick to upside down surfaces, too much, and it wouldnt be able to move.

    How could mindless evolution do ALL of this? Only the hands of God can create these creatures, and if even one creature is created, EVERYTHING is created.

  • http://www.nailedband.tk Jeremiah

    Evidence that Jesus Christ is the Messiah

    Matthew McGee

    Acts 18:24 tells us of a man named Apollos, who was “an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures”. Apollos used the scriptures to convince many Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. Acts 18:28 says, “… he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” This was in about 53 AD, around 20 years after Christ’s crucifixion. Since the vast majority of the portion of scripture commonly called the “New Testament” had not yet been written, it is apparent that when Acts 18:24 refers to “the scriptures”, it is referring to the portion of scripture commonly called the “Old Testament”.

    There are at least four reasons that provide evidence that the 39 books of the Old Testament date back to a time long before Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry:

    1. It was proven by the finding of the dead sea scrolls, which include the Old Testament writings and predate Christ’s earthly ministry.

    2. Even those of the Jew’s religion, who do not believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah, agree that these 39 books were written prior to 300 BC.

    3. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, was initiated in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-246 BC). Obviously, the Old Testament had to have already been written in order to have been translated.

    4. Jesus Christ and the various New Testament writers frequently quoted from the books of the Old Testament.

    Some skeptics have tried to contend that there must have been some collaboration between the many writers of the Bible. However, there were many Old Testament prophets scattered over a 1000-year period who have given detailed descriptions regarding the same events which have proven to be accurate. So the skeptics’ charges of collaboration are not at all credible.

    Abundant evidence of the deity of Jesus Christ is revealed through the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies and through symbols (also called types or shadows) of Jesus Christ. Thus, we can see how the coming of the Messiah was all in God’s plan and was foretold in the Old Testament.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Fulfilled Prophecies

    The following prophecies concerning Jesus Christ were given in the Old Testament during the time frame of approximately 1700 BC – 400 BC. These prophecies were fulfilled hundreds of years later, during Jesus Christ’s life on earth. Each of the prophecies listed below are followed in parentheses by the scripture references for both the prophecy and the fulfillment.

    1. He would be born of a Virgin (Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:18).

    2. He would be of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10 and Luke 3:23, 33).

    3. He would be of King David’s seed (Jeremiah 23:5 and Luke 3:23, 31).

    4. He would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:1).

    5. He would be a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:18-19 and Matthew 21:11).

    6. He would teach with parables (Psalms 78:2 and Matthew 13:34).

    7. He would be preceded by a messenger (Isaiah 40:3, Malachi 3:1, and Matthew 3:1-2).

    8. He would enter Jerusalem on a colt (Zechariah 9:9 and Luke 19:35-37).

    9. He would be betrayed by a friend (Psalms 41:9 and Matthew 26:47-50).

    10. He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12 and Matthew 26:15).

    11. He would be forsaken by His disciples (Zechariah 13:7 and Mark 14:50).

    12. The money would be thrown in the temple and used to buy the potter’s field (Zechariah 11:13 and Matthew 27:5-7).

    13. He would be accused by false witnesses (Psalms 35:11 and Matthew 26:59-60).

    14. He would be silent before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7 and Matthew 27:12-14).

    15. He would be beaten by his enemies (Isaiah 50:6, 53:5, and Matthew 27:26).

    16. He would be spit upon and beaten (Isaiah 50:6 and Matthew 27:30).

    17. He would be struck in the head with a rod (Micah 5:1 and Matthew 27:30).

    18. He would be mocked (Psalms 22:7-8 and Matthew 27:29, 31).

    19. His hands and feet would be pierced (Psalms 22:16, Luke 23:33, and John 20:25).

    Note that this was predicted hundreds of years before crucifixion was invented.

    20. Men would gamble for His clothing (Psalms 22:18 and John 19:23-24).

    21. He would intercede in prayer for His transgressors (Isaiah 53:12 and Luke 23:34).

    22. He would suffer thirst (Psalms 22:15 and John 19:28).

    23. He would be offered gall and water (Psalms 69:21 and Matthew 27:34).

    24. He would cry, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me!” (Psalms 22:1 and Matthew 27:46).

    25. He would be cut down in His prime (Psalms 89:45 and 102:23-24).

    26. None of His bones would be broken (Exodus 12:46, Psalms 34:20, and John 19:32-33).

    27. They would look upon Him whom they had pierced (Zechariah 12:10 and John 19:34).

    28. He would be executed with thieves (Isaiah 53:12 and Matthew 27:38).

    29. He would be buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9 and Matthew 27:57-60).

    Note that the majority of these prophecies concern the death of Jesus Christ and the events surrounding it. This is especially interesting considering the fact that none of Christ’s disciples realized that Jesus Christ was going to die.

    In Luke 18:33, Christ, referring to Himself as “the Son of man”, told His disciples what would happen to Him, “And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.” That would have been pretty easy to understand, but God hid the saying from their understanding. The next verse, Luke 18:34, says, “And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.”

    Despite the fact that Jesus Christ had told them plainly, His disciples still did not realize He was going to die and rise again. The Jews knew from the Old Testament prophecies that the Messiah would be a King that would reign over Israel forever. So they naturally assumed (incorrectly) that the Messiah must never die. Not even His disciples knew about Christ’s death, and the Old Testament prophets would have known even less. So there would be no reason for the Old Testament prophets to have written anything about the death of the Messiah, except for the divine hand of God who knew the future. The prophets themselves did not even understand that they were writing of the Messiah’s death.

    Now we come to two of the most interesting prophecies:

    Messiah to come to His temple

    The Messiah, being preceded by a messenger (John the Baptist) will suddenly come to His temple. Malachi 3:1 says, “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in ….” The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD, and the temple has not yet been rebuilt in all these 1900 plus years. Many non-Christian Jews have been looking for the Messiah to appear for centuries. But this passage makes it clear that the arrival of the Messiah could not have taken place between 70 AD and the present.

    Daniel’s Prophecy of the 70 Weeks

    While the prophet Daniel was captive in Babylon in about 538 BC, God revealed the prophecy of Israel’s 70 weeks to him in Daniel 9:24-26. “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people (Israel) and upon thy holy city (Jerusalem), to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off (killed), but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (the temple) ….” In this prophecy, the following sequence of events are revealed.

    A. There would one day be a commandment to rebuild the city of Jerusalem, which the Babylonians had destroyed years earlier. This was fulfilled in 445 BC by Artaxerxes, king of the Medo-Persian Empire (465-424 BC), nearly a century after the prophecy was given. See Nehemiah 2:1-8 for the account of how Nehemiah asked Artaxerxes for the permission and the means to rebuild the ruins of the city of Jerusalem. In Nehemiah 2:1, we see that this took place “… in the month Nisan (the first month of the Hebrew calendar which occurs in early spring), in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king (445 BC) ….”

    B. From the giving of this commandment to the Messiah would be 69 weeks of years (seven plus threescore and two) after which the Messiah would be cut off (killed). This was fulfilled when Jesus Christ was crucified on the 14th day of Nisan (the passover) of 32 AD, right on schedule.

    Here is how the calculation of the 69 weeks of years works: Weeks of years are sevens of years, and seven times 69 is 483 years. But we know from the detail of the seventieth week provided in the book of Revelation, that these years are 360 days rather than the years on our present calendar which, figuring in leap years, are approximately 365.25 days. Revelation 12:14 describes the second half of the tribulation as “a time, times, and half a time” (1 + 2 + 1/2 = 3 1/2 years). Revelation 12:6 says this is “a thousand two hundred and threescore (1260) days”, and Revelation 13:5 says it is “forty and two months”. Since 1260 / 42 = 30 and 1260 / 3.5 = 360, we know that in this prophecy, God is counting months as 30 days each and years as 360 days each. Since the tribulation is a part of the 70 weeks of Daniel’s prophecy, we know that the 360-day years must be used. So to see how many of our years this is, we calculate 483 * (360 / 365.25) = 476 years, 0 months, and a few days. Moving forward from the 445 BC date, this brings us to the early spring of 32 AD (476 – 445 + 1 = 32), when Jesus Christ was crucified. The one must be added to account for the fact that there is no “year 0″. The year after 1 BC was 1 AD. The calculation here is somewhat simplified and shows that at a minimum, the prophecy was accurate to within a very few days. Some scholars have used additional evidence for the difficult task of calculating this prophecy to the exact day. To do this, they have to know the day of the month that the commandment of Artaxerxes was given plus the astrological history of moon phases as viewed from Jerusalem, since the months of the Hebrew calendar are based upon observance of the moon phases. As for me, I am more than satisfied to know that the prophecy was accurate to the month 5796 months in advance (12 * 483 = 5796), but readers who are inclined to pursue the more detailed calculation to the exact day are welcome to do so.

    Now one might wonder why God didn’t use our 365.25-day years in His prophecy? We cannot be certain, but perhaps He was using the same number of days per year that the earth had when He created it. We know from Genesis 7:11 and 8:3-4 that a calendar with 30 day months was used before the great flood. It may be that in the catastrophe of the flood, the earth’s rotational speed was increased slightly. One way this could happen would be if the earth’s density were increased due to the tremendous seismic activity and the collapse of the water canopy which God used to trigger the flood. Genesis 7:11-12 says, “… all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.” This increase of density would have increased the earth’s rotational speed by reducing its moment of inertia in the same way that spinning ice skaters spin faster when they pull their out-stretched arms in closer to their bodies. If the period of the earth’s revolution around the sun did not change, then there would be more days per year after the great flood than there were before the flood. Now let’s continue to the next event in the sequence of the Daniel 9 prophecy.

    C. The people of the prince which is to come will destroy Jerusalem and the temple. This was fulfilled by Titus and the Roman Empire in 70 AD. In the war with the Jews, the Roman army besieged and destroyed Jerusalem, burned the temple, and killed more than one million Jews.

    It is interesting to note that when this destruction was prophesied in 538 BC, Jerusalem and temple had not even been rebuilt yet. The part of this prophecy regarding the “prince which is to come” concerns the AntiChrist who must come from the revived Roman Empire in the future tribulation which will be the seventieth week of the prophecy (Daniel 9:27).

    There are several amazing things about this prophecy: It accurately predicted the time of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion, more than 500 years before it happened. It sandwiched His death between two future events (A and C) which have both been very well documented in history. Both of the events came true even though they were prophesied hundreds of years in advance. When one considers that this prophecy amazingly predicted events A and C above, then believing that it was also correct on event B does not exactly require a leap of faith.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Symbols of our Lord Jesus Christ

    One important concept that we see frequently in the text of scripture is the use of people, objects, or events of a story (usually in the old testament) to serve as metaphors that foreshadow future people, objects, or events. Usually, it will foreshadow Jesus Christ or something that Jesus Christ would later do. Now I want to be clear that whether it is person or an object or an event, it is real. Just because a person in a Bible story is used as a metaphor to foreshadow Christ, that does not mean that the person never really lived. Or just because an event is used as a metaphor to foreshadow something that Jesus Christ would later do, that does not mean that the event never really took place, and so forth. So these are real people, objects, or events that foreshadow real things. Both the subject and the object of the metaphor are real.

    There are several different terms that bible teachers and students may use to describe these occurences in the Bible text. I have heard them called metaphors, shadows, symbols, or types. What term one chooses to use is not nearly as important as just understanding the concept itself.

    Paul uses the term “shadow” in Colossians chapter 2. There he explains how Jesus Christ, by His sacrifice on the cross, removed the burden of the Mosaic law and, “took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (verse 14). Then Paul writes in verses 16-17, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” Notice how Paul contrasts the body itself with the shadow that is made by the body.

    Paul gives us the analogy of comparison between an object or person and its shadow. Think about how much information you can gather from seeing a shadow compared to seeing the actual object or person. When you look at person, you can generally tell the person’s approximate height, weight, age, skin-color, hair-color, hair-length, eye-color, whether the person is male or female, and maybe some indication of the person’s health and strength. But what can you tell from their shadow alone? You can tell there location and depending on the angle of the light, perhaps a rough idea of the person’s size or shape and maybe whether they are male of female. But you usually cannot tell much more than that. Likewise, the old testament shadows provide just a rough idea of whatever they are foreshadowing.

    Hebrews 8:1-2, “… We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.” Verse 5 explains how both the high preists of the earthly tabernacle and the tabernacle itself were but shadows of the heavenly High Priest and tabernacle. They “… serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.”

    Hebrews 10:1 “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.”

    Referring to how the tabernacle and the things in it under the law are to be purified with the blood of calves and goats, Hebrews 9:23-24 says, “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us ….”

    There are many types or symbols in the Old Testament that have remarkable similarities to Jesus Christ and the events of His life. These show us that the birth, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ were all laid out in a divine plan long before the events recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John took place. Among these types and shadows are: (1) the brazen serpent, (2) Isaac, (3) Joseph, son of Isaac, (4) Jonah, (5) the scapegoat, (6) the sacrificial, passover lamb, and (7) the rock (8) the veil of the temple.

    1. The Brazen Serpent

    After the children of Israel left Egypt and were wandering in the wilderness, Numbers 21:4-6 tells how, “… they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way. And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread (the manna that God gave them daily). And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.”

    Verses 7-9 tells how this dire situation was remedied. “Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.”

    This was a real even that literally took place, but it also served as a symbolic foreshadowing of the real saving power that came through Christ’s crucifixion. The snake represents sin, and the snakebitten person is like a lost person who is dead in their sins. Those bitten by the serpents needed a Savior. Jesus Christ became sin for us when all our sin was placed upon Him on the cross. He became like the brazen serpent.

    Jesus said in John 3:14-16, “… as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up (on the cross): That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

    Just as the snake was lifted up on a pole in the wilderness, Christ was lifted up on the cross. All who believe that He gave His life for their sin and rose from the dead, will be saved from the results of their sin.

    2. Isaac

    Isaac paralleled Jesus Christ in many ways. Both were children of promise. Isaac was promised to Abraham, whereas Jesus Christ was promised to Israel. Both were born in a way that is against nature. Isaac was born to a previously barren woman who was way past her child-bearing years. Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. They were both mocked by their kindred. They were both to be sacrificed. As Abraham and Isaac journeyed to the mountain, Isaac had to carry the wood upon which he would be offered (Genesis 22:6). In the same way, Jesus Christ had to carry His own cross up to Calvary. Both Jesus Christ and Isaac were seemingly forsaken by their Fathers, and neither put up a fight.

    Hebrews 11:17-19 says, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.” The Greek word translated as “figure” here is “parabole”, which is usually translated as “parable”. This passage conveys that the sacrifice of Isaac served as a metaphor or shadow of the then future sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.

    3. Joseph, son of Jacob

    Joseph also foreshadowed Jesus Christ in many ways. Both were beloved of their fathers and sold by their jealous brethren. Joseph was throne into prison, and Jesus Christ was put into a tomb. Joseph emerged from the prison to be exalted on Pharaoh’s throne. Jesus Christ rose from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father. Joseph then dispensed grain to starving Egypt and to the other nations of the world. Jesus Christ became the bread of life for a dying world. Joseph got a Gentile bride after being exalted, as Jesus Christ will get a Gentile bride, the church (2 Corinthians 11:2). Joseph got his Gentile bride during the time of rejection by his brothers and before the famine, just as Jesus Christ will get His bride while being rejected by Israel and before the great tribulation. Although Joseph knew his brothers at their first meeting, they did not recognize Him until they met the second time. Likewise, Israel, as a nation, will not recognize Jesus Christ until He comes the second time. God had Joseph sold into slavery so that he could eventually save all his brothers (Genesis 45:4-5), just as Jesus Christ was put to death to save the world from sin.

    The Old Testament scriptures provide us with many shadows, or types, that have remarkable similarities to our Lord Jesus Christ and the events of His life. These confirm that the plan for our Lord Jesus Christ was determined long before the events of His earthly ministry took place. These shadows also stand as evidence that Jesus Christ truly is the Messiah that the ancient prophets foretold would come. Among these shadows are (1) the brazen serpent, (2) Isaac, the son of Abraham, (3) Joseph, the son of Jacob, (4) Jonah, the prophet, (5) the scapegoat, (6) the sacrificial, passover lamb, and (7) the rock which Moses struck.

    In this article, we will take a close look at the life of Joseph, the son of Jacob, and see how the events of his life foreshadowed Jesus Christ.

    1. Both Joseph and Jesus Christ were beloved of their fathers. Genesis 37:3 says, “Now Israel (Jacob) loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours.” In Matthew 17:5, the Father says of Jesus Christ, “… This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ….”

    2. Both were sold by their brethren. Joseph was sold into slavery for 20 pieces of silver in Genesis 37:28. “Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.” Jesus Christ was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. Judas Iscariot met with the chief priests in Matthew 26:15, “And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.”

    3. Joseph was thrown into prison (Genesis 39:20). Jesus Christ was placed into a tomb (Matthew 27:59-60).

    4. Joseph emerged from the prison to be exalted to the right hand of Pharaoh. Jesus Christ rose from the dead to be exalted to the right hand of the Father. “Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon …” (Genesis 41:14). Later in that same chapter, Genesis 41:39-41 records, “And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art: Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou … I have set thee over all the land of Egypt.” This foreshadowed what Jesus Christ would do when He rose from the dead and was exalted to the right hand of God. Ephesians 1:18-20 says, “The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know … the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe … Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places.”

    5. Joseph received a Gentile bride after being exalted. “And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnathpaaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On …” (Genesis 41:45). Jesus Christ will receive a predominantly Gentile bride, the church. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 11:2, “… I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” Also see Ephesians 5:31-32.

    6. Joseph received his Gentile bride during the time of rejection by his brothers and before a great famine. Similarly Jesus Christ will get His bride while being rejected by Israel and before the great tribulation.

    7. Through Joseph, God saved not only Egypt and Israel, but all the nations of the world from starvation during the seven year famine. Genesis 41:56-57 says, “And the famine was over all the face of the earth: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt. And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.” This foreshadowed Jesus Christ becoming the bread of life for a world which was hopelessly lost. “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, “… The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.”

    8. Although Joseph knew his brothers at their first meeting, they did not recognize him until they met the second time. “And Joseph saw his brethren, and he knew them, but made himself strange unto them, and spake roughly unto them; and he said unto them, Whence come ye? And they said, From the land of Canaan to buy food. And Joseph knew his brethren, but they knew not him” (Genesis 42:7-8). Stephen says in Acts 7:13, “And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren ….” Likewise, Israel will not recognize Jesus Christ until He comes to them for the second time.

    9. God had Joseph sold into slavery so that he could eventually save all his brothers. Genesis 45:4-5 records, “And Joseph said unto his brethren … I am Joseph your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt. Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life.” This was a shadow of the sacrifice that would one day be made by Jesus Christ. He was put to death to save the world. Romans 5:8-9 says, “… while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.”

    10. Joseph forgave his brothers who sold him into slavery. Genesis 50:20-21 says, “… ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spake kindly unto them.” Likewise, Jesus Christ forgave His brethren who crucified Him, saying “… Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do …” (Luke 23:34).

    All of these striking similarities show us that the plan for the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ was ordained of old. This foreshadowing stands as evidence that Jesus Christ is who He said He is, the Son of God.

    4. Jonah

    About 900 years before the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, God commanded the prophet Jonah to go and preach to the Ninevites. The Ninevites were Gentiles who were enemies of the nation of Israel. Jonah disobeyed God and tried to flee by ship, but God did not let Jonah get away. Jonah 1:17 says, “Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.” After this, Jonah obeyed and went to Ninevah, as God had commanded.

    About 900 years later, this account of Jonah is referenced again by Jesus. Some of the scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus to give them a sign, saying in Matthew 12:38, “… Master, we would see a sign from thee.” But Jesus replied to them in verses 39-41, “… An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.”

    So just as Jonah spent three days in the belly of the great fish, Jesus Christ was crucified, was three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, and rose from the dead on the third day. Also after being released from the belly of the whale, Jonah extended God’s word to Gentiles in Nineveh. Likewise, the preaching of the gospel of grace did not go forth to the Gentiles until well after Jesus Christ had risen from the dead.

    5. The Scapegoat

    Under the law of Moses in ancient Israel, once each year, all of the sins of the people were placed on the scapegoat. Leviticus 16:10 says, “… the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.” Leviticus 16:21-22 further explains that, “… Aaron (the high priest) shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.”

    The scapegoat taking on the sins of Israel was also a shadow of the way that all of the sins of the world were placed upon Jesus Christ on the cross. Isaiah 53:6 says, “… the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” In 2 Corinthians 5:20-21 Paul wrote, “… we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he (God) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 1 Peter 2:24 tells of Jesus Christ, “… Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree (the cross) ….”

    6. The Passover Lamb

    Jesus Christ was the sacrificed passover lamb of God (Exodus 12:46 & John 19:32-33). The lamb had to be without blemish, which was analogous to being without sin, and was to have no bones broken (Exodus 12:46 & John 19:32-33). When the destroyer (angel of death) went through Egypt killing the firstborn of all the Egyptians, he looked upon the sides and tops of the doors of the Israelites. When he saw the blood of the sacrifice, he did not enter. Likewise, Christians are protected by the sacrificial blood of Jesus. Like the lamb, He was crucified on the Passover (John 18:28). After a sacrifice the Old Testament priests could not be touched until they delivered the blood of the lamb into the Holy of Holies into the presence of God. After His resurrection, Jesus Christ, like Old Testament high priests, could not be touched prior to taking the sacrifice (His blood) into the Heavenly Holy of Holies (John 20:17).

    7. The Rock

    When the children of Israel were about to die of thirst in the wilderness, God commanded Moses in Exodus 17:6, “Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.”

    Likewise, when Jesus (the Rock) was crucified (smitten) the Holy Spirit (water) was poured out that the people might have eternal life. After the miracle in the wilderness descrived above, Moses and the children if Israel later had another similar incident in the wilderness. Since Jesus Christ would be a sufficient sacrifice after only being sacrificed once, God commanded Moses in Numbers 20:8 to speak to the rock instead of striking it again, “Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink.”

    But when Moses went to the rock, he was angry with the people, and said to them in Numbers 20:10, “… Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?” Notice his reference to himself and Aaron, “we”, as though they were the ones getting the water from the rock, and not God. Numbers 20:11 contiuues,”And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.”

    But Moses had disobeyed,God, exalting himself, and going against the symbol of Christ, as though denying that one sacrifice was sufficient. In verse 12 “… the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.” So Moses and Aaron were not allowed to enter the Promised Land, dying before the children of Israel crossed the Jordan River.

    8. The Veil of the Temple

    After the children of Israel left Egypt, God gave instruction for how they were to construct the tabernacle. The most holy place of the tabernacle, there the ark of the testimony was set, was to be divided from the rest of the temple, hidden from view by “… a vail of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen of cunning work …” (Exodus 26:31). No one could go into this most holy place behind the veil except “… the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people …” (Hebrews 9:7). Except for this one ritual by one man once per year on the Day of Atonement, the veil hung there for some 1500 years or so, separating sinful man from holy God.

    But that changed when Jesus Christ was crucified. Matthew 27:50-51 says, “Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake ….” The veil was not torn from bottom to top, the way men could do it, but from top to bottom, as only God could do.

    Paul explained in Hebrews 10:18-20 that, “… there is no more offering for sin (no londer any blood sacifice to be made). Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest (the most holy place) by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh ….” Christ’s body was like the veil. When the veil was torn in two, it opened the way to the most holy place. Likewise, when the body of Christ was torn by the crucifixion, that perfect sacrifice opened the way to God for sinful man.

  • Greg Fish

    Jeremiah,

    If you’re so devoted to your beliefs that you feel the need to post a book’s worth of what amounts of forceful religious spam on someone else’s blog, perhaps you need to calm down. I’m going to allow it this time, but this is verging on abuse. You don’t have rabid atheists copy/pasting 20,000 word rants on your blog so please have the decency not to do it to others.

    I’m not going to debate you on the Bible because obviously, you don’t care about any other views on its history, how and by who it was written. Generally, throwing things at brick walls results in them just bouncing back so I don’t feel like expending time and effort on fighting with the brick wall. Just try to imagine how somebody could see that quoting the Bible doesn’t suddenly make a wild idea true.

    As for your ridiculous spam regarding evolutionary biology, it would be great if you could understand that evolution and the origins of life are two separate matters. Evolution assumes that life is already in existence. How it came to be is a different field of science. All the things you posted about complexity are a) beside the point and b) not science for a number of very important reasons. You can talk about how complex something is but it’s very clear that you don’t understand the science behind it and you and your sources are speaking so far out of your depth, it’s almost sad. I mean come on, Answer in Genesis on evolution? Let’s ask the Hamas how it feels about Jews. The reply will have about the same level of objectivity and factuality.

    Also, quotes are not the same as hard evidence. This is another thing you should learn but seeing how you’re willing to take a book at face value and derive your entire knowledge base from it and not another book, I don’t think this is something you will understand.

    In conclusion, please don’t spam my blog. If you’re going to copy/paste something from a website, just put up the link rather than making people scroll through things you seem to be incapable of conveying in your own words. If you’ve actually written most of this out yourself, I humbly suggest that you pick up an actual science book written by an actual team of scientists in the field rather than random kooks with mysterious degrees and find a hobby that doesn’t require proselytism via spam.

  • Anonymous

    If anyone wants to discuss my views, argue with me, or whatever, contact me at band@nailedband.tk

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Has anyone tried the obvious experiment of zapping the MYH16 gene in chimpanzee gametes, fusing ‘em, implanting the product in an appropriate uterus, and seeing what happens in the resulting zygote’s gestational development?

    Or does that transgress too many animal-treatment ethics guidelines to be feasible?

  • Greg Fish

    Pierce,

    Actually an experiment like that is a little beyond our technology at the moment. Usually, any genetic changes are tried in the embryo itself because we’re talking about zapping genes in tens of billions of sperm cells if we go the gamete route.

    And yes, that doesn’t sound like an experiment we’d necessarily want to do because the product would be a hominid and that raises all sorts of ethical guidelines. One way to make sure this actually happened and produced the probable result is what scientists do now. Look at fossils, try to sequence their DNA and dial in on the specific gene to see what it looks like.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Hmm, I had thought knockout experiments were the norm in genetic research. (My apologies for thinking they were done at the gamete stage – I’d imagined working on a couple of relatively static cells would be easier than dealing with a multiplying mass.)

    Some of the ethical questions might be answered by limiting (initial) research to gestation – but unless that produced a series of miscarriages, there would soon arise a burning curiosity to proceed beyond.

    Another question involves whether MYH16 or an analog exists in other species: could such an experiment be carried out in rats, dogs, etc? (Don’t let the guidelines committee read Olaf Stapledon’s Sirius!)

    My personal guess is that brain growth might not keep up with expanded cranial capacity, leading to something like hydrocephaly. If a change in one gene produces such a major difference, why wouldn’t large brains be more common?

    I’ve long puzzled over the large-brain mutation and its evolutionary context, particularly regarding the sharp limiting factor of female pelvic width. To oversimplify: what’s the Darwinian advantage in, say, a 1% larger brain if it produces (through difficulties in birthing and longer infant dependency) 1% higher maternal/offspring mortality? Our ancestors must have gone through a prolonged, unusual, and ferocious selective bottleneck.

  • Greg Fish

    Well, knockout experiments are very common, especially on knockout mice, but these mice are modified as blastocysts. There would be too many cells to modify if you tried to alter the gametes that would make the mouse and you wouldn’t know how effective your gene manipulation was because the mouse might not inherit these changes when the cells combine.

    As for an analog to MYH16 existing in other species, I’m not really sure. I suppose there should be, but that’s a question outside my knowledge base. But I can answer some of your other concerns…

    “If a change in one gene produces such a major difference, why wouldnt large brains be more common?”

    You could have a large brain and quite a few animals do, but it’s not just the size of the brain that matters, it’s how big it is relative to your body. There’s also the question of how gene expression plays out in a particular species and the odds of the right mutation happening as natural selection favors an increase in skull size and brainpower so the mutation is then passed on. Humans are lucky to put it bluntly.

    “whats the Darwinian advantage in, say, a 1% larger brain if it produces 1% higher maternal/offspring mortality?”

    If that brain makes the offspring more intelligent and helps find food while avoiding or defeating predators, it will extend the individual’s lifespan and give him or her more chances to reproduce, offsetting the extra 1% rate of mortality with more births.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Thanks for shedding a little light into my autodidactic darkness – though I remain convinced there’s a lot more of the human evolutionary story to be told.

    Very interesting blog, btw – long may you post!

  • Richard

    Me thinks, as a non-scientitst, the Big Bang Theory has a few defects: Basic science tells us that there is NO resistance in space; if I send an object flying, it will continue to fly unless it hits another object, or enters into an atmosphere and burns up. SO, how did the peices of the giant mass, which went bang, and allegedly sent billions of pieces of something out into space miraculously mange to stop in space; not only do they stop, but they do so, all of them, apparently, and again, miraculously, in exact locations to become earth, the sun, the north star, etc., etc., etc.: THEN there’s the next miracle of those peices flying out into space; not only did they STOP, but now they begin spininning around, and not only do they individually begin spinning, but they miraculously manage to create all manner of orbits around each other, as well as create X number of galaxies….all miraculously by accident(?). THEN, these same jagged peices, and obviously/logically would have been jagged since nothing blows itself up giving off perfectly round peices, become ROUND; round in space where there is no resistance to cause wear on the given peices.

    Personally I’m jsut amazed how the globe we stand on managed to miraculously STOP exactly far enough a way from the sun so that we would neither freeze, nor burn up on the planet, since only a half mile closer or further away would do us in. OH YEAH, and here’s another miracle; some of those chunks of stuff, again miraculously, began to burn and put off heat, like our sun. WOW, that Big Bang was one helluva miraculous accident. Sorry boys and girls, and all you theorized scientists, your theory won’t hold water, due in aprt to the fact that your own fact(s) of science, such as anything flying out into space NEVER stops, denies you the argument that all the big bang peices just conveniently came to stops ALL over that Universe with no resistance. But then regardless of what the facts really are, it’s necessary to come up with an answer, even if it’s not true, and of course is just a “T-H-E-O-R-Y. Theories are like rectums…….!!

  • keith varcoe

    I believe in evolution,Ialso believe in God.Evolution is creations way of developing life.Creationist who do not believe in evolution fail to appreciate Gods supremely elegant blueprint for life, also known as d.n.a.Perhaps these same creationist ,think rain is really God crying.The bible does not speak of evaporation or condensation,or there roles in weather,and the H20 cycle.Following Jeremiah logic the science of meteorology is also a unproven science.The bible was written by man,any claims that it was written by God should be considered defamation of Gods character.These holds true for all other supposedly holy books.God is infinite,the human mind can be seen as a reduction valve for the infinite.Therfore any understanding we have of God is actually a degradation of God.Also if you are behaving morally because you fear hell or are greedy for heaven you are not living a authentic life.Your motivation is fear and greed,a higher moral code dictates that you do what is best regardless of personal reward or punishement.

  • L. L. Dreier

    Learned a lot in reading and thinking deeply of each persons input., In today’s learning process I gained a huge education today in science, theories, beliefs. I am glad for everyone’s input, including the ‘book’ since I have a lot to continue to think over and to process. So my thank yous to each and every contributer here. LLD

  • Aytek Ustundag

    I wonder, if we weaken jaw muscles or even remove them completely (and use a way to feed without jaw) can the human be super intelligent ? I dont think so.