Progress Ought to Believe in Yahweh

In 1776 America declared independence from Great Britain, igniting the torch that lit the American Revolution and changed history. The year 1789 marked the revolt of the French against their government and its tyrannical aristocracy, becoming known as the French Revolution.  Both insurrections wanted liberty from their oppressors, both were willing to give their very lives for the cause.  Two revolutions, two countries, yet two very different outcomes. Progress!

The American Revolution ended with the creation of a Republic form of government and a constitutional set of laws designed to restrain the power of the government.

What began the French Revolution with a rallying cry of liberty, fraternity, and equality ended with anarchy throughout the land. Beheadings in France were common, beginning with the aristocracy and spreading to those whom the majority deemed worthy of meeting the guillotine. Napoleon Bonaparte was ultimately given supreme power as emperor of France.

Two movements with very different outcomes. One nation tried to restrain its power, the other did not. These two movements were complete opposites be-cause of one main idea – the one believed that progress meant believing in Yahweh or Providence, and the other did not.

Some may point to the fact that progress in various areas such as science and philosophy has happened without any regard for a supreme being. So the question is not whether progress will happen, but why is it so dangerous without any belief in Yahweh.

Science Needs Yahweh

Recently a televised debate focused on which side had the correct model for the origins of the universe. Debaters were Ken Ham, a believer in creationism, and Bill Nye, an evolutionist. During the discussion, Mr. Nye concluded that the model of creationism and belief in the Bible stunt the growth of progress, especially in the scientific realm, because the Bible has ideas that come with conclusions to its questions, i.e. there is a Creator, which he believes inhibits the search for answers.

Let’s assume that this theory is correct, and that the Bible hinders man’s growth, and that a belief in atheism is more correct than believing there is a Creator. For a moment we’ll go along with the argument that the Bible is wrong, and that mankind is better off and would progress further without it.

To test this theory one needs to under-stand that there was a nation that achieved great scientific discoveries without any moral compass to guide its actions. That nation was Nazi Germany.

During the Nazi regime, it was a common occurrence for the scientists to practice their craft and experiments on their prisoners, especially in the concentration camps. In the book, How Mankind Committed the Ultimate Infamy at Auschwitz, the author states on page 177, “For the doctor who was ambitious in pursuing a career in research and unencumbered by humanity or com-passion, Auschwitz was a laboratory without parallel.” These scientists had a particular interest in scientific knowledge and progress in their field.

To achieve their ends prisoners were exposed to toxins and diseases such as typhoid fever, tuberculosis, and malaria in order to find an antidote or remedy. Pharmaceuticals were tested on many to study their effects. To understand hypothermia and the maximum altitude safe for pilots, prisoners were exposed to extreme conditions of cold and pressure.

Experiments were done on women prisoners to dis-cover methods of sterilization through intense x-rays and injections. The list of such horrific experiments in the name of understanding could go on.

Now this is not to say that all atheists believe that these experiments were good. I be-lieve that many atheists are decent people and would never consider do-ing or condoning such atrocious acts. However, if you consider the end result of atheism, that there is no Creator and man is just a highly evolved animal, then who’s to say these experiments are morally wrong?

The Nazis believed that the Jews, Poles, Russians, and many others were lesser humans, mere animals in fact, and it was their duty to eliminate this “sickly” breed from humanity. If man is just an animal then it would be no different than squashing a hill of ants that you want removed from your property. But man is not just an animal.

The human race has not evolved from lesser forms. Science needs a belief in Yahweh. Progress must be led by Yahweh lest we become as the Nazis had become. We need direction from Yahweh and the knowledge that there is a right and wrong so that one’s actions cannot be rationalized in the name of progress.

Progress is for the betterment of mankind, as much of science has been, but science without Yahweh will be mankind’s destruction. Who knows what other evils will be thought up that lack a check upon the vices of men? Progress detached from right and wrong will create a Frankenstein monster that can only leave destruction in its wake.

A World Without Yahweh

Let’s imagine that the dream of many scientists and atheists comes true, that the Bible is no longer relevant, just a book used to describe a primitive neurosis of the past, and a belief that there is no Creator is the doctrine of the day. No more pesky people telling you what is right and wrong, no more intelligent design beliefs floating around. Finally, a society that is free to grow and do as it pleases. But let’s take a closer look at a society such as this.

What would change in going from a world that believes in Yahweh to one that doesn’t? One is the matter of what happens after you die.

To an atheist, what happens at death? They believe nothing happens; they just die and that is it forever. Your life was just a blip on the world scene and then you’re gone. No future to hope for, no dreams of a better life in the Kingdom of Yahweh. Why should they care to be good people if this is their end? Why try to better society and mankind when a meteor could strike Earth and wipe everyone out? It would be better to live for today for tomorrow you may die.

Another issue is morality. If the Bible has vanished, and there is no moral compass directing lives, then who will direct them? Who will say what is right and wrong? Will the culture or government decide?

In some cultures it is natural to eat one’s human enemies and use their skins as clothing. They believe this is right, so how can we judge them and say they are wrong? They are right and we are right, but then you have to ask that if both are right, yet believe differently, then one of us cannot be right.

Perhaps the ma-jority will decide what is right and wrong. Whoever said the majority is always right? The French Revolution happened because of the majority, and they were wrong.

Another issue is free will. How can we have free will, the ability to think and choose for ourselves, if we are just highly evolved animals? Yes, there are many animals that have intelligence to be trained, that show affection, and communicate in some form, but this is a far reach from the ability to make complex decisions.

Does a clown fish speak out in his school of other fish and say that he believes that their collective form of travel would be more effective if they swam upside down? Does a monkey in the wild consider the ramifications of stealing his brother monkey’s bananas, and whether it is the right thing to do or not?

If an animal cannot make complex, moral decisions then how can we? Our decisions really wouldn’t be decisions, but just urges and instincts that drive us forward to some goal. You thought you decided to not eat that doughnut today, but really it was just some primal desire to survive.

Another issue is the matter of science. If science has all the answers, then where did DNA come from? How can DNA contain so much complex information without a designer?

Men and women design and build bridges, skyscrapers, space shuttles, and so much more, and they are built through planning and a concerted effort. A mere pile of timber, roofing material, nails and paint will not change into a house over a long period of time even under ideal conditions. Throwing ink on a page doesn’t create a book to be read.

Why, then, is the argument made that information and intelligence in our very sophisticated cells cannot point to any kind of intelligent being? How can you live in a world that believes that science has all the answers if you are unwilling to admit that an intelligence formed you?

Building for Progress

Our society believes it is progressing toward a better life by making homosexual marriages lawful. It believes that the abortion of a child is progress toward greater liberty to choose. It believes that its schools must teach evolution as a fact and take the Bible completely out of its system.

Some believe this is all good, but these beliefs lead only to destruction. Such steps toward progress will destroy the very thing being built. Every society in history that believed the same way met the same end: they fell. Society, like a building, needs something to stand upon, a foundation that must be firm and sure.

Yahshua in Matthew 7:24-27 spoke about making our foundations sure and of the danger of not doing so, “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.”

The house built on a rock is built on what is firm. It doesn’t move despite what goes on around it; it is built on truth. Truth is a constant that never changes, like all that Yahweh has ever spoken through the Bible. He is unchanging, and His word cannot change. Without the filter of the Bible in our lives, in our families, in our culture, the shaky sands of lies will blow into our foundations to make them weak and liable to collapse.

Are we an immovable object? Do we stand firm despite the trials we face, or do we cave in to whatever everyone else is doing? I hope that our lives are built upon rock because this will be the test when society breaks down around us.

If our society wants to progress, we need to throw out the ideas that are contrary to truth. We need to cling to that which is good and put that which is evil and false far away from us.
I don’t want to live in a world like Nazi Germany’s. I don’t want to live in a world that has another French Revolution. Progress needs Yahweh or we will live in a world without a happy ending.

But happiness will come if we obey Yahweh, if we keep Him in the forefront of our minds, and if we turn to Him with all our heart. Then we will have true progress.

For more articles please visit our main articles page

Don’t forget to visit and subscribe to our YouTube channel!

Gap Theory

Closing the Gap Theory

The gap theory of creation has gained popularity over the last century. It arose in response to geologists’ claim that the earth is billions of years old. Bible believers apply the theory to a supposed “gap” of time between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1.
But does the biblical evidence support this belief?

Before we analyze the gap theory, there are a few other theories we should review. (All quotations are from, an online Bible search and study tool.)

The first is often called the 24-Hour Interpretation. “The most traditional of interpretations, the 24-Hour Interpretation, holds that Elohim created all the universe in the space of six regular solar days.”

This is what YRM affirms, and the most traditional view. Many years ago I believed in the gap theory. My belief began in high school when I was taught that evolution was a fact and not a theory. Like so many impressionable young people, I wanted to fit evolution somewhere into the Bible, and the gap theory made the most sense. Since then, I’ve come back to the traditional view of creation.

Another popular theory is called Theistic Evolution. “Surrendering the historicity and honesty of Scripture beyond all other popular viewpoints, theories of theistic evolution force interpreters to mythologize the Genesis narrative. While maintaining that God did truly maintain control of all creative processes, the view strips Scripture of its accuracy by positing that Adam was not arrived at by fiat creation but through thousands of years of natural evolutionary process aided and directed by a divine touch.”

This theory is nothing more than a compromise for evolution. Those who espouse it maintain that Yahweh created everything through the process of evolution. In other words, evolution was the mechanism that our Creator used to form this universe, including mankind. As a result, those who hold this view believe that the Genesis account is nothing more than mythology. In other words it’s a great story, but it never happened.

A third theory that has gained some acceptance is called the Day-Age Theory. “Easily one of the most popular of current theories to reconcile scientific evidence with God’s Word, the Day-Age Theory takes aim on the Hebrew word for “day”: yom. Stating that the word, while often meaning a 24-hour period, can also refer to an indeterminate duration, these theorists proclaim that a valid (and moreover, proper) literal understanding of the Creation account will interpret each day as an era, or age, lasting a great length of time.”

As with Theistic Evolution, this belief arose to reconcile evolution with the Bible. It does so by reinterpreting the meaning of the word “yom,” which is the Hebrew word for day. Instead of representing a literal 24-hour day, this belief says that yom represents a long duration of time, even billions of years, making room for evolution.

This belief not only contradicts Hebrew grammar, but also defies the laws of nature. For example, the Bible says that plants were created on the third day and the sun and moon on the fourth day. How it is possible that plants existed a billion years without sunlight? Plants require sun for life and photosynthesis, which is how they produce energy. Based on this single example, there’s nothing logical about this belief.

Breaching the Gap Theory
The last theory to review is the gap theory. Once more we refer to the for an explanation.

“When the scientific community began discovering evidence to support long geological eras in the 18th century, a segment of Christendom felt compelled to syncretize their interpretation of Scripture with this newfound empirical data. Motive askew, they postulated that the universe was already in existence for an indeterminate duration before the Creation Week began (and hence allow for a very old earth, but are able still to maintain God’s recent fiat creation of mankind). A once-popular revision of this theme is the Restoration Theory. Proponents of this version of Gap Theory believed that the universe was created full-form and populated only to be decimated by a cataclysmic war led between God and Satan. This war left the earth a wasteland, ‘formless and void’ (and explains why we find fossilized dinosaur bones that seem to be millions of years old). So then, by theory, the recent Creation Week would be a re-Creation or restoration of a world that was once destroyed.”

There are actually two theories connected with the gap theory: the traditional view and the Restoration Theory (no relation to Yahweh’s Restoration Ministry). The traditional gap theory provides a gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. In this gap proponents believe that billions of years existed.

Generally, it’s also believed that there was a first earth and second earth and the second earth is what we live on now. Now the Restoration theory goes on to say that Yahweh created humans without souls along with animals, including dinosaurs, on this first earth.

Weston W. Fields further explains this in his book, Unformed and Unfilled. “In the far distant dateless past God created a perfect heaven and perfect earth. Satan was ruler of the earth which was peopled by a race of ‘men’ without any souls.

Eventually, Satan, who dwelled in a garden of Eden composed of minerals (Ezekiel 28), rebelled by desiring to become like God (Isaiah 14). Because of Satan’s fall, sin entered the universe and brought on the earth God’s judgment in the form of a flood (indicated by the water of 1:2), and then a global Ice Age when the light and heat from the sun were somehow removed. All the plant, animal, and human fossils upon the earth today date from this ‘Lucifer’s flood’ and do not bear any genetic relationship with the plants, animals and fossils living upon the earth today….”

The restoration theory maintains that Satan’s rebellion destroyed the first earth, including dinosaurs, with a global flood. It goes on to say that the plants and animals of today do not resemble those from this first earth. Now the obvious problem with this belief, which again is part of the Gap Theory, is that there’s no biblical support for two separate creations, including two worldwide floods and a creation prior to Adam and Eve.

Motivating Factors
According to, “From 1814, gap creationism was popularized by Thomas Chalmers, who attributed the concept to the 17th century Dutch Arminian theologian Simon Episcopius. Chalmers became a divinity professor at the University of Edinburgh, founder of the Free Church of Scotland, and author of one of the Bridgewater Treatises. Other early proponents included Oxford University geology professor and fellow Bridgewater author William Buckland, Sharon Turner and Edward Hitchcock. It gained widespread attention when a ‘second creative act’ was discussed prominently in the reference notes for Genesis in the influential 1917 Scofield Reference Bible.”

The gap theory attempts to reconcile with the Bible the claim that the geological record proves that the earth is billions of years old. This is like many other creation theories attempting to merge the Bible with pseudo-science.
The problem is, not all scientific theories are based on good science and evolution is an example. Just because science may say that something is a certain way doesn’t make it true. For example, if nothing was known about Mount Saint Helens, geologists might date the layers created by the explosion by millions of years, when we know it took only a short period of time.

  • The “proof” for billions of years of development can be explained by the account of Noah’s flood. Two things happened at that time:
  • the earth was ripped open, Genesis 7:11 flood waters covered the entire earth. This catastrophic event explains many of the geological sediment and rock layers today. We can see how something like the gouging of the Grand Canyon could have occurred very quickly and not over billions of years.

So we find at least three problematic issues with the Gap Theory:

  • It presupposes life and death existed before Adam and Eve;
  •  It was formulated in response to the unproven belief that the earth is billions of years old and It contradicts the Bible as well as its Hebrew grammar.

Scriptural Evidence
Let’s now consider the evidence from Scripture. Our investigation begins in Genesis 1:1-2: “In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim moved upon the face of the waters.”

The traditional view says that Yahweh created both the heavens, i.e., universe, and earth and that in the very beginning the earth was formless and empty.

The gap theory interprets this passage this way: “In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth [insert in billions of years]. And the earth was [had become] without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim moved upon the face of the waters.”

By inserting billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 they reconcile the theory that the earth is billions of years old. The gap theory also assumes that the earth was not without form and void, but had become that way. According to Hebrew grammarians, this assumption is not supported by the Hebrew grammar.

First, we must understand the word “created,” which comes from the Hebrew bara’. We must also understand the use of the “And” at the beginning of verse 1, which comes from the Hebrew letter waw. Another word to consider is “was,” which is from the Hebrew hayah. Finally, we will review the phrase “without form and void,” which is from the Hebrew tohu wa bohu.

Created (Bara’)
We begin with the Hebrew bara’. Strong’s defines this term as, “…a primitive root; (absolutely) to create…” The Brown- Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon states “…to create, to shape, to form.” Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words provides a more exhaustive definition: “…This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can ‘create’ in the sense implied by bara’. The verb expresses creation out of nothing…All other verbs for ‘creating’ allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue.”

According to Hebrew linguistics, bara’ refers to original creation. Why is this important? It means that the creation in Genesis 1:1 is part of an original creation and not a re-creation as believed by the gap theorists. This is why it’s important that we understand the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
And (Waw)

Now the most critical word is the word “And,” as we find in Genesis 1:2. This word comes from the Hebrew letter “waw,” which corresponds to our “w.” In the Hebrew language you have what’s called the waw consecutive and the waw disjunctive, also called the waw copulative.

What is the differences between the two? The waw consecutive expresses a sequence of time or continuation of a new thought, while the waw disjunctive is an explanatory thought for the previous phrase.

Do we know which waw is used in Genesis 1:2? Based on the Hebrew grammar, it’s the waw disjunctive or copulative because it is not fixed to a verb, but to a noun. As support, here’s what W. Fields states, “Genesis 1:2 begins with ‘and’ (Hebrew waw, a copulative) which argues against a long time span between these verses. The Hebrew grammars and lexicons consider 1:2 to be an explanatory noun clause which describes a state contemporaneous with that of the main verb in verse 1” (Unformed and Unfilled, Weston Fields, pp. 75-86).

We find a similar statement from Dr. Robert McCabe, Professor of Old Testament from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, “The waw disjunctive appears at the beginning of v. 2. This type of waw is also easily identifiable. It is always attached to a non-verbal form, such as a substantive, pronoun, or participle; and it stands at the beginning of a clause…As a waw disjunctive relates to its preceding clause, it can be used in a number of different ways, such as introducing a clause of contrast, reason, etc. In this context, the waw disjunctive is best seen as introducing an explanatory clause, and could be translated as “now” (meaning, “at the time” of its creation in v. 1), or in some similar way” (

Based on these sources, the waw in Genesis 1:2 is waw disjunctive because the waw is connected to a noun and not a verb. What this means is that Genesis 1:2 is an explanatory verse of Genesis 1:1. It also confirms that there’s no possibility of a gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. For a gap to exist this would require a waw consecutive, of which we don’t find evidence here.

According to author W. Fields, we also find evidence for the waw disjunctive from the Greek Septuagint. “The Septuagint translation – As previously stated, the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek by Jews in Alexandria (traditionally by 70 scholars, hence the name) about 250 B.C. is known as the Septuagint, and generally abbreviated LXX. While it is a translation, and therefore subject to all the problems of such, it nevertheless gives a very ancient opinion about how the Hebrew should be rendered. The work of the Septuagint in the Pentateuch has generally been recognized as some of its best, and it appears that in Genesis 1 and 2 the translators were especially careful, for they were remarkably precise in distinguishing the waw disjunctive from other uses of the waw. The only waw disjunctive in Genesis 1 is the one in verse 2.

“This is also the only occurrence of the Greek word de. The second waw disjunctive is found in 2:6 along with the second de; the third waw disjunctive is in 2:10 together with the third de. The fourth waw disjunctive is in 2:12 and so is the fourth de.  Now this is not really surprising. On the contrary, it is exactly what one might predict from Gesenius’ statement that a waw copulative (disjunctive) which connects a noun clause to the main thought of the sentence, and which describes a state or circumstance, corresponds to the Greek de, used to interpose an explanation” (Unformed and Unfilled, pp. 83).

As W. Fields explains, the Greek word “de” corresponds to the waw disjunctive and is found only once in Genesis 1 and that is in verse 2. Both the Hebrew and Greek confirms the use of the waw conjunctive. This removes the possibility of a gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Was (Hayah)
We transition to the English word “was” in verse 2. This word comes from the Hebrew hayah. For those who may not know, hayah is the primitive root of Yahweh’s Name. Every Hebrew word goes back to a primitive or trilateral root.

So what is the meaning of hayah within the context of Genesis 1:2? Here’s how it’s defined in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Hebrew Dictionary and Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, respectively.

“…a primitive root; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass….”
“…to be, to become, to come to pass, to exist, to happen, to fall out.”

As we see from these definitions, “become” or “came to pass” is a possibility based on the Hebrew. However, as we saw from the waw disjunctive, we must also understand the Hebrew grammar. And based on the Hebrew grammar of verse 2, hayah cannot be rendered “to become.”

Dr. McCabe explains, “The only translation that can be consistently justified is the translation ‘was.’ This translation can be supported in three ways. First, as I noted above, ‘was’ is in an explanatory clause introduced by a waw disjunctive, connecting this verse with v. 1…. Second, the translation of hayetah as ‘was’ finds early support from the Septuagint…the Septuagint translators of the Pentateuch rendered this Hebrew verb as ‘was,’ the imperfect form of eimi (to “be”)…Because of the semantic distinctives of the verbs eimi (to “be”) and ginomai (to “become”), the Septuagint provides early support for the rendering ‘was.’ Third, the vast majority of lexicons and grammars support the rendering as ‘was’ …. Whitcomb and Smith have appropriately summarized this evidence: ‘Hebrew grammars could be cited in abundance to the effect that a nominal clause (with no verb or else with a form hayah) as in Genesis 1:2…is the normal way to describe a state of being without any verbal activity or change of state’ (p. 134). Therefore, the traditional translation of hayetah as ‘was’ is the most accurate translation.”

As we saw from the waw disjunctive, both the Hebrew and Greek indicate that the best rendering of hayah in Genesis 1:2 is “was.” As Dr. McCabe confirms, this is overwhelmingly the opinion of many Hebrew grammarians.

We also see this in nearly every historical English translation of Genesis 1:2. Here are a few examples:
“The erth was voyde and emptie ad darcknesse was vpon the depe and the spirite of god moved vpon the water.” (William Tyndale Bible, 1530).

“And ye earth was voyde and emptie, and darcknes was vpon the depe, & ye sprete of God moued vpo the water” (Myles Coverdale Bible, 1535).

“And the earth was without fourme, and was voyde: & darknes [was] vpon the face of the deepe, and the spirite of God moued vpon the face of the waters” (Bishops Bible, 1568).

“And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the waters” (Geneva Bible, 1599).

“The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters” (RSV, 1952).

“The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters” (NAS, 1963).

From old to new translations hayah is translated as “was.” Abundant evidence shows that the rendering of “had become” in Genesis 1:2 is simply not supported.

Without Form and Void (Tohu WaBohu)
Let’s consider the phrase “without form and void.” The phrase comes from the Hebrew tohu wabohu and generally refers to a state that is formless and empty. According to the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, “‘And the earth was (not became) waste and void.’ The alliterative nouns tohu vabohu, the etymology of which is lost, signify waste and empty (barren), but not laying waste and desolating.”

This commentary confirms again that the Hebrew hayah should be rendered “was” and not “became.” It also states that tohu wabohu refers to a state that is waste and empty or barren.

Let’s now examine the evidence for these words separately. The first is tohu:

“…from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing,” Strong’s

“…formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness,” BDB.

The second is bohu:

“…from an unused root (meaning to be empty),” Strong’s.

“…emptiness, void, waste,” BDB.

Based on these definitions, tohu wabohu describes a state that is formless, empty, waste, chaotic, or void.

In a desire to be balanced in our study, this phrase can also refer to a void or emptiness from previous destruction. Examples of this usage are found in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Let’s first consider Isaiah 43, “But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness. They shall call the nobles thereof to the kingdom, but none shall be there, and all her princes shall be nothing. And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls,” verses 11-43.

This passage is a prophecy of Yahweh’s wrath that will befall the nations of this earth. We know from eschatology that the day of Yahweh, representing Yahshua’s Second Coming, is going to be one of destruction and judgment. According to Isaiah 24, few men will be left.

Now we see the words tohu and bohu both used here to convey destruction upon the earth. So in this instance, tohu wabohu is used to describe a state of ruin and devastation that was caused by a previous destruction.

We find a similar usage in Jeremiah 4:23-26: “I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of Yahweh, and by his fierce anger.”

This prophecy is again speaking about destruction. But here it is focused on the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon. And as we saw in Isaiah, tohu wabohu is used here to covey this devastation.

Now why are these examples important? Those who advocate the gap theory will often use them to prove that tohu wabohu refers to an emptiness or void caused by previous destruction. The problem with using this to support the gap theory is that tohu wabohu doesn’t always describe a previous destruction. And as we’ve already seen, the grammar of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 doesn’t allow for a gap in time.

Meaning of Replenish
In addition to Isaiah and Jeremiah, Gap Theorists will also point to Genesis 1:28 as proof for their belief: “And Elohim blessed them, and Elohim said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
Those who believe in the gap theory will focus on the word “replenish” as evidence for this doctrine. In this case, this is an easy passage to explain. The word “replenish” is from the Hebrew male, which is a primitive root, meaning “to fill or be full of, in a wide application,” Strong’s.

There is nothing within the definition of male denoting the concept of replenishing or refilling, as often defined in English. The word “replenish” in Genesis 1:28 simply means to fill.

For in Six Days
Another common argument in defense of the gap theory comes from Genesis 20:8-11: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of Yahweh thy Elohim: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Yahweh blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

Notice that it says that Yahweh made the heavens and the earth in six days. Exodus also states that both the heavens, i.e., universe, and the earth were made in six days. According to Hebrew grammar, when the Hebrew yom (English, “day”) is connected with a numeral, as found here, it refers to a 24-hour day.

Now some will point that the word “made” found in Exodus 20:11 is not from bara’, but from the Hebrew asah. They will then claim that asah refers to a re-creation and not to an original creation. According to Strong’s asah literally means, “to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application.”

So what’s the difference between bara’ and asah? Bara’ specifically means original creation from nothing, while asah is a general or broad word referring to any act of creation. What’s important is that bara’ and asah are not contradictory as it pertains to creation. While bara’ is limited to original creation, there is nothing within the definition of asah that would prohibit this interpretation. In other words, since asah is broad in meaning, it can be used synonymously with bara’. Matter of fact, both bara’ and asah are used interchangeably in the first chapter of Genesis.

Adam’s Sin
One of the most significant challenges against the gap theory is that death was introduced through the sin of Adam. Paul in Romans 5:12-14 writes,  “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: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”

If death did not exist until Adam’s sin, what about those who died on the “first earth” as a result of Satan’s flood? Paul provides the final nail in the coffin of the gap theory.

Just why is it important that we understand the error behind this popular theory? Because the gap theory contradicts the Bible and it undermines the authority of Yahweh’s Word. It places more emphasis on pseudo-science than on Scripture.
As believers we must never allow our personal beliefs, pseudo-science, or man-made doctrines to contradict what our Heavenly Father says within His Word.

The Bible has never been proven wrong and never will be. Let us not be remiss to remember that Yahweh’s ways are greater than man’s ways. He thunders, “Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding,” Job 38:3.

One Incredible Book – The Bible

One Incredible Book – The Bible

What 3,400-year-old book can you cite that is errorless in its prophecies, flawless scientifically, spot-on historically, up-to-the-minute both sociologically and ethically– all the while being as current as today’s newspaper?

The Bible is all of that, and much more.

There are 1,800 prophecies in the Bible and not one has ever been proven wrong. Being that the Scriptures are Yahweh’s inspired words, nothing in the original autographs could be anything but totally true, accurate, and irreproachable.

Psalm 12:6 tells us, “The words of Yahweh are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” In other words, perfect.

Everything the Scriptures give us in terms of direction in life is absolutely faultless. John 17:17 tells us, “Thy Word is Truth.”

The Word itself also claims inerrancy. Proverbs 30:5 and 6 tells us, “Every word of Elohim is pure.” It is thoroughly accurate.

The oldest texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced about four centuries before Yahshua, and they validate the faithfulness of later manuscripts that were used for the translations of the Old Testament. Compare them with one Hebrew manuscript after another and you find them amazingly accurate.

The Bible Is Perfect and Complete

There has never been anything in the Bible proved false. The Bible is way ahead of its time in every category.

The Bible is also complete, with nothing more needed for the believer. From Genesis through Revelation all 66 books are comprehensive and nothing is to be added or removed from the text.

At the beginning of the book, Yahweh cautions, “You shall not add to the Word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it,” Deuteronomy 4:2. In the middle of the Scriptures, we read, “Every word of Eloah is pure…Add not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar,” Proverbs 30:5-6. At the end, in Revelation 22:18-19, we find the same prohibition against introducing any additions or deletions.

The perfection of the Scriptures also perfects us. Paul told Timothy in 2Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is inspired by Yahweh and is profitable for instruction, for correction, for reproof, for training in righteousness that the man of Elohim may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” It is sufficient. Nothing more is needed as to proper, spiritual training for salvation.

No special revelation from on high to individuals is required. Yahweh doesn’t need to buttress His Word in that way. Neither is Yahweh’s Word open to personal, private interpretation, 2Peter 1:20.

Scripture is authoritative and final for the entire universe.  Isaiah 1:2 says, “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for Yahweh has spoken.” Psalm 119:89 verifies, “Forever, O Yahweh, Thy Word is settled in heaven.”

This imperious book comes to us in the form of many commands. It reveals blessings when we follow it and sufferings when we don’t.

The Word even predicts that many won’t accept it or Yahweh’s laws as His standard of behavior today. The natural mind has innate resistance to obedience. The Bible calls it enmity in Romans 8:7:

“Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward Elohim; for it does not subject itself to the law of Elohim, for it is not even able to do so,” New American Standard Bible.

Man Naturally Dislikes Limits

We live by laws that regulate our everyday existence. We can’t survive without law. We see law operating in what we eat, how we move, and how we drive; law is behind what we live in, it regulates our finances, our government, our activities. Laws keep us healthy and safe.

Natural laws also make life possible–everything is controlled and kept in order by natural law–macro life or micro life, it all responds to and is limited in well-defined, fixed ways.

When we move to the moral realm, however, in the minds of the obstinate there is no absolute law. They want the wild West where you can do whatever you want with impunity.

That’s  impossible. There are built-in moral principles and restraints in life. Serious social problems result when moral laws are ignored or violated. Prisons are filled with violators of moral-ethical laws.

Break Yahweh’s spiritual laws and you will get kickbacks and consequences just as when breaking physical laws like jumping from a skyscraper or ingesting poisons.

Paul clearly taught that law is always in effect, New Testament-focused doctrine notwithstanding, Romans 7:1.

How many know that the Bible contains over 250 passages in the Old Testament as well as 55 passages in the New Testament that require obedience to everything that is commanded in Scripture? In addition, there are 1,050 New Testament passages that speak of obeying Yahweh in His commands, statutes and judgments (Dake’s).

The Bible is an incredible book that explains the way to true happiness. Get in line with it and your life will be filled with hope and deep-down joy and satisfaction. Go against it and you will be miserable and suffer consequences. The Creator who put in place natural laws is the same one Who established moral and spiritual law.

The Bible is Scientifically Accurate

The Scripture presents the only viable explanation for the universe. And it has not been proved false in anything it says. Not a single statement is in error. No human work can do that.

Why don’t some brilliant professors who believe nothing produced everything write a book detailing the universe, the nature of man, and hundreds of long-range prophecies. Then, 6,000 years from now we’ll compare and see if everything they wrote is still true and accurate as the Bible.

The Bible speaks of the nature and behavior of man that is the same today as at the dawn of man’s existence. Man’s basic nature doesn’t change and that’s why the Word is as fresh as the day it was written.

In the physical world, the Bible affirms that mass doesn’t go out of existence. It can alter form but it doesn’t disappear. Communities found that out when they burned trash at city dumps. You didn’t really get rid of the trash, you simply changed its form, going from land pollution to air-polluting smoke.

The first law of thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the universe remains constant,

Does the Bible know anything about that?

Note what Isaiah said thousands of years ago, “Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth,” 40:26.

Here we find not only that all the stars and planets are named, but also a confirmation that their matter cannot go out of existence. Nehemiah 9:6, also reads, “Thou hast made heaven, the earth and all things therein, the seas and all things therein and Thou preservest them all.”

Ecclesiastes 1:10, “Is there anything of which it may be said…See, this is new? No, it has already been from of old.” The Bible has been proclaiming this for thousands of years.

The Bible also affirms another law which says, left to themselves things break down, become disordered. They don’t become more complex, more sophisticated, more organized. Build a sand castle and eventually wind, waves, and rain will flatten it out. Erect a skyscraper and it will in time rust away and collapse. It won’t evolve into a space shuttle.

The law of increasing disorder (also the Second Law of Thermodynamics) alone disproves evolution because it says things start from order and go to disorder, not the other way around. In other words, everything put together will eventually fall apart on its own, not become more complex and sophisticated.

Disbelievers want to believe in evolution because they don’t want a Creator; because then they’d be subject to His commands and be under His judgment. So just eliminate Him with a theory that everything happened all by itself! That’s lunacy.

Incredibly, supposedly “smart” scientists believe it! Scripture even addresses them in Romans 1:22, 25: “Professing themselves wise they became fools…They exchanged the truth of Yahweh for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised,” NIV.

Evolution focuses entirely on created things, trying to find a link between them that would support their hypothesis.

Romans 8 presents this to us in very clear terms. Listen to what the Apostle Paul wrote before any scientist had come up with it. “The creation was subjected to nothingness.” Evolution has to begin with something. It can’t run on nothing.

When the Bible talks about scientific things it is totally accurate. Even science fails to explain where the primordial soup came from. Where the spark came from that supposedly began life and all of the other impossibilities inherent in this theory.

The Book of Job in 26:8 and 36:27-28 describes a great deal about the scientific workings of the earth, including evaporation and condensation. Ecclesiastes 1:7 gives the water cycle.

Wise, Foolish Man

Man professing himself wise is but a fool. Old ideas about the earth and about the solar system were very strange. Before 500 years ago many thought that the earth was a CD, a flat disk.

When Copernicus came along in the 15th century he presented the idea that the earth was in motion. He asserted that the earth rotated on its axis once daily and traveled around the sun once yearly: it was a fantastic concept for the times. People first thought he was crazy when he said the earth was spinning at 1,000 mph because they couldn’t feel the motion.

Hippocrates – another “great” mind – said there were one thousand and twenty-two stars in the sky. Ptolemy said, “No, there are one thousand and fifty-six.” And Kepler said, “You’re both wrong, there are one thousand and fifty-five.”

Why didn’t they read Jeremiah 33:22, which says the stars can’t be counted. Give it up, fellows, they are too numerous to be counted. Estimates today reach into a hundred billion stars and planets in our galaxy alone, and there are billions of galaxies!

Job says Yahweh hangs the earth on nothing. How did he know that? One ancient Eastern book says it rests on seven layers of sugar, honey and butter. The Hindu says it rests on the backs of elephants. And when Job says He turns the earth like the clay to the seal, he’s simply saying it rotates on an axis.

How did Job know that? In fact he uses the word klug, which speaks of the circle or sphere of the earth as does Isaiah 40:22. How did he know it was a sphere? Job said Yahweh imputed weight to the wind. It wasn’t until the seventeenth century that anybody realized that a column of air had weight.

It’s said that George Washington died after doctors bled him to death trying to cure a viral infection. They used to bleed you for healing until they finally figured out what the Scriptures had been saying for thousands of years: “The life of the flesh is in the blood,” Leviticus 17:11. Blood carries life. When Yahshua shed His blood for us, He gave His life for ours. Blood for blood.

Astronomical Chances for Accuracy

The Bible has made amazing prophecies that have already been fulfilled.

No human could predict with such exactness what the Bible prophesied about Yahshua’s identity, name, birthplace, and burial all 700 years before He was born. The likelihood that 48 prophecies about someone were accurately fulfilled would be 1 in 10 followed by 157 zeros. Yahshua fulfilled more than 300 prophecies about Himself, made 150 years before He was born,

Isaiah predicted where Cyrus, king of Persia, would be born, what his name would be, and his act of releasing Israel from captivity. In addition, King Josiah was named 300 years before his birth, 1Kings 13:2.

Prophetically the Bible is without peer. No human could write such pre-history and come even close to the precision as in the Word. Nobody on earth knows what the future holds. But Scripture does.

The Bible refers to the Hittite people 36 times. Because no outside record could confirm their existence, skeptics said the Bible couldn’t be trusted. Excavations in Turkey now have shown that the Hittite empire was extensive.

The same non-existence was claimed of the biblical cities of Ur, Sodom, and Gomorrah until the Ebla tablets were found in the 1960s.

No other book of any other major world religion answers the question about the origins of the universe, the human race, why there is suffering in the world and how to eliminate it, and what man’s destiny is. Only the Bible does.

Nothing explains all of this except that Yahweh wrote it.

Nothing else explains its scientific accuracy.

Nothing else explains its prophetic accuracy.

Nothing else explains its spiritual and penetrating power and its ability to transform lives.

Nothing else explains its miracles which are from front to back in the Word – verified by many eyewitnesses. Being that the Bible is proven totally true and accurate on many levels, let alone that it is the very key to life, who would not want to learn it for the sake of their own salvation?

One of the biggest hindrances to Bible study is when we come to Scripture with presuppositions and force the Bible to conform to those beliefs.

Time for Proper Study

You can’t learn Scripture if you don’t know what it says. Begin with prayer, asking Yahweh for His guidance.

One effective way to learn the Word is to take a book like Acts and read it. Read all of the book. Then read it again. Read it 30 times in a row until you know the book. You’ll know where certain verses are by location on the page in your favorite Bible (like the RSB!).

Look at chapter headings in the RSB. Memorize what those chapters are about.

In 2 Timothy 2:15 we have a starting point biblically that gives us a mandate to study the Scriptures. It says, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to Elohim as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.”

So how do we handle it accurately?

Appreciate the Language

As we know, the Bible was not written in English. The Old Testament was written in a more ancient Hebrew with some passages in Aramaic, spoken during the time of Yahshua among the Jews.

Right at the start, we face a problem. Not only was the Old Testament written in Hebrew but it was also written in a kind of Hebrew that isn’t spoken today. Hebrew changed over time as languages do. And the New Testament was translated into a Greek language that is different from the Greek of today.

It’s even called koine Greek which means common Greek and it was different from the more sophisticated or literary Greek.

To know the Bible well knowing the language is very important. Somebody has to know the language. If you as a Bible student don’t know it you need to have somebody who does know it informing you about it. That’s where commentaries come in and word aids, as well as lexicons and studies, like: Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New and Old Testament Words, Gesenius, Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Thayers Greek Lexicon.                                      There never was a time when we had more opportunity to be good students of Scripture because there have never been more study tools available.

Another difficulty we face is the culture gap, which deals not with the speech but with the customs. Speech is connected to custom.

Idioms – Language Landmines

Speech is idiomatic. We’re familiar with certain English idioms that make the language difficult for foreigners.

Imagine a foreigner trying to figure out what you mean when you use the following idioms:

“I smell a rat”

“Pay through the nose”

“Knock your socks off”

Imagine the problems of trying to learn English that’s filled with these strange idioms!

When you deal with ancient language you’re also dealing with idiomatic speech, and you’re dealing with expressions that are reflective of an ancient culture, and knowing the culture is crucial. You can’t re-create the setting biblically unless you know the culture.

Understanding many things about culture – Jewish culture, Greek culture, pagan culture – is key to interpreting some passages.

Another hurdle is the geographical problem. For example, Deuteronomy 16:1 discusses Abib as the first biblical month. What occurs at this time in this area of the world? Barley ears of grain are green, and “green” is where the word Abib derives.

Hebrew-Greek Differences

It has been said that the best way to learn your own language is to study a foreign language.

Hebrew is not as complex as Greek. In fact, there’s no single Greek verb that is uniformly regular. Which means that in learning Greek you do a lot of memorizing of irregular verb parts and every verb has a myriad of forms. Each time you change any of the grammar in the sentence the form of the verb changes.

If you understand the mechanics of language, you can better understand its meaning.

If you want to study Hebrew or Greek be prepared to do an immense amount of memorization, and Greek more so than Hebrew. In Hebrew virtually every word is tied to a three-letter root. You can understand a variety of related words just knowing the one root word.

Another issue we confront in Bible understanding is the culture gap. How did the Hebrews think? How did the Greeks think? When Paul is writing to the Corinthians in 1Corinthians 11 he gets into long hair and head-coverings.

One of the things Greek women were doing in Paul’s day was demanding liberation. They were shaving their heads. Understanding that background, when Paul talks about a woman’s hair being her glory your understanding is enriched.

Historical context is also key, as in  understanding, for example, why Pilate tried so hard to get the Jews to release Yahshua, why he washed his hands of the whole sham after finding Yahshua  innocent, and yet impaled Yahshua anyway.

Realize that Pilate was already up to his neck in trouble with the Roman Empire because of at least three major mistakes that he made while he was governor. And the Roman Caesar wanted Pax Romana, Roman peace in the Empire, and all Pilate kept doing was getting hostile Jews angry with Rome.

The Jews realized this when they finally pulled their trump card and said to him, “If you don’t impale Him, we’ll tell Caesar.” Knowing the back story provides greater depth of insight.

To understand 1Corinthians 12 to 14 in regard to speaking in tongues you need to realize the meaning of two words in the Greek language, enthusiasmos and ekstasia, which is enthusiasm and ecstasy transliterated into English.

Those words defined the nature of worship in the mystery religions, which included whipping the people into ecstacy and enthusiasm, both of which were sort of altered states of consciousness in which you flipped out and did bizarre and wild things. To the pagans this was sort of mystically how you connected with the deities.

We at Yahweh’s Restoration Ministry are dedicated to returning to the faith once delivered. That includes preaching the Word without fear or compromise. We know that to do so is not popular, even among those who should know better. Yet, we can do nothing else if we are to be faithful to the Word. If you would like to join in that goal in these last days, we would be greatly blessed to have your help in any way.

We pray that this article on The Bible was a Blessing to you, For all of our other articles please check out our main articles page

Creation vs Evolution

By Chance or by Design

Few deceptions in human history have caused more damage to the truth of Yahweh’s Word than the theory of evolution. Most people consider the theory of Darwin harmless, but truth be told this theory is anything but harmless.

The ultimate goal of evolution is to remove Yahweh, the creative source and power behind this universe. If Darwin’s theory of creative advancement can convince this world that evolution was the mechanism for man’s existence, then man has no need for Yahweh or the morality of His Word.

A Harvard geneticist and leading evolutionist, Richard Lewontin, confirms this view, “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” (In Six Days, John Ashton, Ph.D., p. 76).

It is the goal of this article to prove by Yahweh’s Word and scientific evidence that the theory of evolution is nothing more than a deception and a lie of the Evil One. Some of the scientific proofs that this article will consider are the “evidence” for evolution, the second law of thermodynamics, the facts of mutation, and complexity of life. After considering this evidence we hope that those who may give credence to this unholy theory might agree from both Yahweh’s Word and science that evolution is indeed a deceptive travesty of HaSatan.

In one of the plainest passages showing Yahweh’s creation, the Apostle Paul offers prophetic insight that few could disagree with. “…because what may be known of Yahweh is manifest in them, for Yahweh has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and [Majesty], so that they are without excuse” (Rom 1:19-20, NKJV).

The Apostle Paul verified that the heavens and the earth serve are a visible sign and testimony to not only Yahweh’s existence, but also to His very attributes. Since Yahweh’s creation testifies of his creative power and existence, those who reject Him have no justification for their rebellion.

Paul was not alone in writing of man’s rejection. Peter, one of Yahshua’s most devoted apostles, also told of man’s rebellion. “For this they willfully forget: that by the word of Yahweh the heavens were of old…” (2Peter 3:5, NKJV).

Peter affirms in this passage that it was through Yahweh’s Word that the heavens and earth came into being and verifies that man deliberately forgets and ignores this truth. Why? As Satan rebelled with the intent of becoming equal to the Most High (Isa. 14:14), mankind is doing the same through the theory of evolution. If man can remove Yahweh’s creative presence from this universe then man is free to believe that no power, no Being, and no authority higher than man exists. This gives man the claim that he is the supreme mighty one.

From a Biblical perspective it is clear that the heavens and earth are testimony to Yahweh’s inspired creation. Now when it comes to this universe, does science contradict scripture? While many scientists might say that scripture and science are in opposition and incompatible to one another, there are many who see the harmony between the two.

Evolution Versus Science

Is Darwinian or macroevolution science? One person of many who share the belief that Darwinian evolution is not science is Dr. John Kramer. According to Dr. Kramer: “No one has ever demonstrated macro evolutionary changes on a molecular level, yet many people readily speculate evolutionary links between bacteria, plants, animals, and man” (In Six Days, p. 47).

Dr. Kramer, who holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Minnesota and currently serves as associate editor of the Scientific Journal, raises an important question. What does this mean for those who advocate that Darwinian evolution is a legitimate science? The answer depends on how one defines science. According to most definitions science contains three elements: observation, hypothesis, and reproduction. In a recent essay, Dr. Jeremy Walter corroborates this definition: “Science is the human enterprise of seeking accurately and quantitatively the nature and processes of our universe through observation, hypothesis, and experimental validation” (In Six Days, p. 47).

The problem is that no observable evidence has ever been found to verify and substantiate the claim of macroevolution. With this being the case it is the opinion of many leading scientists that Darwinian evolution is not a valid science. “Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities…Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science” (The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel, p. 31).

Second Law of Thermodynamics

A basic law of nature that contradicts macro evolutionary changes is the second law of thermodynamics. Dr. John Cimbala, Ph.D. from CalTech, offers the following definition for this scientific law: “A formal definition of the second law of thermodynamics is: ‘in any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy increases.’ In other words, in any closed system, the amount of disorder always increases with time. Things progress naturally from order to disorder, or from an available energy state to one where energy is more unavailable” (In Six Days, p. 201).

According to this natural law all aspects of the universe break down over time and become unusable. We see that every day, as buildings left unattended will decay and collapse; the same is true with anything that man constructs. Dr. Don DeYoung states that death itself is a consequence of this law. “The second basic law of nature…Stated in another way, everything deteriorates, breaks down, and becomes less ordered with time. Ultimately, death itself is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics” (Ibid., p. 343).

If death itself is a result of the second law of thermodynamics, how could life have evolved as explained by Darwinian evolution? In other words, how could life go from disorder to order – wonderful in its complexity and design? The cornerstone theory of evolution defies a basic law of nature.

Mutations and Loss of Information

Darwinian evolution also contradicts the laws of mutation. It is believed by most evolutionists that life arose from numerous mutations over million of years. Before delving into how mutations occur, it is first important to establish that the mutation supported by Darwinian evolution is macroevolution. A theoretical example of macroevolution is a bird evolving from a reptile. Now it is absolutely essential to point out that macroevolution has never been confirmed through human observation or even by the fossil record. The missing link that so many evolutionists speak about is just that – a missing link.

The only observable form of mutation is what occurs on the molecular level, such as DNA and different forms of bacteria. It is important to understand that this mutation, however, is not supportive of macroevolution. The reason why mutation on the molecular level does not support macroevolution is that these mutations always occur from a loss of genetic information, thus not allowing macro evolutionary advancements. Dr. Ariel Roth, a leading biologist with a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Michigan and an editor for the Origins journal for 23 years, verifies that for the above reasons macro evolutionary advancements through mutation are highly improbable: “…mutations are not a great breakthrough for evolution. They are almost always detrimental, and as such are more representative of a mechanism for degeneration than for advancement” (Ibid., p. 91).

In addition, Dr. Stephen Taylor verifies that all the examples of mutation used to support macroevolution are contradictory to the evidence: “For large-scale evolution, mutations must on average add information. In a recent book, bio-physicist Dr. Lee Spetner shows with detailed probabilistic analysis that this is completely precluded. He examines the classic textbook cases of mutations cited in favor of neo-Darwinism evolution and shows conclusively that, without exception, they are all losses of information. There is so such thing as a mutation that adds information” (Ibid., p. 307).

For macroevolution to occur it is fact that additional genetic information is required which according to the above sources cited, this simply does not happen. Without additional genetic information it would be impossible for a bird to evolve from a retile or a bear to evolve from a whale, as speculated in Darwin’s book Origin of the Species.

Complexity of Creation

The last point of evidence to examine is the complexity of creation. Few areas of study are more fascinating than the intricacies of this universe. Most people live their mundane lives without ever asking, “How did all this come to be?” Yahweh’s creation is truly an awesome work once we understand the complexity of this universe.

Physicist Paul Davis offers this remarkable observation, “It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather carefully thought out…The seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design” (The Case for a Creator, p. 125).

What Dr. Davis is stating is this – this universe is far too complex for chance and time to be the basis for its existence. For example, consider for a just the moment the distance of the earth from the sun. If the earth were any closer to the sun it would be too hot to support life and if the earth were any farther from the sun it would be too cold to support life. The earth is exactly the right distance away and has the right elements to support life. In this way, the earth is unique from its other planetary neighbors in the galaxy. Science knows of no other planet in this galaxy or in fact in this universe that shares these necessary phenomena.

Because of the complexity of this universe many believe that such theories as natural selection cannot account for its existence. For example, Dr. Roth offers this astonishing revelation, “The problem is that the very system of natural selection which Darwin proposed will tend to eliminate the interdependent parts of complex systems as these systems develop. The parts do not function until all the interdependent parts are present and the system works and provides some survival value to the organism” (In Six Days, p. 90).

What Dr. Roth is proposing is that the theory of natural selection, which puts forward the notion of mutation for the purpose of survival, does not explain or offer a probable explanation for the complexity and interdependencies of life; in fact, this theory is counter intuitive to the universe. Evolutionists advocate the idea that all life arose from mutation through the process of natural selection; however, the process of natural selection would advance an organism only if that advancement served some sort of survival value. Since mutation can serve no survival value until all the parts were complete and working, such theories as natural selection do not offer an adequate explanation for Darwinian evolution via mutation.

Evolution has a big problem. For instance, the first man would have no need of blood clotting mechanisms until he cut himself. But by then it would be too late and he would bleed to death. This survival mechanism has to be working by the time he first cuts himself. But evolution says it would not exist until something like a cut in the flesh makes it necessary to exist. So our first man bleeds to death and the human species ceases to survive, according to the logic of evolution! Many other similar and complex self-preservation mechanisms are built into human and animal bodies that must work right the very first time or else the animal or human dies. Evolution’s basic premise of millions of years of development cannot explain or answer this quandary.

One of the foremost men in the field of creation and author of Darwin’s Black Box and 20-year professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Dr. Michael Behe offers this significant observation about the complexity of the human body: “Evolution can’t produce an irreducibly complex biological machine suddenly, all at once, because it’s much too complicated. The odds against that would be prohibitive. And you can’t produce it directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor system would be missing a part and consequently couldn’t function. There would be no reason for it to exist. And natural selection chooses systems that are already working” (The Case for a Creator, p. 198).

Those who have taken time to study the human body know its awesome design. The complexity of a single DNA strand is far too complicated to evolve unguided through mere chance. According to Dr. Jonathon Sarfati, a physical chemist, the amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA could fill a pile of “paperback books 500 times as tall as the distance from earth to the sun” (In Six Days, p. 80). In another analogy, Dr. John Marcus, who received his Ph.D. in biological chemistry from the University of Michigan, states that the information in one human DNA cell could “fill almost 1,000 books, each containing 1,000 pages of text” (Ibid., p. 174).

No matter what aspect of this breathtakingly complex universe we consider, the fingerprint of Almighty Yahweh is stamped on everything we see. As it written in Psalm 19:1: “The heavens declare the glory of Elohim and the firmament shows his handiwork.” There is no other explanation for the creation of this universe other than Yahweh’s direct hand (Ps. 150:6).

The evolutionary theory has been the catapult for today’s secular movement. In what began as a denial of intelligent design will end in a removal of Yahweh and His Word from the culture. It is absolutely essential that Yahweh’s people reject an irrational and impossible humanistic theory rooted in the denial of Yahweh and His authority.