Prophesy 1:
One of the most remarkable prophesies in the entire Bible comes from the sudden reshaping of Israel from, "The Land of Nothing," to one of the most fertile nations on Earth. When Israel become a nation it was mostly an infertile wasteland. Israel contained 4.5 million trees when they became a nation, which seems like a lot, but in reality is not. Agriculture did not look like a very promising profession for the Israelites. They should not have worried because Joel 2:22-26 predicted that during the rebirth of Israel, "the pastures will turn green again. The trees will bear their fruit; the fig trees and grape vines will flourish once moreFor the rain he sends are tokens of forgiveness. Once more the autumn rains will come, as well as those of springThe threshing floors will pile high again with wheatAnd I will give you back the crops the locust ate! Once again you will have all the food you want." Remarkably, Israel's rainfall has increased 10% each decade since it became a nation in 1948. There are now nearly 200 million trees in Israel, a far cry from the measly 4.5 million when it first became a nation. The United Nations even said that Israel, a land slightly smaller than New Jersey, is the most agriculturally efficient land on Earth. Today, 90% of Europe's citric fruit actually comes from Israel.
Prophesy 2:
Of all the prophecies, the most amazing comes from the accurate date predicted for the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. In 500BC, written in Daniel 9:25-26, it was proclaimed that, "It will be 49 years plus 434 years from the time the command is given to rebuild Jerusalem, until the Anointed One comes!" 49 plus 434 equals 483. Persian's King Artaxeres issued the Hebrew Priest, Ezra, an order to rebuild Jerusallem, until the Anointed One comes!" 49 plus 434 equals 483. Persian's King Artaxeres issued the Hebrew Priest, Ezra, an order to rebuild Jerusalem in 458 BC. The date historians put the beginning of Jesus' public ministry is 26AD. 26 added to 458 equals 484. That is one year off, but the first year of the Common Era wasn't zero, it was 1AD. So 1 year has to be taken away from 484, which leaves, the exact number predicted in the Bible, 483 years. Just another good guess? Remember, that was written 526 years before it occurred.
How accurate are Biblical prophets, and how do they match up against other prophets?
The book, Shattered Crystal Ball, set out to debunk the gift of prophecy. The book studied the predictions of the top five prophets of our time and the results ended up being that they were wrong 98% of the time. That is terribly inaccurate when compared to the Bible's amazing accuracy of upwards of 99%. The 1% inaccuracy is believed to have been lost through translation. How is it that the Bible is wrong, in predicting the future, less than 1% of the time, while the best prophets of our time are wrong 98% of the time? The only reasonable conclusion is that they had received their knowledge from a greater source that could have predicted the future. God? Does history support Christianity?
Does History Further Prove God's Existence
An interesting example of Gods existence comes from the history of African nations, from ancient times to today. The black African nations were the most advanced and powerful of the ancient world. Biblical, linguistic, written, forensic, genetic and archeological evidence has proved this. I realize that many people find this hard to believe, so I will give some written evidence of a few men from those times. Around 450BC, the Greek historian, Herodotus, often called, "The Father of History," wrote that the Egyptians had "black skin," and "woolly hair." Genetic testing of Egyptian skeletal material found that in the 5th dynasty Egypt was 24 percent of the males were pure black, and 19.5 of the females were pure black. From the 6th to 18th dyanasty those numbers only shrank to 20 and 15. Take into acount that included the previously less advanced Northern Egyptians, who were called "half Ethiopians," in ancient times. Herodotus also wrote that, "the Egyptians possessed more wisdom than any man," and that the Ethiopians were favored by the Gods more than any other people. He also said, "the people of the North, who's skin is paler than the palest animal hide posses no man of any wisdom." The Roman writer, Lucian, claimed that the Ethiopians (term used simialar to Negro) were, "all else wiser than other men." Another Roman writer, Vitruvius Polio, described that the "races of the north, (were) characterized by tall stature, fair complexion, straight red hair," and "blue eyes." On the other hand, the southern peoples had a smaller statue, dark complexion, curly hair and "black eyes." In an attempt to claim Roman superiority over both people he wrote: "Now while the southern peoples are of acute intelligence and infinite resource, they give way when courage is demanded because their strength is drained away by the sun: but those who are born in colder regions by their fearless courage are better equipped for the clash of arms, yet by their slowness of mind they rush on without reflection, and through lack of tactics are balked of their purpose" The accusation of the Southern people's lack of courage is silly, considering Egypt and Nubia (Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia) had been nearly unconquerable, besides when fighting each other, for the most part of 3000 years when he wrote his passage. Nearly unconquearable because Nubia ruled over Egypt from 756bc-646bc restoring it to much of its past glory lost during Assyrian rule, and Egypt ruled over all but Southern Nubia for several hundred years. Nevertheless it offers a glimpse power and advanced state of Africa. The Bible backs up the claims of the advanced southern people. The Bible gives an account of the power of the nations in Africa. "the landbeyond the rivers of Ethiopiaa nation tall and bronzed A people dreaded near and far, a nation strong and conquering" Isaiah 18:2. If the African nations were so powerful, and the European nations so primitive, why was it that when the Europeans went into Africa during the 17th, 18th, and 19th century, all but several advanced nations were merely in the hunting, gathering, and farming stage living in huts, and small houses? (Although all but the Bushmen, and Pygmies were expert iron smelters) The Bible has an explanation. "Those who know God's will, but do not fulfill them will be cursed greatly. When much has been given to a man (group of people), much will be required of him," Luke 12: 47-48. All the African nations that were so powerful remained that way until either Judaism or Christianity became aware to them. Once they decided to keep to their old man made gods, and their old way of life, their nation either slowly or quickly fell. Egypt, Ethiopia, Philistine and Cannan did not begin to fall until they knew of Judaism or Christianity. This has happened to many other nations around the world including Ancient Rome and the advanced West African Culture of Benin in the 1700's. The curse that the Bible speaks of is 100% accurate in concerning the history of the African nations. "The Lord will let you be beaten down before your enemies You will be oppressed and robbed continually A people you do not know will consume the fruit of your land and all your labor The lord will bring you to a nation which you and your fathers have not knownThough you beget sons and daughters, they will not remain with you, but will go into slaveryYou will serve the enemies whom the Lord will send against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck, a nation who's tongue you do not understand Just as the Lord once took delight in making you grow and prosper, so will he now take delight in ruining and destroying you"Deuteronomy 28:15-69. That is exactly what happened to the people of Africa.
Of course God wouldn't curse a people forever as he has demonstrated. Today, 2/3 of black people in America live in middle class neighborhoods, while 3/4 earn middle class wages. Racism and discrimination are now obviously ignorant, and are becoming a thing of the past. The Bible predicted the change. "Provided that you and your children return to the Lord, and heed his voice with all you heart and all your soul, the Lord, will change your destiny He will again take delight in your prosperity, even as he took delight in your fathersYou only have to carry it out!"his is exactly what has happened. During the 50's and 60's the church was a stronghold of the black communities at a time they were being blatantly discriminated against. Today most people, at least the half way intelligent people, think of others in our country as Americans, not what they look like. The color of ones skin is now widely thought of as a foolish thing to consider for the first time ever in most nations. Many people still haven't come around to that state of mind yet, but they or their children will, when it is of God's will.
What about miracles?
A very close example, which no person can fully deny, is the unbelievable miracles that have occurred in God's name. For instance, in the Roman Catholic Church, to become a saint, there has to be two well recorded, and thoroughly investigated miracles that have occurred while praying to a deceased Christian. The first thought in many peoples mind when they hear that is that any person could just make something up. I am sure that has happened, but with the strict accuracy the Roman Catholic Church has for miracles they will admit to, it seams unlikely that much scandalous behavior has gotten past them. For something to be considered a miracle it has to be notoriously reviewed by a board consisting of five medical doctors, who must conclude that a miracle has occurred beyond a medical explanation. An example of their conservative attitude toward miracles is evident in a priest who was miraculously cured of blindness in one of his eyes. He prayed to the deceased nun, Kateri, to ask God for a cure. After he prayed, beyond medical explanation, he miraculously regained 90% of his eyesight. It seems like a believer in Christianity would jump on that as evidence of God's work, but the Roman Catholic Church did not see it that way. They said it couldn't be called a miracle, because he did not regain his full eyesight. "If God intervenes and works a miracle, he doesn't do it halfway," explained Peter Gumpel, a member of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the Vatican's saint -making body. That seems to be feeble-minded reasoning, but the Roman Catholic Church had witnessed and been informed of so many other greater miracles in God's name, that the restoration of 90% of an old priest's eyesight hardly made them lift an eyebrow.
Science is a Friend of God. How the original Hebrew Creation story coinsides with science
The teaching of the big bang should not turn people off from Christianity. In fact, it should bring more people to it. The mistranslation of the original Hebrew text has lead to an erroneously misinformed public. People have been turned off from the Bible because they believe it does not coincide with scientific logic, when actually, it is the only ancient religion that even comes close.
For instance, the traditional Christian view is that God created the Earth in six days, but that is not what the original Hebrew text states. The word we use as "day" is "yown" in Hebrew. "Yown" had four different meanings: sunrise to sunset, sunset to sunset, several years, and an age or epoch. There is no evidence that the Hebrews used "Yown" to represent one day in the Bible, but there is evidence it was meant to mean a much longer time. In Genesis 2:4 it says, "These are the generations of the heavens and when they were created in the day (Yown) of their making." Generations is obviously much longer than six days, and in says that the entire creation took place in a day, but we already know it had referred to the creation taking place in six days. "Yown" was meant to mean a great amount of time: an age or epoch. Each "day" or "Yown" has a distinct beginning and ending except the last or seventh. Each "yown" says evening came and morning passed, but the seventh day has no indication of a closure. That means the seventh day is still upon us. Hebrew 4:4-6 states, "God rested on the seventh day of creationEven so they didn't get in, for God finally said, 'they shall never enter my rest.' Yet the promise still remains and some get in-but not those who had the first chance, for they disobeyed God and failed to enter." All this indicates God is still resting and it is still the seventh day (Yown), which means, "age" or "Epoch."
Another thing that turns people from Christianity is the contrasting views of science and Christianity concerning how long modern humans have been on Earth.
The unfortunate opposing viewpoints lie in the mistranslation of the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus, and Adam to Noah. The Hebrew word used in the genealogies for son was "ben," but "ben" also meant great-grandson, great-great grandson, great-great-great grandson and so on. The same is true for the word we translated to father, which is "Ab" in Hebrew. In Daniel: Belshazzar's mother refers to Nebuchannezzar as her son's father, even though four generations separated them, and they were not even related. When the translated genealogies are taken at face value, the age of the Earth would be around 6,000 years. That turns most reasonable people off, because science has determined that the Earth and humans are much older than 6,000 years. Non-"New World Creationists" have scoffed, and laughed at that minuscule number, but the original Hebrew text indicates that we have been on Earth any where from 6,000, 50,000, 100,000 or even more years, which goes along nicely with God's friend, science.
Evolution? "Yeah Right" Say the Scientists.
It is a widespread myth that nearly all-great scientists believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. The truth is that most of the world's greatest scientists have denounced evolution because there is no evidence to support it. That's right, no evidence. You have heard of the search for the missing link between ape and man, but would you believe that there has never been a missing link found for any species on Earth. If the theory of evolution were correct it only makes sense that out of the millions of bones that have been dug up, we would have found at least one missing link for some species, but it has never happened. Evolution has turned into a cult based on blind faith.
In most controversial, but true things, we can find some of our greatest evidence for the truth from the critics. For instance, the "king of the evolutionist," Harvard's George Gaylord Simpson, has stated, "It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." Vocal evolutionist T.H. Morgan also has been a great help in debunking the theory of evolution. He wrote in his book, Evolution and Adaptation: "Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one specie s into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis. This must be admitted." There it is folks. Even T.H. Morgan and the King of the evolutionists admit that evidence points to a creation, not an evolution. It is also a known fact that in the Cambrian strata of rock, all the invertebrate animals on Earth just suddenly appeared as complex multi-cellular creatures with no known ancestors before them. What does this say about the evolutionists? They are a group of people that base their claims not on facts, as is erroneously thought, but on a blind faith.
Of course most scientists are careful in their studies, and base their beliefs in facts, not faith. The scientist Richard Goldschmidt pointed out in his book, Theoretical Genetics, "It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species, or genus, etc., by macromutatiion. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a new species by the selection of micromutations." From looking at the facts, he believes that evolution is so impossible, that he calls the belief that there was an ever slowly forming species, "hopeful monster theory."
Sir Cecil Wakeley, whose credentials include a K.B.E, C.B., LL.D, M.CH, Doctor of Science, F.R.C.S, and past president of Royal College of Surgeons of Great Britain has said, "Scripture is quite definite that God created the world, and I for one believe that to be a fact, not fiction. There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the theory of evolution." Harvard scientist Louis Agassiz, probably one of the greatest scientists America has produced, completely rejects evolution, as does famous scientist Sir Ambrose Fleming.
Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales wrote the heavily documented book, Why Scientists Accept Evolution, which contains many letters written by Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, and other evolutionists. It explains to us why these men claimed to believe in evolution without any scientific merit. It points out that these men indicated in their letters that they believed in evolution, not because of science, but because of their own hostility toward God, and unbelief in the supernatural.
One of France's leading scientists, the author of an eighteen-volume encyclopedia on zoology, whose knowledge of zoology, according to the evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, is absolutely encyclopedic, came out with an attack that demolished evolution on every front. Dobzhansky even went as far as to say although we disagree with him, we certainly cannot ignore him, because his knowledge is absolutely staggering. That just goes to show that evolutionists, despite being largely aware of the factual evidence against The Theory of Evolution, and the great amount of evidence for creation, still have the belief that evolution occurred. That is horribly unscholarly, and strange.
Sir Huxley, one of the world's leading evolutionists, head of UNESCO, and descendant of Thomas Huxley, actually said on a talk show, "I suppose the reason we leaped at, The Origin if Species, was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores." Now that's scientific evidence! (To be taken sarcastically, thank-you)
The facts of creation are so convincing that Professor Enoch, zoologist at the University of Madras, stated, "The fact of paleontology seem to support creation and the flood rather than evolution. For instance, all the major groups of invertebrates appear 'suddenly' in the first fossiliferous strata "Cambrian" of the earth with their distinct specialization indicating that they were all created almost at the same time."
What are the odds that evolution could have occurred?
In Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, he repeatedly referred to simple single cell. By the knowledge available to him he made the false assumption that the cell was actually very simple. Having a much greater knowledge of the cell in 1999 then we did in 1831 we know how terribly wrong he was. Today the cell is known to be unbelievably complex, being made up of hundreds of thousands of smaller protein molecules. Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson tells us that a single protein molecule is the most complicated substance known to mankind. What does all this mean?
The director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, Dr. James Coppedge, Ph.D., has determined what possibility a single cell has of being created by chance. His discoveries our staggering. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth were available, all oceans, land, and atoms. He discovered that to create a single protein molecule (remember that one cell is made of hundreds and thousands of protein molecules) by chance combination would take 10,262 years. What that means is to get a single cell, which is the smallest known cell to mankind called mycroplasm hominis H 39, it would take 10,119,841 years! That is just for one, which is only half of a human cell! Darwin had no idea that the cell was so complex. By believing that the cell was simple, as he often stated, the theory of evolution did have some scientific probability, but being the respected scientist he was he would have never came to his theories with today's scientific knowledge.
How long would it take for one cell to produce a gene by chance?
The time it would have taken that one cell to produce a single usable gene is even too long to comprehend. Dr. Coppedge has figured out that the time it would take for one single-celled amoeba to travel the width of the smallest known atom, the hydrogen atom, it would take thirty billion light-years! By the data possible to the scientist today, they reason that the Universe is only 15 billion years old. That means to produce one usable gene it would take a much greater amount of time than the universe has even been in existence. Yet evolutionist would like us to believe that things extremely more complex than this occur all the time, while of course not looking at the scientific facts.
According to the great French scientist and probability expert, Emile Borel, anything on the cosmic level of a probability ratio of more than 1050 to 1 will never happen. Now imagine the probability of producing one small usable human cell by chance, which is 10,199,000 to 1. Wow! Try to comprehend that. I don't think so.
If you are still questioning whether God created the earth or evolution and chance did, lets review. Take into account the probability of one usable cell forming, how long it would take for that one cell to form, the fact that all invertebrate suddenly appear without any known ancestors, the knowledge that all animals are seemingly, "not led up to by known, gradual, completely, continuos transitional sequences," as, "King of the Evolutionists," George Simpson has stated, the belief in creation by most of the world's greatest scientists, and the complete lack of evidence for evolution, admitted by the evolutionists themselves, and then try to believe that evolution could have occurred. It's silly. Now think about the prophecies, miracles, the original Hebrew creation story, and try to believe that there is no God. It can't logically be done. Now remember that the Hebrews were the only people to come even close to having a scientifically accurate creation story. So out of all religions the only two comprehendible, considering science, would be Judaism, or Christianity. But in the Old Testament it predicted that the messiah would arrive before the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed. The Temple was destroyed in 70AD, so the messiah would have already arrived. That knocks Judaism out of the equation, so the only logical choice could be Christianity. Oh yeah, Einstein believed in God.
There is much more evidence to support that the Bible and science coincide. Things are written in the Bible that the authors could have never known about science, things that were discovered hundreds and thousands of years later. It is a real shame that so many people, specifically logical people, have turned their back from Christianity because they have been taught that science is a factual contradiction, when in truth, they stand perfectly parallel.
A few of the Bible's accurate prophesies, the knowledge of medical miracles in Jesus' name, history, how science further proves the Bibles truth, is just part of believing in God. When belief in God becomes strong, then only personal experience can bring a person to a full unquestioning belief.