issue of YAHSHUA'S WITNESS MAGAZINE
was published for July-September-2013
Return to Magazines INDEX
Inside this Issue
FROM THE EDITOR
Forced Into a U-Turn
Great Witness of DNA!
COVER: Since our focus on this issue
is creation vs. evolution, we thought that this picture of a heavenly nebula
would be an awesome picture to utilize for our cover. The heavens are
mysteriously beautiful with many wonders to reveal in the coming ages. This is
what we believe. We do hope that you enjoy our focus on the battle that few are
waging, that is creation vs. evolution. Our stand is for Yahweh and Yahshua and
the wonders that they have brought forth. The battle is great. The enemies are
seemingly prepared and well armed, but the victory always belongs to Yahweh.
comments or inquiries please write to YEA, P. O. Box 31, Atlanta, TX 75551. In
Kenya contact Messianic Assemblies of Yahweh 7th day, P. O. Box 79007 Nairobi,
FROM THE EDITOR
OUR AWESOME CREATOR!
is so much confusion in this present evil world! No wonder its called Babylon!
If you listen to the scientists, the teachers, the leaders, the psychologists of
this world, then you will be greatly confused indeed! Why? Because they have the
mind of man, the mind of the first man Adam, but they don’t have the Spirit of
Yahweh the Creator, which is also the mind of the second Adam.
Yahweh begins His instruction book with the first five books of Moses called
the Torah. The very first letter of the Torah is the beit (b,
equivalent to our English
“b”). The last letter of the Torah is lamed (l, equivalent
to the English “l”). What the Torah reveals and teaches is the things that
should be on our hearts, which is leb
(bl) in Hebrew. Notice that the Hebrew word for
heart consists of the same two letters lamed
and beit (remember that Hebrew reads
from right to left).
He wants His commandments, His statutes, His judgments to be on our hearts (bl) because they teach us how
to love Him, and how to love our neighbor. They establish the paths of
righteous, love, morality, etc.
However, if we reverse the two Hebrew letters, then we obtain the word bel (lb).
Remember that Bel was one of the chief deities of Babylon who was equivalent to
the Canaanite Ba’al. This would mean that if our hearts are focused on the
Torah, then it will work on our hearts teaching us the valuable things of life.
It will give us the true sense of direction. But if our hearts are elsewhere,
then our worship changes from Yahweh to Bel/Ba’al. As a matter of fact,
Babylon/Babel is lbb
Generally, when the beit
precedes a Hebrew word it gives the sense of being “in” something. Take, for
instance, the very first word of the Scriptures which is bereshiyth. The Hebrew looks like this:
tywarb. The beit
(b) at the beginning of this word gives us the
idea of the English word “in.”
Since Babylon/Babel (lbb)
means confusion, the added beit
(b) would give us the short phrase “in Bel,”
or “in Ba’al.” This is exactly what Babylon does. She leads the people of
the earth to worship another elohim rather than the true Elohim of heaven and
earth whose name is Yahweh. This is exactly what Revelation 17 and 18 are
proclaiming. This woman riding on a great beast is holding a cup of mixed wine
that is intoxicating all people of the earth leading them to commit fornication.
Notice that the beast, the woman, the kings of the earth, and the merchants of
the earth are all complicit in this confusion (Rev. 17:1-6; 18:1-3).
Just to clarify a little more, the Canaanite word Ba’al, a derivative of
the Babylonian Bel, means “lord.” Yahweh’s name is the revelation of who
He is. Just as your name is the revelation of who you are. His name is supposed
to appear about 7,000 times in the Old Testament alone, but is replaced with
“the LORD,” or “GOD,” etc.
The word for name in Hebrew is shem
(~v). The shin
(v) is a picture of teeth. This is more clearly
seen in the more ancient Pictorial Hebrew (s).
With teeth we eat, consume, destroy, etc. The mem
(~) is a picture of water, also more clearly
seen and understood in the more ancient Pictorial Hebrew (m). Water is certainly
necessary for life, but can also become chaotic, and confusion when it exists in
large bodies like seas, rivers, lakes, etc. Therefore, the Hebrew word for name
(~v/ms) has to do with the
of chaos (m). Thus, you don’t know who
someone really is, you are in chaos and confusion as to who they are until you
know their name. You don’t know the true Creator until you have or know His
true name. You don’t know the true Savior until you have or know His true
name. As long as you continue in the false names, and false religious system,
you are serving Bel/Ba’al (lb),
and the confusion (lbb)
of Babylon (lbb).
The word Torah also means “law.” The Torah also contains the righteous
law of Yahweh. The creation exists according to physical laws that govern it.
Man understands that he must establish laws in order to seek to control society.
Generally, the right laws bring peace and orderliness. Without those laws, there
is nothing but anarchy.
If there are laws given to govern the creation e.g. the laws of physics,
chemistry, biology, thermodynamics, etc., and men’s laws to govern society, so
that there can be peace and rest, then what about Yahweh’s spiritual law,
specifically and especially the ten commandments? Those are given so that we can
find peace and rest with our Creator, but today’s world denies that they are
still in effect, in other words, “the law is done away.” But the law
describes what sin is, and sin is the transgression of the law (1 Jn. 3:4). If
there is no law, there would be no sin.
This leads to other conclusions, there can be no law without a lawgiver, or
lawmaker. There can be no creation without a Creator. The fact that creation
exists is proof that there is a great, all wise, extremely intelligent, awesome
Creator. The fact that physical law exists is proof that there is a great, all
wise, extremely intelligent, awesome Lawgiver.
The scientists of today’s world are given their marching orders. Those
orders are to do whatever it takes to prove evolution and disprove creation.
They scheme, lie, manipulate, do whatever it takes to seek to make it look like
the creation created itself. This is a worship of the creation without a Creator
as is described in Romans 1:25.
This assembly is dedicated to revealing the most awesome, incredible mind,
intellect, power, etc. in existence. Evolution is impossible. Everything exists
in a most wondrous state. We never think of the intricacies of a blade of grass,
or a leaf. What about the most seemingly simple cells? Scientists are searching
things out, but are not allowed to even think of “intelligent design.”
This author becomes angered and upset at the many documentary programs that
reveal this awesome creation, but fall far short of giving the credit to whom,
and where the credit should be due.
This issue of this magazine is dedicated to the presentation of the creation
versus evolution. We truly hope that you will be able to rejoice at the evidence
presented here and learn from it.
We are in the process of designing another magazine which will be similar to our “Do You Know Truth?” magazine, and our “Christmas Magazine” which will be called “The Creation Vs. Evolution Magazine.” We will publish it when we have enough articles to fill it. All of the article in this magazine will be in it, plus previous articles, and others not yet published. Please pray for our success. JH
RETURN TO ARTICLE INDEX
I was a member of a
“Creation forum” to which I had to pay a great deal of attention. My
attention was drawn to the forum when one of the members posted a remark that
evolutionists are intolerant. It seems that Patrick Henry College, a Christian
college that was established to serve home school graduates, had been denied
accreditation by the national group of colleges because of their stand on
creationism. At issue is the school's Statement of Biblical Worldview, in which
professors agree that all courses will be taught with the understanding that [Elohim]
created the world in six 24-hour days. In a letter, academy President Jeffrey D.
Wallin told Patrick Henry that the statement conflicts with the requirement that
"liberty of thought and freedom of speech are supported and protected,
bound only by such rules of civility and order as to facilitate intellectual
inquiry and the search for truth."
Now isn’t it amazing that if one focuses on
creationism and/or teaches it in their schools, it is regarded as being against
liberty of thought and freedom of speech, intellectual inquiry and even the
truth! Of course, if schools ban creationism (which the great overall
preponderance do) it isn’t considered to be against liberty of thought,
freedom of speech, intellectual inquiry and truth.
ENTER AN EVOLUTIONIST
One man posted this comment: “It is not a
matter of academic freedom, it’s a matter of teaching the facts. Religious
creation myths belong in the classroom of Comparative Religions 101 and not in
the science department. There is a vast distance between the academic and the
religious. Schools and universities are not churches.”
Again, he posted, “Intelligent design" (if
that means "evolution is correct but God did it"), is not provable. The elements of biological evolution ARE
provable. There is no such thing as "data" or "basic
understanding" of "creation" and "creation" is NOT a
scientific theory. It has nothing to do with the interests of science since it
is NOT science. Despite the futile attempts of the ICR to present information
couched in the language of science, creationism is a religious belief system
based on bronze age myths. There is no "data" to give science students
about non-existent global floods or talking snakes in fruit trees in a
legitimate educational institution other than to say "the bible says so.”
“I am no more opposed to anyone who wants to
believe the Genesis account as "fact" any more than I am opposed to
those who want to believe the moon is made out of green cheese, the earth is
flat, Elvis is alive and kidnapped by UFOs or that the earth is the center of
the universe. I am only opposed to attempts to invade the classrooms with these
beliefs. America is shamefully and humiliatingly behind Japan and European
countries in education as it is, particularly in science and mathematics. Most
college students cannot tell you where Lithuania is and think Plato is Mickey
Mouse's dog. The tragic state of American primary and secondary education is a
direct result of the influence on school boards by the religious right as well
as the lack of interest and funding of education by the political right.”
“At the end of the day, however,
"creationism" is a religious principle that has no role in publicly
funded education and will never get past the Supreme Court unless the political
right is successful in its long battle to deconstruct the Constitution or at
least unravel the 1st amendment.”
My reply: Well, these statements, and many,
many more caused me to get involved with this man who, I must admit, is much
more highly educated than I am. However, as we know, if Yahweh is with us, who
can be against us? Even though this man is of much higher intelligence than I
am, there is no comparison between the intelligence that Yahweh possesses and
what this man possesses. Therefore, how can I fear him? What if he makes me look
like a fool? Isn’t it better to be a fool for Yahweh and His purposes than to
take up the tomfoolery of the world’s wisdom?
He decries the fact that America is shamefully
and humiliatingly behind Japan and the European nations in education, but when
we had the supremacy over them, we did believe in a Creator, and prayer and
Scriptural beliefs, including creationism, were allowed in the schools.
Could it be that the reason that we are
lagging behind is because we have thrown our Creator and the power of His
marvelous works out the window? And a man like this works fervently to keep it
Here is what this man posted concerning the
word “theory”: “Let me explain that the scientific definition of a THEORY
is not the same as the colloquial use of the word that most people think is
"guesswork." A THEORY in science is an explanation that fits ALL of
the known proven, verified, tested and testable FACTS of an issue. ALL of the
elements of the Theory of Evolution are FACTS that have been proven just as ALL
of the elements of the Theory of Relativity are proven FACTS...just ask anyone
who was in Hiroshima 56 years ago.”
My reply: The word “theory” means
contemplation or a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done.
When one looks up the word “speculative” he finds out that it means
“uncertain, risky.” This would be the colloquial use of the word to the
However, as JK (we’ll call him this for
identification purposes only, we will leave his true name out of the picture)
says, the word “theory” implies considerable evidence in support of a
formulated general principle explaining the operation of certain phenomena. This
would be the meaning of the word “theory” as applied to science.”
Now, I must admit that I don’t get into the
in-depth scientific research and books, as this man does. While I do love (true)
science and much of its data, I simply don’t read the supposed intricate
detailed works of the world’s science books. I’m probably more like everyone
else, I read a lot of my science out of Time Magazine or some other journalistic publication.
But the articles are still quite revealing in
their nature concerning the words of the scientists and the attempts of the
scientific and journalistic world to pawn off their “theory” to the general
AN EVOLUTIONARY ARTICLE
For instance, Time Magazine ran an article in the July 23, 2001 edition
entitled “One Giant Step for Mankind” and the caption under the title read
“Meet your newfound ancestor, a chimp like forest creature that stood up and
walked 5.8 million years ago.” When I saw the magazine on display, I knew that
I had to have it because the magazine cover depicted the face of an ape (named Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba) with huge captioned letters “HOW APES
When one reads the article, he learns that it
is presented as factual. Science has definitely found a missing link to the
evolutionary staircase. There is no other conclusion. Science has the facts and
the facts support the “Theory of Evolution.”
But reading the article closely, one finds the
first statement of the second paragraph, “And it was here too that nature
indulged in what was perhaps her greatest evolutionary experiment.”
PERHAPS?!!! NATURE DID IT?!!!
Here are the last two sentences of that same
paragraph, “But while it wouldn’t happen until millions of years in the
future, this new primate’s evolutionary descendants would eventually develop a
large, complex brain. And from that would spring all of civilization, from
Mesopotamia to Mozart to Who
Wants to be a Millionaire.”
What a great leap! No wonder the caption under
the title spoke of “One Giant Step for Mankind!” In one paragraph composed
of five sentences the author goes from “perhaps” to a definite, emphatic
statement. Isn’t this what our scientists do?
After reading the article several times with a
highlighter and a pen for underlining purposes, I discovered the truth
concerning the emphasis that scientists put on their scientific “facts” and
their use of the word “theory.” The word “probably” was utilized five
times, “almost certainly” once, “what appears to be” once, “may well
have been” once, “somehow” once, “suspects” once, “mystery” once,
“presumably” once, and “maybe” twice. Doesn’t this show that the
scientific use of the word “Theory” is really and truly the same as the
colloquial use, but they are just too blind and arrogant to admit it?
The article says, “Haile-Selassie and his
colleagues haven’t collected enough bones yet to reconstruct with great
precision what kadabba looked like.” Yet, the artistic depictions of this supposed ape-like,
hominid creature make it look like a very stately, tall creature that has the
characteristics of both ape and human.
While stating that the creature was more chimp
like in stature and size, they state, “But unlike the chimp or any of the
other modern apes that amble along on four limbs, kadabba almost certainly walked upright much of the time.” Then in
the next paragraph they say, “Exactly how this hominid walked is still something of a mystery, though with a different skeletal structure,
its gait would have been unlike ours.”
Does “almost certainly” convey fact or
does it only speculate? If how they walked is still “something of a mystery”
does that convey fact or does it only speculate?
Interestingly, this statement is made, “But
armed with knowledge about our ancestor’s physical attributes and the
environment that surrounded them, scientists have come up with several theories.” SEVERAL THEORIES?!!! My, my, my, it
sounds as if there PROBABLY are about as many theories about this creature as there
are scientists. It sounds like several scientists have taken the same basic
“FACTS” and have interpreted them differently.
DISAGREEMENT IN THE CAMP
One Paleontologist presented this scenario,
“If you’re moving into more open country with grasslands and bushes and
things like this, and eating a lot of fruits and berries coming off low bushes, there is a hell of an advantage to be able
to reach higher. That’s why the gerenuk [a type of antelope] evolved its long
neck and stands on its hind legs, and why the giraffe evolved its long neck.
There’s strong pressure to be able to reach a wider range of levels.”
A giraffe needs a long neck to eat off of low
bushes? A gerenuk needs a long neck and to be able to stand on two legs to eat
off of low bushes? Just how low were those bushes? And why didn’t man evolve
to be much taller and stronger with a longer neck and arms and legs so he could
compete with creatures like the giraffe and the gerenuk? Besides, why didn’t
the giraffe or the gerenuk just evolve into apes and monkeys and then they could
climb up to the higher places if they needed to stretch for their food? The
statement made by this certain paleontologist wasn’t the brightest of
statements, but then she is the scientist and scientists can get away with
silliness because, after all, they are the higher educated. They are the ones
who are able to take all of the facts and make brilliant conjectures,
speculations and theories based on those facts, and no matter if they all
disagree with each other and they all have their own idea or theory different
from the other scientists, but based on the same facts; it just isn’t kosher
to allow someone who hasn’t been taught at the feet of the world’s college
and university professors to have any say in the matter. Especially, if we
lesser species of the human race believe in something as mythical as the Holy
Other scientists disagree with the deductions
of Mr. Selassie concerning his supposed important find. It is stated, “But not
everyone buys the story. Indeed, the French and Kenyan team that presented a 6
million-year-old fossil last December insists that theirs, known as Orrorin tugenesis (or, more familiarly, Millennium Man because
it was announced in 2000), is the true human ancestor and that Ardipithecus is nothing more than a monkey’s uncle—or
a chimp’s great-great-grandfather, anyway. They even dismiss Lucy and her
close kin, about as firmly entrenched in the human lineage as you can get, as
evolutionary dead ends that left no living descendants.”
Of course, once again, only scientists are
allowed to disagree and denounce the veracity of the findings and even reveal
the real truth of the matter. It is taboo to allow a non-scientist to look at
the various statements concerning the evolutionist’s pet ideas and speak ill
What the scientists are struggling for, but,
of course, don’t want this truth to come out, is they are competing for the
distinctive honor of making some great discovery in order to be awarded a Nobel
Prize. Therefore, there will be, and has been, a lot of in-fighting as has been
revealed here. But this in-fighting between them will help to reveal the real
truth. There will be charge and counter charge, each desiring to exalt his own
personal find and idea over the other and if the public will just learn to read
between the lines and pay heed to the statements made, they will learn the truth
of the matter.
Evolution teaches that everything evolved
through “natural selection.” but let’s look at some statements made about
this subject creature, “And while the ability to walk on two legs probably started out as an increasingly frequent
behavior, evolution demands an explanation for why it persisted. On first blush,
bipedalism just doesn’t
make much sense. For our
earliest ancestors, it would have been slower than walking on all fours, while
requiring the same amount of energy. Says Lovejoy bluntly: ‘It’s unnatural. It’s
UNNATURAL?!!! BIZARRE?!!! But I thought that
evolution comes about through NATURAL SELECTION, not something that is UNNATURAL
and BIZARRE! Isn’t it interesting that the scientists can step out of their
own realm of natural selection and declare something to be unnatural once in
awhile, and still teach the idea of NATURAL SELECTION?!
The article goes on to say, “Yet the
advantages of walking upright were somehow so great that the behavior endured through thousands of generations.
Indeed, the anatomy of our ancestors underwent all sorts of basic changes to
accommodate this new way of moving. Many of the changes help the body stay
balanced by stabilizing the weight-bearing leg and keeping the upper torso
centered over the feet. Lovejoy, who studies the anatomy and biomechanics of
locomotion, thinks the changes may have improved coordination as
well. ‘To walk upright in a habitual way, you have to do so in synchrony,’
he says, ‘If the ligaments and muscles are out of synch, that leads to
injuries. And then you’d be cheetah meat.’”
Isn’t it amazing! There had to be changes in
the skeletal structure, especially the spine, pelvis, leg bones, foot bones,
etc. On top of all that there had to be muscular changes and the balance of the
body had to be changed. Then, to finish it all off, it all had to be properly
synchronized. It really does sound UNNATURAL and BIZARRE doesn’t it?
Now the question is, Without the knowledge to
make and utilize complex tools, without the ability to even begin to gather,
recognize and utilize the knowledge that man has available today, how did some
unintelligent creature, some animal, decide to redesign itself in order to
fulfill different needs? And these creatures had to be able do this without even
knowing what they were doing to begin with!
With all of the knowledge and ability that man
has today, why can’t we just decide to redesign ourselves to fit the needs
that we face on a daily basis? After all, some of the modern day evolutionist
are beginning to speculate that many of the supposed changes that took place in
the distant past did so much more quickly than the much slower rate of change
over millions of years taught in earlier years.
Remember that this statement was made,
an explanation for why it
persisted. So why don’t evolutionists demand the explanation? Why don’t
evolutionists demand an explanation for something UNNATURAL to have taken place
through a process they call NATURAL SELECTION?
AN IMPORTANT ADMISSION
One of the most important paragraphs of the
whole article states, “...if you’re going to bring home the bacon, or the
Miocene equivalent, it helps to have your hands free to carry it. Over time,
female apes would choose to mate only with those males who brought them food—presumably the ones who were best adapted for upright
walking. Is that the way it actually happened? Maybe, but we may never know for
sure. Leakey, for one, is unconvinced. ‘There are all sorts of
hypotheses,’ she says, ‘and they are all fairy tales really because you
can’t prove anything.’”
Now here is an honest statement, the proof of
the pudding, and the real truth of the matter. As we have seen, there are many
so-called theories, which are deducted by different scientists who have their
so-called facts before them. We have already seen that in reality, their
Theories of Evolution really fit the colloquial use of the term “Theory”
rather than the declared scientific version. To review, the colloquial version
of “Theory” means to contemplate, speculate, uncertain, risky, etc. The
scientific version of “Theory” means a formulation of apparent relationships
or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified
to some degree.
In reality, their “theories” are
“hypotheses” as Leakey stated, which imply an inadequacy
in support of an explanation that is tentatively inferred, often as a basis for further
Isn’t it amazing that these scientists
accuse creationists of believing in some Bronze Age myths, and yet, they will
admit that they can’t prove anything, so what they are believing in is nothing
more than FAIRY TALES?!!
The Time article quotes, “In the case of Ardipithecus, says Donald Johanson, professor of
anthropology and director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State
University (and the man who discovered Lucy back in 1974), ‘when you put 5.5
million-year-old fossils together with 4.4 million-year-old ones as members of
the same species, you’re not taking into consideration that these could be
twigs on a tree. Everything’s been forced into a straight line. (pp. 60-61)
Once again, a very revealing statement! The
truth of the matter is that scientists are FORCING this blasphemous evolutionary
theory on themselves and the unsuspecting, uneducated public when they
themselves don’t even know how it fits into the scheme of things.
As JK said, they have all the FACTS, but then
he says that they don’t have ALL THE FACTS. I understand what he means by
making this paradoxical statement. He means that, while they don’t have all
the facts, all the facts that they do have points to evolution. However, his own
colleagues admit that there are all sorts of hypotheses, which are really fairy
tales, because they can’t prove anything. Then another colleague admits that
they are taking the facts and FORCING them into whatever suits their fancy
without taking other realities into consideration. Such is the science (falsely
so-called) of evolution, “keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding
profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which
some professing have erred concerning the faith,” 1 Tim. 6:20-21.
The article continues, “Beyond that, he’s
dubious about categorizing the 5.2 million-year-old toe bone with the rest of
the fossils: not only is it separated in time by several hundred thousand years,
but it was also found some 10 miles away from the rest.
Orrorin turns out to be a hominid, the same
skepticism will apply to any claims about its pivotal position on the family
tree. According to University of Tokyo paleontologist Gen Suwa, a co-discoverer
of the 4.4 million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus, Orrorin could well be ancestral to the new Ardipithecus remains, rather than the other way around. ‘There is nothing in the
fossils, he says, ‘that would preclude such a position. But which side of the
chimp-homonid split Orrorin occupies can be determined only by further analyses and new finds.’
Indeed, suggests Haile-Selassie, while Orrorin may be one of the earliest chimps or an ape that
became extinct, it could also turn out to be the last common ancestor of humans
and chimps—a creature paleontologists have been dreaming of finding for decades. (p. 61)
Notice that! They are dreaming of finding the
last common ancestor of humans and chimps. They have been dreaming of this for
decades and still haven’t found it. As a matter of fact, science has been
dreaming up this theory of evolution for decades and that’s exactly what it
is, A DREAM! By their own admissions, they have found no proof and all they can
do is speculate, theorize (the colloquial use) and dream.
Continuing with the article, “One of the
most intriguing questions the new discoveries raise, says Bernard Wood,
a professor of human origins at George Washington University, is whether
bipedalism should still be considered the defining characteristic of being
human. After all, all birds have wings, but not all creatures with wings are
birds. It’s already clear that eastern Africa was bubbling with evolutionary experiments 6 million years ago. Maybe two-legged walking evolved independently in
several branches of the primate family. Says Wood: ‘This might be the first example of a creature it’s not
possible to label as hominid ancestor or chimp ancestor. But that doesn’t make
it the last common ancestor of both. I think it’s going to be very hard to pin
the tail on that donkey.” (p. 61)
Six million years ago eastern Africa was
bubbling with evolutionary experiments? How does he know that these were
evolutionary experiments? Did you notice the words “intriguing questions,”
“maybe,” “This MIGHT BE”? They don’t sound very positive to this
author. They just sound like conjecture, suppositions, impossible theories, etc.
What about all of the animals that are lower than man? Are they still
experimenting to become equivalent or superior to man?
Notice his statement that all birds have
wings. How true, but some of the birds with wings can’t fly. Why do they still
have wings? According to the Evolutionary Theory, if something is needed, then
the creature can create whatever is necessary to fulfill that need. When
something is no longer needed, then it eliminates it. Why is it that when man
finds ancient apelike bones he always tries to fit the creature into a relative
of man’s past? There is a surprising answer to this which you will find out if
you continue to read this article.
The Scriptures (Yahweh’s Word, in case any
scientists happen to read this article) say that man was created in the image of
His Creator, “And Elohim said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, after Our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl
of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth.’ So Elohim created man in His own image,
in the image of Elohim created He him; male and female created He them,” Gen.
Scream and kick and deny as the scientists
will, this is a true scientific statement. Much more true than their
speculations that they have been dreaming up. Man was made in His Creator’s
image and likeness and given dominion over the earth. Isn’t that what happens
when man moves into an area of the earth. Doesn’t he begin to dominate or rule
Doesn’t man exist as male and female? If man
descended from a lowly amoeba or some other so-called simple single celled
creature, how did he evolve into the male and female sex, and why do that since
it would be much more convenient to just multiply by dividing like those cells
We always hear the statement, “There is no
such thing as a FREE LUNCH,” even though there may be some in our society who
believe that there is, because they are on the receiving end. But those on the
giving end understand the truth of the matter, don’t they?
Well, if we understand that there is really no
such thing as a free lunch, then how can we also believe that something (the creation as it exists) comes from
NOTHING? And if what we see today, did come from something (and it did), then
how did it get here and develop into the organized world that we are living in?
Science postulates that everything came forth
from some kind of “BIG BANG” billions upon billions of years ago, but the
problem is that by their own calculations, if everything we see in the heavens
and earth were all collected into one huge body, the gravitational pulls would
be so great that it wouldn’t be able to escape, but it would rather collapse
in upon itself.
There had to be some power behind it all and
the Scriptures reveal that the power behind it all was Yahweh and His Word. The
Scriptures truthfully and scientifically state, “By the Word of Yahweh were
the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth...For He
spake and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast,” Psa. 33:6, 9.
Again, it says, “Thou sendest forth Thy
spirit, they are created: and Thou renewest the face of the earth,” Psa.
Now, the scientists can charge that these
statements are nothing more than Bronze Age myths and have nothing to do with
science, but if they are true (and they are) then they are TRUE SCIENCE! And the
scientists are all wet behind the ears.
Man truly lives in a state of frustration and
confusion in today’s world. Yes, there is confusion, much confusion in
religion. There is disagreement and confusion concerning what the Scriptures
mean and say. But we also have confusion and disagreement in the scientific
world. The article that we just dealt with reveals the disagreement and
confusion in the scientific world.
There are scientists who do believe in the
Creator, but evolutionary scientists disbelieve and discount their words, as
much as they will the religionists.
But what does Yahweh’s Word say about the
confused state that the world lives in today? Let’s look at the account in
Gen. 2 which says, “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were
not ashamed,” verse 25.
The word “ashamed” is translated from the
Hebrew word “buwsh.” It is defined as, a primitive root; properly, to pale,
i.e. by implication to be ashamed; also (by implication) to be disappointed or
delayed, but this same word has also been translated as “confound (-ed),
Therefore, verse 25 could also be translated
as, “They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not confounded (or
Does this apply? Well, after the man and his
wife took of the forbidden fruit, what was the first thing that they did? They
covered themselves (Gen. 3:7). This would mean that they were ashamed and now
wanted to be covered so that their nakedness might not appear.
But didn’t they also become confused? How
can I say that? Because they sewed FIG LEAVES together making aprons for
themselves. How does this show that they were confused? Try picking figs off of
a fig tree. The leaves will irritate the tender and delicate skin and Adam and
Eve covered their most delicate areas of the body with these leaves. Besides,
how long will fig leaves remain in their natural fresh green state after being
plucked from their source of life? Not very long at all.
Man rebelled against his Creator, disobeyed
His word, His commands, and has turned to vanity, emptiness, chaos and
confusion. The Scriptures reveal that today’s world is truly called Babylon
the Great! Babylon comes from the Hebrew word babel which means confusion.
Man’s religion, government, education,
science, etc. is in a state of confusion!
ENTER THE MONKEYS
Yahweh had created man in His own image and
His own likeness. He wanted man to be like Himself, but man chose to be unlike
his own Creator.
Yahweh had commanded Abraham to be perfect
(Gen. 17:1). He commanded Israel to be perfect (Dt. 18:13). He also commanded
them to be “holy” because He was “holy,” (Lev. 11:44).
The Hebrew word for “holy” is qodesh/qadowsh
(vwdq). The first letter of this word is the Hebrew letter
Here is what the Jewish rabbis have to say
about this letter and this word, “The spelling of the letter @wq is the same as that of @wq, monkey. Twice in Biblical times when men forfeited their own image of the
Creator and denied His existence, their physiognomy changed and they came to
resemble apes. The first time this occurred was in the generation of Enosh (Bereishis Rabba 23:5), when people began to make idols and
call them gods (Targum Yonasan, Bereishis Rabba 4:26). The second time was when people built
the tower of Babel and tried to gain mastery over the entire human race (Chizkuni) and to dispense with God (R’ Hirsch). Subsequently they lost their potential
share in the World to Come and turned into apes, spirits, and demons (Sanhedrin 109a). The fact that the same letter q represents both kedushah and an animal that is
a parody of humanity offers a deep insight about man’s role. Man is created in
the image of God and is only a little lower than the angels (Psalms 8:6). Though he can never attain God’s
holiness, he is charged with emulating Him and is assured that he can scale
celestial heights. But he can do so only if his efforts are concerted and
sincere. If man acts as an “image of God,” his potential is boundless. If he
is merely a poor imitation of what man should be, he is hardly better than a
Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet by Rabbi Michael L. Munk, p. 198)
“The nineteenth letter of the Hebrew
alphabet is q, spelled @wq. The numerical of q is 100 and its energy intelligence is that of growth and holiness. Growth
and holiness are related to a pulsating unabridled force of the letter a, whose numerical value is 1, thrust into cosmic existence. And it is
related to the energy intelligence of spirituality, y, whose numerical value is 10. The word @wq means monkey or ape….When man does not
elevate himself beyond the ordinary, when man does not act in a way to create
sacredness, when man does not endow his situation with holiness, man is no more
than an ape.” (The Inner Meaning of the Hebrew Letters by Robert M. Haralick, p. 269)
“The word kuf means @wq, ‘monkey’; hpqh, ‘to surround’ or ‘touch’ and @qt, ’great strength.’ In Aramaic it means apwq, ’the eye of a needle.’ The Arizal
explains that the monkey is the intermediate state between animal and man. (So
do there exist intermediate states between the inanimate and vegetable, and
between vegetable and animal. The concept of the ‘intermediate,’ more fully
expounded in Chassidut, is one of the basic secrets of Creation, the
power of ‘continuum’ hidden within the ‘quantum leaps’ of nature). The
Midrash states that the descendents of Cain (who murdered his ‘human’
brother, Abel) ‘degenerated’ into monkeys.
monkey is a false imitation or ‘copy’ (from the Hebrew @wq) of man. The book of Ecclesiastes (Kohelet, tlhq, which begins with a kuf; the two subsequent letters, lh, allude to lbh, ‘vanity’) begins: ‘Vanity of vanities
said Kohelet, vanity of vanities, all is vanity.’ This alludes to the seven
vanities of this world (according to the principle: ‘the plural indicates at
least two,’ ‘vanity of vanities’ implies three vanities; ‘vanity of
vanities’ implies another three vanities; ‘all is vanity’ brings the total
number of vanities to seven).
to one interpretation of the Sages, these seven vanities refer to seven periods,
or seven ‘worlds,’ through which one passes in life. In each world one is
likened to a different creature. First, when born and placed in a crib, one is
like a king, to whom all come to bow down and give homage. At the age of two,
one crawls on the floor sticking his fingers into filth like a pig. Later, at
the age of ten, one jumps and plays like a goat. At eighteen one combs his hair
and runs after a mate like a horse. After marriage one bears the burden of
earning a livelihood as a donkey. Later, with a large family to support, one
barks after livelihood with insolence, like a dog. Finally comes the difference:
if, through one’s first six worlds of vanity, one remained close and devoted
to Torah, one ends his life on earth as a king, this time a real king (though,
the Torah of this world, before the coming of Mashiach, is itself considered ‘vanity’ relative
to the inner truth of the Torah, the inner essence of malchut [kingdom] inherent in Torah to be revealed by
Mashiach). If, however, one strayed from Torah, one
ends his life like a monkey. Thus, the monkey symbolizes the epitome of the
vanity of this world.” (The Alef-Beit [Jewish Thought Revealed through the Hebrew Letters] by Rabbi Yitzchak
Ginsburgh, p. 286)
So now we know why man always tries to fit
apes and monkeys into our ancestry. When man turns his back on His Creator and
casts His word behind him, the end result is a vain way of thinking. When man
denies that there is a Creator, he turns to the physical creation and instead of
reaching for the higher goals of morality and righteousness, as outlined in the
Scriptures, he turns himself into an animal and adopts animalistic and even
The Apostle Paul reveals, “For the wrath of
Yahweh is revealed from heaven against all impiety and unrighteousness of men,
who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which may be known of Yahweh
is manifest in them; for Yahweh hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible
things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even His eternal power and headship; so that they
are without excuse: because that when they knew Yahweh, they glorified Him not
as Elohim, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible Elohim into an image made like
to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beast, and creeping things.
Wherefore Yahweh also gave them up to uncleanness through the lust of their own
hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth
of Yahweh into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature (creation) more
than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen,” Ro. 1:18-25.
The theory of Evolution actually proves that
Yahweh’s word is true. Since man corrupted the image of his Creator not only
into the corruptible image of man, but also the world’s creatures that are
lower than man, the Creator has given him over to a mind that corrupts his own
image and background to that of the animals.
These men school themselves intensely in the
educational system of this world and profess themselves to be the wise all the
while looking down upon the creationists (who may not be as highly educated, but
do confess and believe in the Creator) with contempt and scorn should that
person question their findings, theories, postulations, etc.
Evolution is worshipping and serving the
creation as its own creator. Oh, even some of the scientists and evolutionists
say that they believe in God, but their god has to fit into their own
parameters. JK even admits that he is searching into the physical creation in
order to find a “window” to God. Even though the creation is a witness to
the powerful creative acts of Yahweh, JK and his other scientific colleagues
will deny that power and feverishly search and search into the far reaches of
outer space and the inner depths of the Earth, but he will never find that
window, until he repents, confesses that he is and has been in error, and turns
to the Creator’s own word, embracing them with all of his heart.
Let us pray that these misguided souls will soon see the true light.
RETURN TO ARTICLE INDEX
"We've made an awful mistake!"
Dismay was in Dean's voice. "A student has knocked
our theory to bits!"
Dr Dean Kenyon, Professor of Biology (Emeritus) at San
Francisco State University, was one of the leading chemical evolution theorists
in the world.
He co-authored "Biochemical Predestination", which claimed
1. that the evolution of life was inevitable…
2. that proteins to produce living cells were formed
directly by forces of attraction between their parts…
3. that proteins are just formed together (self-assemble)
in chains, directly from amino acids, without any DNA assembly instructions.
His theory was accepted with enthusiasm by the
evolutionary scientific community. But within just five years after publishing,
Kenyon suddenly had serious doubts.
It began when one of his students asked, “How could the
first proteins have been assembled without the help of genetic instructions?”
(Proteins were the necessary information to build the first cell.)
And then DNA was discovered. This would prove fatal to
Kenyon’s molecular evolution theory. Kenyon confesses, “The more I conducted
my own studies, including a period of time at NASA-AIMS Research Center, the
more it became apparent there were multiple difficulties with the
chemical evolution account.
“And further experimental work showed that amino acids
do not have the ability to order themselves into any biologically meaningful
“The more I thought about the alternative that was being
presented in the criticism, and the enormous problem that all of us who had
worked on this field had neglected to address, the problem of the origin of
genetic information itself, then I really had to re-assess my whole position
regarding origins.” (Unlocking
the Mysteries of Life)
What he now had to address was this: What was the source
of the biological information in DNA?
“If one could get at the origin of the messages, the
encoded messages within the living machinery, then you would really be onto
something far more intellectually satisfying than this chemical evolution
The astonishing fact is that inside every
microscopic-sized cell, machines work together to accomplish specific
jobs and are shepherded by other specially shaped machines to
precise locations where they are needed.
Learning this, Kenyon exclaimed, “This is absolutely
mind-boggling, to perceive at this scale of size, such a
finely tuned apparatus, a device, that bears the marks of intelligent
design and manufacture!”
OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE OF A MASTER DESIGNER
This is observable evidence of thoughtful, programmed
designing by some Superior Mind. Evidence of intelligently organized patterns.
MUSIC IN GENES
Something else. Did you know this? It was recently
discovered that DNA is linked to music!
If you like music, but think that you can’t carry a
tune, you may be wrong.
Respected geneticist, Susumo Ono, believes he’s
discovered music in genes – particularly human genes, fish genes and rabbit
genes. Susumo is a researcher in DNA.
He asked himself, If we were to assign a musical note to
each chemical on the DNA strand and string those notes together and play them,
what would DNA sound like?
So he did this – and the result was amazing.
He discovered musical patterns of notes, that again reveal
Susumo Ono was so astonished that he took his findings to
And musicians, in turn, were astonished to hear echoes of
Bach, of Schubert, of Mozart in DNA music.
Using the same formula for converting DNA into music, Dr
Ono worked backwards and translated Chopin's funeral march into chemical
symbols. It came out cancer!
Skeptics naturally point out that these strands of DNA
produce only a string of single notes; it is the musicians who fill in the
rhythm and the harmony.
But the bottom line is this: Whichever way you look at it,
the PATTERNS of single notes testify to intelligence as the source of DNA.
Certainly it is not from a blind, accidental force in
IDENTICAL TO WRITTEN LANGUAGE
But there’s more, much more.
Scientists at Bell Laboratories conducted studies on the
mathematical language in the DNA molecule.
And what did they find? Its mathematical pattern is
identical to that of conversational language.
Concerning DNA, Charles Thaxton states: “A structural
identity has been discovered between the genetic message on DNA and the written
messages of a human language.” (Charles Thaxton, “A New Design Argument,”
Cosmic Pursuit 1, no. 2, Spring 1998)
Hupert Yockey explains: “There is an identity of
structure between DNA (and protein) and written linguistic messages.
“Since we know by experience that intelligence produces
written messages, and no other cause is
known, the implication, according to the abductive method, is that intelligent cause produced DNA and protein.
“The significance of this result lies in the security of
it, for it is much stronger than if the structures were merely similar.
”We are not dealing with anything like a superficial
resemblance between DNA and a written text.
”We are not saying DNA is like a message. Rather, DNA is
a message. True design thus returns to biology.” (Hubert P. Yockey, “Journal of Theoretic Biology”)
Since there is no doubt in anyone’s mind it takes
intelligence to write a language, it is evident that it took intelligence to
write the DNA code.
INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED ‘SENTENCES’
IMPRESSED FROM THE OUTSIDE
Dean Kenyon was asked if DNA comes in intelligently
INTERVIEWER: “And is it true that when scientists peer
into the microscopic world of DNA, they find not mere random arrangements, but
well-written ‘instruction books’?”
KENYON: “Yes. Masterpieces of immense intricacy and
INTERVIEWER: “And you argue that these biological
‘sentences’ in DNA could not have arisen merely by material means, as
KENYON: “No. Just as the chemistry and physics of ink
and paper do not determine the order of symbols in a printed text, but that
order must be impressed on the ink from the ‘outside’, so also the order of
the bases, or sub-units, in DNA [adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine, or A,
T, G, and C as commonly represented] is not determined by the known chemical
tendencies of these individual sub-units, but instead appears to have been
impressed from the ‘outside’ on the sub-units to create just those sequences
that make biological sense.
The fantastic complexity and orderliness of the DNA code
– condensed into an incredibly tiny size – suggests the work of a brilliant
intellect rather than chance processes.
It suggests that much thought has gone into their design
– just as human beings use intelligence to design and construct computers,
Jumbo jets, space craft and other intricate equipment.
If radio signals were to be received from outer space,
they would be understood as evidence of an intelligent source.
Why then should we not regard the message sequence on the
DNA molecule as prima facie evidence of an intelligent source?
DESIGNED NOT TO EVOLVE
But that is not all! Gene code letters have built in error
Genes store information in long strings of DNA, in the
form of chemical letters, called A, T, C and G.
So that genes can be accurately copied, each gene consists
of two parallel strands of DNA held together by links between the code letters
of one strand and those of the other strand.
The two strands are not identical. That is, A’s do not
link to A’s, and so on.
Instead, they are complimentary. A’s always link to
T’s; C’s always link to G’s.
Donail MacDonaill of Trinity College, Dublin, studied that
pattern of linkages between letters.
And he found that they form a parity code similar to
computer codes, to minimize mistakes during the electronic transfer of
information. (Nature science update, www.nature.com/nsu September
Now is the moment of truth. No one would be so naïve as
to believe modern electronic parity codes could have evolved by chance. They
were carefully planned by software designers.
The parity code found in DNA is further evidence the
genetic code was deliberately created.
It also reminds us that DNA is designed to maintain
accurate copies and avoid changes in the information it carries.
This means it was designed to NOT evolve. But rather to
reproduce its own kind forever.
Come to think of it, wouldn't that
make evolution scientifically impossible?
By Jonathan Grey
Our editorial comment
concerning this article begins on the next article with the title The
Great Witness of DNA.
RETURN TO ARTICLE INDEX
Return to Magazines INDEX