Truth - Not Exactly: A Book for Truth Seekers and Those They Care About

TRUTH-NOT EXACTLY

A Book For Truth Seekers And Those They Care Aboutby

R. W. Mills

1663UBEKIYDRIVE, SUIE200

BLOOMNGTON, INDIANA 47403

(800) 839-8640

www.authorhouse. com

© 2004 R. W. Mills

All Rights Reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

First published by AuthorHouse 07/08/05

Library of Congress Control Number: 2004097017

ISBN: 978-1-4184-8523-8 (ebook)

ISBN: 978-1-4184-8524-5 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4184-8525-2(dj)

Contents

Foreword

CHAPTER 1

QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS

CHAPTER 2

THE SEARCH FOR REVEALED TRUTH

CHAPTER 3

IS EVOLUTION TRUE?

CHAPTER 4

HOW GOD FOUND ME

CHAPTER 5

MORE QUESTIONS

CHAPTER 6

IS GENESIS TRUE?

CHAPTER 7

THE MESSIAH’S TIMELINE

CHAPTER 8

INTRODUCTION TO REVELATION

CHAPTER 9

A HOLY VISION

CHAPTER 10

THE COMING BEAST

CHAPTER 11

JUDGEMENTS

CHAPTER 12

CONCLUSION TO REVELATION

CHAPTER 13

THE FINAL TRUMPET SHALL SOUND

CHAPTER 14

WAR HAS MANY FACES

CHAPTER 15

WHAT CAN I DO?

ENDNOTES

Foreword

There is an important distinction between belief and truth. Truth is not relative, but belief is. Some people think truth changes. However, it never does. What changes are our beliefs. Some people in the past believed that the earth was flat or that the earth was the center of our solar system. Their belief did not change truth. Truth is! If a proposition is true, it remains true whether or not I choose to believe it. If a proposition is false, all the belief in the world cannot make it true. Why? Beliefs are unable to change objective reality, although they do change a person’s subjective reality.

In the search for truth, we exercise elementary systems of empirical investigation and logical deductive analysis regularly. We do this subconsciously in our daily lives. This is what is known as common sense.

While many insist that they will not believe anything until they have personally researched and verified it, that isn’t practical. Firstly, who has the time? Secondly, who has the resources to check out everything personally? We are forced to depend on the trustworthiness of others. Therein lies the problem. Is everyone trustworthy? Obviously, the answer is no. Then how does one get to the truth?

In this book, I intend to challenge you, the reader, to reassess many beliefs which you have been told are true.

I have chosen not to have someone write a foreword to tell you in so many words how wonderful this book is and what a great author I am. First of all, who cares? You are reading this because you are a Seeker of Truth. I promise not to disappoint you. I do not promise you will agree. However, those who seek truth know the potential danger and are prepared for ideas that could cause them to reevaluate their beliefs. The level of anxiety and frustration will depend on the impact the contents herein have on your core beliefs. For some, this book will be completely freeing, in that they will find out that some untruth was holding them in unnecessary bondage. Truth, when accepted, has a freeing ability like nothing else.

TRUTH NEEDS NO INTRODUCTION TRUTH STANDS BY ITSELF TRUTH IS

CHAPTER 1

QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS

OVERVIEW

This book is one that is written to provide the reader with an overview at the macro level of many unknown truths as efficiently as possible. It is meant to get to the point as quick as possible, then proceed to the next and so on. Truth, Not Exactly covers many different subjects and topics that appear to be somewhat related. They work toward one purpose, and that being the revealing of ultimate life-changing truth.

Truth, Not Exactly starts off with the author asking all the questions that we humans ask, especially if we see or experience the unfairness of life. It lays down the ground rules as to what is necessary for a fact to be considered truth. It begins by identifying Revealed Truth given to man by God in a Book. That Book contains what no other book in this world has-the Seal of God. It has it because of two reasons, Revealed Knowledge and Prediction of Future Events. No other book has been attacked by so many untruths over the centuries.

Most of us, including myself, were educated and accepted most of our core beliefs without ever verifying and validating them. This is especially true in the area of religion. It is sad to say that how your parents raised you is probably what you will go to your grave believing. The question is why? Are we afraid? Or do we keep ourselves too busy so that subconsciously we can avoid the mirror test. I took it, and discovered that my core beliefs that I acquired unconsciously were absolutely detrimental to my future.

Once I decided to ask the big questions and then took the next step, what I found changed my understanding and my world view. I share how I uncovered for myself that the Bible was the only book on earth with the Seal of God. Uncovering truth can be done only by you as the seeker. There is no other way to know ultimate truth. I share what I found out about Revealed Truth as recorded in the Bible prior to scientific discovery, incredible prophecy, evolution the hoax, the fact of the resurrection, Bible reliability, the flood, angels, suffering, the spread of religion, the arrival time of the promised Messiah, the Messiah’s predictions, almost two thousand years of fulfilled prophecy from the book of Revelation, and the coming final events of this soon ending age. You will discover who the Beast of Revelation is, the time of power, the reduction of power, and the role today. I share what I believe is America’s special role and what dangers face us. This book is meant to challenge us to evaluate our core religious beliefs. I have observed that those who have not done their own research and study as to why they believe a certain religious view, become quickly agitated and defensive when challenged. This is because they received it second-hand and cannot defend their positions and beliefs with facts or logic. Why read a book that you may disagree with? It is the only way for you to evaluate how credible and solid your views are. For most people, choosing a religion is like choosing a flavor of ice cream—we choose what feels comfortable and matches our tastes. The issue is finding truth. Much more depends on this than most want to acknowledge.

I like what John Piper says, Millions of people are going to read. If they don’t read contemporary Christian books, they are going to read contemporary secular books. They will read. In airports alone, at any given moment, there must be hundreds of thousands of people reading. One thing we Christians need to be committed to, besides reading, is giving away thoughtful books to those who might read them but would never buy them. The ripple effect is incalculable. Consider this illustration:

"A book by Richard Sibbes, one of the choicest of the Puritan writers, was read by Richard Baxter, who was greatly blessed by it. Baxter then wrote A Call to the Unconverted which deeply influenced Phillip Doddridge, who in turn wrote The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul. This brought the young William Wilberforce, subsequent English statesman and foe of slavery, to serious thoughts of eternity. Wilberforce wrote his Practical Book of Christianity which fired the soul of Leigh Richmond. Richmond, in turn wrote The Dairyman’s Daughter, a book that brought thousands to the Lord, helping Thomas Chalmers the great preacher, among others.¹

I share in the forward of my other book The Final Trumpet the story of buying and giving a contemporary Christian book to my youngest brother Paul. He read it and was impacted by it and became a Christian. This is not as dramatic as the above examples, but this one is the one that matters to me. God has placed each of us in a sphere of influence which whether we understand it or not is our personal mission field for God. We are told that the world will recognize us by our love. We have been commanded to share the truth with everyone we know. Most of us do what we do because it will benefit us later somehow. What would happen if we actually did random acts ofkindness to people we know in our sphere of influence? The question is how much is the soul of a person whom you know worth? One of the best investments I ever made was the giving of a book to a person and planting a seed of truth. It may take years for them to see the Truth that God is and He has a great plan for their lives. Both books have been written to counter this generation’s second-hand beliefs that can be exposed by reading revealed truth given by a loving God.

R.W.Mills

Introduction

This book is about a journey in search of truth by an ordinary 20th Century man. I was born in the fifties in America and later belonged to a group known as The Baby Boomers. I am among a generation that has been given more choices than any other; educated by the public school system and various forms of media, especially the ever-increasingly influential television.

The development of my worldview began with my father, an atheist, who clearly ensured that I understood that our god was the one who put the food on the table-him. My mother, when selecting the name for one of my brothers at the local Catholic hospital, chose the initials L.A. The head nun was so aghast she exclaimed that my mother could not name her son initials only. My mother retorted that, if the nun did not leave the room, she would change it to a number, thus ensuring I would have no respect for authority as set by her own example.

My wife had somewhat of a more traditional upbringing. She grew up attending the Episcopal Church with her family, who were more of what one would expect in America during the fifties. However, they would repeat to her their generation’s indoctrination they had received. This would later not satisfy her desire to understand the real issues of life.

It would be an understatement to say the sixties were turbulent. Every value, concept, opinion, tradition, religion, and even most fields of science were being brought under scrutiny, and all were being challenged from every perspective.

The search for the truth is the most important work in the whole world, and the most dangerous.

James Clavell (b. 1924), Australian, and Kurt Neumann. François Delambre

The Columbia World of Quotations. Copyright © 1996 Columbia University Press.

My journey eventually led me to see that there was a massive amount of misinformation, propaganda, and hidden agendas. I had what I thought were simple questions; questions most of us end up asking at different points in our lives. I was naïve in my understanding of people, organizations, history, power, and money. I desired to know truth. What follows in this book is discovery and the unfolding of truth that would shock, disappoint, scare, and, finally, bring hope. I found out that just about everything I had believed was a lie/partial truth or supported by some other lie/partial truth. I reached adulthood on a diet of sound bytes and clichés. Did I have any real answers to any of life’s important questions? I wanted to know the truth but would the most important work in the world become dangerous? I understood dangerous to mean a willingness to change my present beliefs once I was exposed to certifiable truth. Below are some of the questions for which I earnestly sought answers:

•   Who is God?

•   Has He/She communicated with us? (I will use only He from this point for ease of reading.)

•   If He has communicated, will He allow us to find Him?

•   If we found Him, would we be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that He is the God of this entire universe?

•   Is this God in charge and is there an ultimate plan for humanity?

•   Does God care about us as individuals?

•   If God exists, then what is required of us in response?

•   Is religion manmade or God made?

•   Do all of the world’s religions claiming there is a God get you to the same destination, just on different paths?

•   Has traditional religion become passé with the new religion for the 20th Century being that which has science as its god?

•   Are there moral absolutes or are morals relative and/or evolving?

•   How do we determine moral values? Actually, how does one assign value at all?

•   Is there an ethical system that can adjudicate conflicts between humans fairly without resorting to whomever holds the power wins (might makes right and winners get to write history)?

•   Is life just a struggle to survive? Is there a purpose?

•   Who is correct—East or West, Capitalism or Communism,

Liberalism or Conservatism, etc.?

•   Is the world we see the result of evolution?

These are some of the questions contemplated. What follows are ultimately the answers that challenged everything I had been told and willingly accepted. I came to discover that the truth that was being broadcast daily was filled with propaganda. Furthermore, those in authority from their positions of power were clamoring, Trust us! Was it all, or any of it, true? Not exactly! This journey in search of truth became an emotional one in spite of a self-made promise to be completely logical and rational. Any quest for genuine answers to life’s ultimate questions leaves the individual seeking open to the possibility of changing the direction of a chosen course of action.

... the truth is hidden from us. Even if a mere piece of luck brings us straight to it, we shall have no grounded conviction of our success; there are so many similar objects, all claiming to be the real thing.

Lucian (c. 120-c. 180), Greek rhetorician and satirist. The Rival Philosophers, The Greek Philosophers, trans. by Rex Warner (1958).

Unanticipated answers to life’s important issues were discovered. Any genuine truth and/or conclusion will stand the test of time beyond a reasonable doubt. I discovered why it is dangerous to seek truth. It leads to a point that forces one to make choices. This removed me from my comfort zone. The truth is, it challenged me to the core of almost everything I believed to be true. How could I have been so easily led and manipulated? How could I have been such a puppet to the system? I hope what I share allows you to have the information to decide for yourself. It is one thing to render decisions based on all the facts. However, what those in positions of authority were disseminating as fact was calculated to insure their message of propaganda became the mantra of the masses.

I assure you of the following: though you may disagree with my conclusions, you will have the benefit of evaluating your viewpoint against another position. No one will be able to say you made your decisions and choices in a vacuum. My approach became: Please reveal all the positions and let me choose; do not choose for me by limiting the options. The history of the world has shown those in power, when allowed to decide what information flows, use words to rule.

We rule the world by our words.-Napoleon Bonaparte

DEDUCTIVE THEOLOGY

As a product of the 20th Century, I was instructed on the time-honored and once revered definition of science. Science, in a general sense, was the search for knowledge and the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The implied goal was defined as finding truth or facts or knowledge using the time-honored scientific method with its four well-known processes: observation, experimentation, falsifiability, and repeatability; add to this some deductive logic and purposeful reading of opposing views—hard as it may be to understand the value of multiple opposing views, you will find such an approach can only solidify truth. As President Woodrow Wilson stated, I not only use all the brains I have, but all that I can borrow. The collective knowledge of opposing minds allows the discovery of the strengths and weaknesses among the assorted arguments for truth.

I had been instructed that the foundation of logical thinking is the Law of Non-Contradiction. This simply means something cannot be both true and not true at the same time and in the same respect. Plato warned us Arguments, like men, are often pretenders. A fallacy is simply a faulty argument, one based on faulty reasoning or faulty interpretation of facts. All arguments were then taken to their absolute arbitrary point to expose their weaknesses. Purposefully and systematically considering, reviewing, and dissecting each side of an argument, I employed a simple method in which to make a decision as to what is truth.

As part of our legal duties on a jury, we are asked to review evidence and decide a verdict based on the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. In an effort to be extremely cautious, I interpreted beyond a reasonable doubt to mean that facts and evidence which support a truth become so clear that common sense cannot refute what has become obvious. Obvious means it is so clear as to meaning that it cannot be overlooked or missed. It yells and screams at you. To deny this fact of evidence of truth, you must lie to yourself and rationalize it away with intellectual effort. That is what I mean by obvious.

Most of us were endowed with a brain weighing about three pounds and averaging about 1400 cubic centimeters. It contains about ten billion (10¹⁰) neurons. The neuron (or nerve cell) is the basic unit of the brain. To put this into perspective, we will compare what humans have at their disposal to the following: the Cray-2 supercomputer has aspeed of 10⁹ computations per second, the brain 10¹⁵. The Cray-2 has a storage capacity of 10 bits—that means you would need approximately 1000 supercomputers to equal the storage capacity of the brain. The brain is so much more than any computer. Oxford Professor Roger Penrose, author of the 1989 book, The Emperor’s New Mind, tells us why: The very fact that the mind leads us to truths that are not computable convinces me that a computer can never duplicate the mind.¹ Did you catch his point? The mind can lead us to truth. Using the scientific method, in conjunction with comparative analysis based on the research of opposing views would launch my search for truth.

Science is limited to the five human senses in the pursuit of facts and truth. However, there are additional resources available to every human. One of these would be feelings. C.S Lewis warned us, The heart never takes the place of the head, but it can, and should, obey it. Science cannot prove that there is love, yet we see evidence of it daily. While feelings are not necessarily objective, they are real. We all feel love, and feelings can be used as additional validation of certain truths. Faith is another validation tool. We all use faith everyday. By faith, I assume that when I get on an airliner the pilot is qualified; the bridge I just rode over is not going to collapse; the food I just ate was not tainted, etc. We all take data and evidence to make daily decisions to trust by faith in what we perceive to be factual. Skepticism tells me what I cannot prove by reason should not be believed. Reason is not the end all by which truth can and should be discovered. I believe we should use all assets that are available; including reason, feelings, and faith. Each has its value, and each its weakness. And yet, used properly together, they are superior to any single one by itself.

I refer to the above truth-seeking process as Deductive Theology, which simply means that, after careful evaluation and overwhelming evidence·, a truth then becomes part of our theology and, by faith, we enter into where this truth leads—expecting to find further validation and understanding as we pursue answers to our questions.

I remember, as a young man, seeing painted on various walls and train track trestles God is Dead! Being raised as an atheist—I mean Bright (leading atheists no longer want to be called atheists, they prefer to be called Brights), my god sat at the head of the diningroom table every night. Are we bright? Not Exactly. Even though it is impossible to prove God’s existence by rigorous scientific demonstration, it is utter foolishness to make statements like There is No God or God is Dead.

To prove God is nonexistent is to validate a universal negative. I must be God to prove that there is no God anywhere in the universe and at any time. It requires omniscience and omnipresence as well, which are themselves attributes of Deity. Dogmatic atheism is an obvious self-contradictory argument. This was not a Bright position in which I was in possession.

How did I answer the big questions: Is there a God? and Why am I here? I knew the limitations of science. Science can only treat as fact what is learned through our five senses. The next limitation is that science has no way of directly examining data of past events. It can only make scientific statements on the past by assumptions that they are the same as today. Finally, science is subject to historical records of evidence. I next looked at the Law of Causality, which states that everything is caused by something other than itself, moving in reverse from effect to cause, thus eventually bringing one to a first cause. By definition, a first cause is always an influence outside the process. Applying this to the universe means that the universe is unable to bring itself into existence. One theory modern science tells us is that the beginning of the universe probably started with a Big Bang (The Big Bang Theory is the most known and still most widely accepted by scientists; even with new theories continually being developed). The Law of Causality demands a Creator or God (First Cause sounds more scientific). The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be transferred from one form to another, but it cannot be destroyed or created. It is known as the Law of Conservation of Energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics basically states that the universe is getting progressively disorganized. The theological implications of these laws are as follows:

First Law—unequivocally stipulates that the universe could not have begun life itself; conservation does not allow it (demands by law someone outside of universe).

Second Law—implies that, since the universe is not dead and since it is going to die in time, it is obvious that time had a beginning (a beginning that the universe cannot start itself).

The Law of Causality, the First Law of Thermodynamics, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are the most universal and best proved laws/generalizations of science, embracing all known processes/forces that scientists recognize and accept as true in the universe as it now exists. These laws demand that our present universe must have had a beginning and that the first cause of the universe must have been transcendent to it. Additionally, the first cause would have to be capable of creating an entire universe, infinite in extent, unending in duration, and boundless in variety and complexity.

There was another thought that perplexed me about the existence of the universe. Everything in the universe, after centuries of scientific evaluation, has been designed carefully along with a purpose, thus demanding a Designer. Let me illustrate: if you walk into a room and it has an overhead projector, there are only three possibilities as to the overhead projector:

1-   It created itself.

2-   It has always been an overhead projector.

3-   Someone designed the overhead projector with a purpose.

When I applied Deductive Theology, it is obvious that someonedesigned and built the overhead projector. This simple overhead projector needed an intelligent designer to exist. William of Occam (1285-1349) said this: One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. Occam’s Razor teaches a simple principle: When you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, one should choose the simplest explanation that requires the fewest leaps of logic. What would an infinitely complex universe require? Deductive Theology, when given overwhelming evidence, quickly concludes that this universe required a Creator with infinite power and abilities to act as the first cause. This meant I was forced to consider whether I was still an atheist. Science and deductive reasoning had forced me to abandon my preconceived bias and prejudice in which others had indoctrinated me and seek this so-called God that I was now forced to consider. This revelation caused me to acquire more questions than I had before I started down this path of enlightenment. Was I looking for airtight arguments? No. I understood that my search for truth demanded constant re-evaluation, unrelenting investigation,and honest inquiry into basic beliefs that had been acquired by me unknowingly. Each generation must discover truth for itself, or the danger of traditionalism becomes a distinct possibility. Arguments, positions, understandings, truths, and even doctrines that we hold dear without any critical examination tend to make us defensive when challenged by others. Gaining self-confidence born of personal study is one reward. However, the greater would be to know the answers to the critical questions about life. What I would find had the potential to impact everything about the way I would look at life and the way I would live out the rest of my days.

It takes more faith to believe an Equation like this:

Nobody plus Nothing equals Everything

Compared to an equation like this:

God plus Something equals Everything.

Ken Poure, Director

Emeritus, Hume Lake

Conference Center

Is there a God?

Where is the Truth? Remember, those who seek truth may not like what they find. Those who ascribe to a theological position usually take God’s existence as absolutely necessary based on faith, revelation, and authority. That does not support Deductive Theology, inasmuch as the assumptions are without direct evidence. This leaves one with more questions than answers.

From the previous section, the universal laws demanded a God in order for the universe to be in existence. However, I still wanted to understand what the philosophical arguments were as defended by other great minds throughout the centuries.

Arguments Supporting God’s Existence

I discovered four basic arguments. They were the Argument from Creation, The Argument from Design, The Argument from Moral Law, and the Argument from Being.

The Argument from Creation (Cosmological) is one driven by the universal laws of nature that are understood by science with their implications clearly demanding a Creator (First Cause) as argued by Thomas Aquinas. Even though the German philosopher Immanuel Kant-who is considered one of the leading philosophers of the modern times-rejected this argument, I believe it stands firmly on the three universal scientific laws as previously discussed.

The Argument from Design (Teleological) can support the necessity of God only if evolution could be refuted. Natural selection either created the complexity we see or it is a pretender, like Plato suggests, of certain arguments. If evolution fails to provide the overwhelming evidence we have been told, then the Design Argument would favor a God, or Creator.

The Argument from Moral Law (Axiological) indicates that there are universal moral laws that all humans inherently know and understand in some varying degree as absolutely right or wrong. If there is no objective law, then right or wrong value judgments are impossible. The act of denying values implies automatically that they exist. Either way, this argument leads to the possibility of a Law Giver (God). I have never met anyone, even those who deny such universal laws, who did not expect others to follow moral codes in dealing with them. I was raised as a street kid, had minimum parental instruction, and did what I saw as right in my eyes. However, I knew that certain things were just wrong. Where this knowledge or these feelings came from, I did not know. I wish I could share that someone had taken the time to place within me values (ethics) through teaching or training, but that was not the case. My father’s sage advice was to do unto others before they do it to you.

The Argument from Being (Ontological) is a logical dissertation that basically states that God must exist by definition. Since we perceive Him, then He is a necessary Being—He exists. Philosophically this argument may have value, but scientifically it is without merit.

Arguments Against God’s Existence

What were the arguments against God? By definition, true science is forced to consider the reality of God because of the laws of nature. The Argument from Being, by looking from the opposing direction as stated by Hume, Whatever we can conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. This argument added no real value to my search. It told me little. Perception is not necessarily truth. Just because I think it, does not mean it is real, or truth.

The Free Will of Man versus the All Knowing God Argument

In this argument, man has free will. If God is omniscient, He must know beforehand exactly what a person will do. Thus, a person is not in fact free to do the alternative to what God knows or chooses. The conclusion is that God does not exist or free will is only an illusion. The fallacy of this line of reasoning is that the options are given as if they are the only ones. Additionally, this argument has no evidence to validate its conclusion. What if this God can be all knowing and give to us free will at the same time? This argument will not help nor end the search for God. As an atheist, if I was going to believe in God, then why would He have the limitations of my finite mind?

Evil versus the All Loving, All Powerful God Argument

This argument proposes that if God can prevent evil, but does not, then He is not all loving. The next assumption is that if God intends to prevent evil, but cannot, then He is not omnipotent. Therefore, if God both intends to prevent evil and is capable of doing so, then how can evil exist? Proponents fail to realize that this argument does not succeed in recognizing the limits of being finite. We have no way of knowing why God allows evil. However, we cannot use the fact that evil exists as a valid reason to say there is no all loving and all powerful God.

These major arguments against the existence of God are not fully capable of overriding the scientifically based arguments for the existence of God. There are probably a lot of reasons for not wanting to believe in God. For example, I can think of personal accountability. I might not want a God who is ultimately going to hold me accountable for my actions. I had a lot of reasons why I did not want a

God. Truthfully, most could not be defined as logical arguments to deny the existence of God.

Decision Time

I realized the necessity of God in order for the universe to exist as it is. Science and logic dictated that I move to the next set of questions.

If God exists and He made the universe, then I would have to make the following assumptions: God did it for a reason and has a purpose. What that purpose is would depend on if I could find Him. It appeared logical that, if God made us, maybe He had communicated with His creation. With all the different religions, which one had the truth of God? I needed a way to decide. If God had spoken, then the writings would have a divine seal or signature on them. The communication must be unique and have content that no human could innately know. Observed truth is easy to find. However I was looking for REVEALED TRUTH by God. Using Deductive Theology, the evidence had to be so overwhelming the authorship could only be from God.

I started with a listing of the major religions and found out that Catholic, Islam, and Protestant faiths as well as Judaism, all felt the Bible was a divine book from God. Many of the so-called cults had the Bible as a foundational book and then broke from traditional interpretations, which was the rationale for them being labeled as a cult. Before I could decide who had the correct interpretation, I first had to determine if there was a divine book. I decided that, since the majority of the world’s religions viewed the Bible as divine revelation, this would be the first book I would start investigating.

CHAPTER 2

THE SEARCH FOR REVEALED TRUTH

THE SEARCH FOR REVEALED TRUTH

I approached the Bible with veracity to satisfy my principles of Deductive Theology. It was time to weigh the evidence. Would it be overwhelming? I specifically sought evidence of scientific truth centuries before modern day science had made such discoveries. In essence, revealed truth and facts that only an omniscient God could know and have recorded.

Revealed Astronomical Truth Prior to Science

•   Number of Stars: The Bible states the stars cannot be numbered. I will make my servant David and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore (Jeremiah 33:22). The maximum number the naked eye can see is around 3,000 to 4,000 stars. The Ancient Greeks mapped 985 stars. Science now estimates a million billion billion stars in the known universe, but believes this to be conservative.

•   Variety of Stars: The Bible (KJV) states, One star different from another in glory (1 Corinthian 5:41). Science has confirmed that every star plots a unique signature on the astronomical graph known as the Hertzsprung-Russel (HR) Diagram.

•   Height of Stars: The Bible (KJV) states, The height of the stars, how high are they? (Job 22:12). Science confirms there is no way for scientists to measure such distances. The greatest distance that can be measured directly is by triangulation. All others, such as light from the stars, require a series of ESOTERIC ASSUMPTIONS based upon other assumptions. Common folk would call it a guess.

•   Rotation of Earth: The Bible states, The earth takes shape like clay under a seal (Job 38:14). Clay vessels are rotated on apotter’s wheel as they are made and, as science has proved many centuries later, the earth, too, rotates.

•   Earth is a Sphere: The Bible states, He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers (Isaiah 40:22; also Proverbs 8:27). The Hebrew word GHUWG is rendered CIRCLE here in both verses (simply the figure formed by a circle turning about its diameter)—circle directly translates to sphere. During the Middle Ages, well-informed people knew the earth was round. The medieval debates centered not upon the shape of the earth. It was rather the size and the distance to the Far East. Would it be quicker to head straight west than the present route around the southern Cape of Africa? The great explorers knew the earth was round.

•   The Earth is Suspended in Space: The Bible states, He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing (Job 26:7). Man proved the earth was round by the 16th Century by sailing around the globe in 1519. However, complete understanding with photos would wait until the 20th Century.

Advanced Knowledge Thousands of years prior to Scientific Discovery indicates Divine input!

•   Runaway Star System Identified: The Bible states, Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead the bear with its cubs (Job 38:32). The King James Version states Arcturus with his sons; the New International version states the bear with its cubs. They are the same. In the 20th Century, science verified that Arcturus (or bear with its cubs) is a runaway star system. It is streaking across the heavens at an incredible 257 miles a second, as compared to our own solar system that moves at twelve and a half miles per second.

Astronomical Truth: Centuries Ahead of Science

Today’s Science All of the above are proven facts that the human writers of the Bible could not have known!

Revealed Geophysics Truth Prior to Science

The definition of Geophysics is the physics of the earth, which includes oceanography, hydrology, seismology, volcanology, magnetism, radioactivity, and geodesy.

•   The Earth Has Four Corners: The Bible states, .. .he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth (Isaiah 11:12); also, and after these things I saw the four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding ... (Revelation 7:1). The division of geography into quadrants is standard practice in all surveying and navigation. As obvious as this is, I noticed that Bible critics used the fact that the earth is round in an attempt to poke fun at the Bible and say it was technically incorrect. Was the Bible wrong? Not Exactly. Late in the 20th Century, science actually caught up with what the Bible had already revealed. The earth does have four corners. They are known as protuberances and they disrupt the normal curvilinear shape of the oblate spheroid (flatten at the poles and fatter in the equator) called earth. They were found near Ireland, South Africa, Peru, and the Philippines.

•   The Atmosphere has Limited Height: The Bible states, He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, spreads them out like a tent to live in (Isaiah 40:22). NASA obviously has confirmed this during the 1960’s with space travel.

•   Foundations Cannot be Known just like the Heavens Cannot be Measured: The Bible states, This is what the Lord says: ‘Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done’ (Jeremiah 31:37). There are two revelations here from God. The first is well known: science is still unable to tell us the size of the universe. Every time we increase the power of the Hubble telescope we still do not see the end. The second is that man will never know the foundation of the earth, what holds up the continents and what the composition of the earth