The Dangers of Liberal Progressive Theology

In today’s climate of increasingly triggered “woke” millennials and wandering lost youth, it bears asking why is mainstream Christianity lurching steadily towards liberal progressivism? Why do so many churches accommodate and compromise for the LGBTQIA community and the rest of the alphabet soup folks as if the Bible deems their sexual deviancies and lifestyles acceptable? Is it because heretofore conservative values have resulted in the loss of their members and thereby loss of revenue? Or is it because church memberships tend to reflect the society around them and, as our society falls further and further into decay, this is represented in the compromises and watering down of Biblical principles by churches’ leadership?

These are difficult questions for which no easy answers readily present themselves. One might argue that just as academia and politics has been infiltrated by Leftist liberal progressives, why should the churches and religion itself be spared? The former flag-burning hippies and druggies of the 1960s rebel movement that spat upon returning Vietnam veterans have since become professors teaching social justice awareness at what used to be prestigious universities. These have become centers for indoctrination rather than centers of open exchange of ideas and cultivation of critical thought. Is it possible that these same emotionally stunted and sensually perverted rebels of the 1960s have also penetrated religious universities, spreading their drivel to unsuspecting youths and corrupting their minds? I would argue that this is the reality today, given the current state of most churches and denominations in America.

Turning our attention to only the most recent example of liberal progressive nonsense that pervades our institutions of religious learning, let’s first examine Union Theological Seminary. By reading their Mission and Vision statements it is abundantly clear that preaching Christ and his life of sacrifice and servitude to God’s glory as atonement for mankind’s sin is nowhere on their radar. Rather, social justice, the environment, modern science and ecumenism is their focus. This is an institution that cranks out theologians and reverends, devoid of any semblance of the faith in – and practice of – Bible based religion.

“Unfounded lies and accusations,” you cry. Very well, perhaps a demonstration is in order. Students at UTS are now confessing to plants. Yes, you read that right. Confession to Plants is now a thing. They proclaimed,

Today in chapel, we confessed to plants. Together, we held our grief, joy, regret, hope, guilt and sorrow in prayer; offering them to the beings who sustain us but whose gift we too often fail to honor.”

These poor souls are confessing to ferns and ficuses, who they believe are the beings that sustain them. This is what they’ve learned at the feet of their liberal progressive self-loathing professors, and no doubt this is what they’ll eventually preach to their flock if ever they have one.

“Well, but that’s just one,” you interject. Not so, for there are more of these liberal progressive hell houses that churn out false prophets and teachers. Take Vanderbilt Divinity School, for instance. It is another well-known, if small, religious seminary that has succumbed to the wisdom of man rather than the wisdom of God. As a result, they teach gay rights, feminism, environmental activism, and yet more ecumenism instead of previously held time-tested theological truths that had guided religious institutions of higher learning for hundreds of years prior. This can also be traced back to the social upheaval of the 1960s, as any student of history can attest, but it is rather telling that one of its more recent leaders, Joseph Hough, went on to become president at none other than Union Theological Seminary. Think of it in the context of how cancerous tumors spread, if it helps.

Now ask yourself, what can possibly go wrong in America’s churches when seminaries like these produce even a handful of preachers, reverends, or theologians that go on to influence unsuspecting people? Is it any wonder why surveys indicate that more and more Americans believe Darwinian evolution rather than the Bible’s account of Creation? And since we therefore throw out Creation, we might as well throw out the Flood, the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt, all the prophets and their prophecies, most of the New Testament as written by the “heretic” known as Paul, and what are we left with? I submit there is nothing left of any value to explain our current condition, why it was necessary for Jesus Christ to come, live, die, be resurrected and ascend to be at the Father’s right hand as our representative, or what hope we can have for the future.

This is what we can expect if we are to re-interpret the Bible as some of these theologians advocate. Instead of the Bible becoming more relevant to our time and place as they promise, it loses all meaning and power and is no longer the double-edged sword of truth that divides man’s soul to the marrow.

We can debate translations and various versions all day long, the Hebrew and the Greek, the apocryphal books and the other writings that may have existed before the Bible. In the end, we are left with nothing substantial on which to base our faith as Christians, to say nothing of faith in the supernatural or miracles. The result is that religion itself becomes boring and useless. Why worship some deity that we read about in a book we can’t have faith or confidence in, or whose hand we can’t see leading us in hindsight to sustain our faith in the future?

And then the problem becomes what to replace Bible-based religion with. Tragically, more and more are turning to Scientism and relying completely on man’s reasoning abilities instead of humbling themselves before the Creator of the Universe to seek His wisdom. They reason that a just and loving God would not do the terrible things recorded in the Bible, that He has limited Himself to operate within the bounds of human understanding and is constrained by natural laws that are immovable. These are but time-proven steps that pave the way to atheism. Along the way they become convinced God is no longer involved or necessary, that life has gone on for ages and will continue to go on long after they’re gone, that no one is coming to save them and that they can save themselves through good deeds. Meanwhile they never quite explain the actual mechanism of salvation, but apparently when the Bible promises new heavens and a new Earth that the redeemed inherit to their eternal pleasure, this can’t possibly be objective reality given that everything the Bible says in connection to creation must be equally mythical.

And so, they wearily trod through the rest of this life, not in agreement with those who take the Bible at face value and yet not in agreement with the rest of the world which lives for selfish instant pleasures of the here and now. Everywhere they turn, they see adversaries to their new-found “truth” or they end up convincing others to distance themselves from what appears to be dangerous theology. They experience little fellowship and dwindling friendships, all because they ignore simple truths:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding, in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths.” (Proverbs 3:5-6)

“My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the LORD. “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9)

Da Bears!

A grizzly-polar bear hybrid.

Speciationone of the central tenets of Darwinian evolution claims that when species become isolated to the point they are unable to breed with one another they evolve and separate into unique species with unique genetic and physical characteristics. The species separate into two – or more – distinct groups which, being isolated from one another, can no longer breed. The longer they occupy different environmental niches, the more unique and different they become at the genetic level, until they are far removed from the original ancestral line whence they diverged.

According to natural selection, one predicted result is that species which become thus isolated may be further threatened with factors such as diminishing food sources, over-predation, and loss of habitat, all of which may lead to population collapse and the species’ extinction. Therefore current conservation efforts underway and led by various groups are attempting to minimize and/or prevent this in species such as polar bears, for example.

They fear climate change will cause the extinction of polar bears, unwilling to admit that bears have adapted to environmental changes several times already, and would do so again if needed. Then again, that would mean accepting that adaptation is in response to change, and is the exact opposite of random mutations which may be beneficial if/when the environment changes. This is the evolutionist’s Achilles heel. They can’t have it both ways.

But one wonders: if natural selection has been operating just fine for millions of Darwin years, and we are the products, then why should we humans worry? If the polar bear isn’t “fit enough” then it’s only natural it should die off. Perhaps some lucky furry fella may experience that miraculous random “beneficial mutation” that will allow it to survive the coming doom, whatever that may be, or else it wouldn’t be random at all. Either way, it’s not our problem.

Another predicted result is that such isolated populations are subjected to an increased number of mutations due to limited genetic diversity. These mutations accumulate and negatively affect that species over subsequent generations. This inevitably leads to the species’ decline or complete eradication, unless new genes are introduced into the gene pool to offset the otherwise propagating harmful mutations. That’s one of the many reasons inbreeding is discouraged.

These are some strict predictions of what we can expect according to natural selection, as attested to by Darwinians (originalist and neo). Of course, we know that Darwin himself had no clue about genes and the actual mechanics of genetics at the time his infamous theory on origins was published. In fact, when Mendel’s work began to be taken seriously in the early 20th century, it very nearly demolished the then-popular Darwinian school of thought, had it not been for Fisher’s work rescuing Darwin by mathematically proving that populations continually increase in fitness over time despite mutations.1 It is also rather ironic that neither Darwin nor his friend, Wallace, were fond of sexual selection as the primary solution for biological diversity at the time. As we now know, sexual selection is paramount to genetic diversity and is required for all eukaryotic organisms.

Had it not been for Fisher’s work published in 1930, Darwinism would have died a much-deserved peaceful death. Instead, a new synthesis emerged which included Darwin’s ideas, Mendel’s genetics laws and Fisher’s statistics that became known as Neo-Darwinism. This “modern synthesis” survives to this day despite there still being zero empirical, laboratory-tested and reproducibly proven mechanisms demonstrating random mutations in action leading to new or improved species. In fact, laboratory and even large-scale population experiments are showing just the opposite: directed adaptation in response to induced environmental changes. 2 Therefore, Neo-Darwinism is another dead-end idea.

Luckily for those of us who wish to follow the evidence where it may lead, Fisher’s theorem and corollary have now been corrected by retired Cornell geneticist, John Sanford, and UVA emeritus mathematics professor, Bill Basener. The updated theorem was presented at the International Conference on Ecology, Ecosystems, and Conservation Biology in June 2018.3 After careful observations showing how most mutations are actually harmful , their work demonstrated that even very small negative mutations in populations lead to genetic deterioration and decreased fitness, despite genetic recombination during sexual reproduction. As one example, they mathematically proved that human fitness declines roughly by 1% every generation.4

Also according to Evolutionists, the time when polar bears and brown bears (among other bears) diverged into different species was thought to have been as long as 5 million Darwin years ago.5 However, recent comparative genomics studies reveal that these figures were wrong. More recent results now indicate that polar bears and brown bears diverged roughly no more than 400,000 Darwin years ago.6 For those at home keeping score, that error is by more than a factor of ten which is enormous. Maybe if we wait another ten years, that error rate will be further reduced by another factor of ten.

So, how does the definition of speciation and the strict predictions of natural selection match up with observed events?

Simply put, they are shown to be false:

  • Polar bears and other bears can mate when needed, producing viable offspring despite being vastly different genetically separate species. 7, 8, 9
  • Isolated (arctic) polar bear populations are actually not declining due to loss of habitat or other threat factors. Instead, they are maintaining and even increasing in some populations.10, 11, 12

Bears are just one example of natural selection and speciation being falsified in real-world life. I could cite other examples but would it deter dilettante ideologues? Hardly.






One in a Trillion Trillion

Supposedly, the first forms of life on earth were primitive anaerobic bacteria, since not enough oxygen was present to allow for aerobic respiration and glycolysis. Gradually, the atmosphere accumulated enough oxygen courtesy of cyanobacteria and diatoms that bacteria were able to defy the Pasteur Effect and evolved to use aerobic respiration predominantly. This is an overly simplistic generalization that is without any laboratory-verified evidence, but let’s not get discouraged just yet.

Be that as it may, let’s review a few basics from biology. Aerobic glycolysis is 38% efficient, creating 36 ATP molecules from one molecule of glucose. Anaerobic glycolysis is about 3-5% efficient, creating just 2 ATP molecules from the same sugar molecule. ATP is required for any work the cell needs done, including the assembly of amino acids into proteins which are necessary for all of life’s functions, including reproduction, metabolism, survival, etc.

The general formula for how much ATP is required for a protein to be made is:

 (4n)-1, where n = number of amino acids

The average number of proteins in a small, anaerobic bacterium is ~1,000.

The average size of those proteins is ~300 amino acids long.

An average-sized anaerobic bacterium will have ~300,000 amino acids, making up 1,000 proteins.

                (4n)-1 = ATP needed

                (4*300,000)-1 = 1,199,999 ATPs

So, a simple anaerobe needs to produce approximately 1.2 million ATP molecules to produce its essential proteins. These are needed so that the high-energy bond of the 3-Phosphates molecule can be broken and the energy released, which is used to perform the work of binding amino acids together, of powering the various cellular machinery that lines up the amino acids, of translating these sequences of amino acids into functional proteins, and the work of transporting the functional proteins to the specific location in the cell where their talents are needed. In short, to make proteins you need more proteins, and this requires massive amounts of energy.

Recall that anaerobic glycolysis only produces 2 ATPs every ~30 seconds.

For 1,199,999 ATPs to be made: 240 ATPs/Hr -> 5760 ATPs/Day -> 1,199,999 ATPs/5760 -> 208.3 days needed.

So, for just one small bacterium to metabolize the required energy in order to transcribe and translate the coding parts of its DNA into roughly 1,000 proteins it would take nearly 7 months, despite having multiple mitochondria that process the sugar and pump out ATPs. There are estimated to be more than one trillion bacteria in Earth’s biomass. How many billions of years would be needed just for the anaerobes? How long until eukaryotes would finally appear? I’m getting ahead of myself since there is no documented, verifiable, reproducible mechanism for this transition anywhere in current science literature… What a neat trick that would be!

That is just one small, relatively simple bacterium’s wait time to produce its essential proteins to ensure another generation of life. This does not take into account the required ATP that the bacterium needs for other essential functions to ensure survival in the meantime, such as communication, mobility and defense; only the energy needs for making the proteins needed for replication and division.

I’m in a generous mood today. Let’s say the anaerobe is extremely thrifty and is able to obtain all of its ATP needs in 6 months instead of 7. Boiling this down to a general formula then, 2 simple bacteria per year could afford to divide, or a 2:1 ratio. If the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the first bacteria is thought to be nearly 4 billion years old, then simple math says it must have appeared within 500 million years of the Earth forming. This would require that in only 0.5 billion years, the violent formation of the Earth itself would have had subsided to the point where relative calm existed, along with a ready source of sugars and the required chemicals to spontaneously assemble into the DNA information needed to produce Life, all while overcoming impossible statistical odds of correct assembly and spontaneous generation of Life from non-Life. What’s more, any life form to appear would perhaps then have to endure the massive freeze as a result of the initiation of plate tectonics!

Realistically, during this 0.5 billion years, and before the big freeze hits which would last millions of years, we must play the statistics game to get even one functional primitive anaerobe. This requires a mechanism of obtaining only the right-hand version of DNA correctly assembled from the naturally-occurring racemic versions. Then, for each amino acid we need a mechanism that selects only the left-handed ones, since only these are used in making proteins. Arbitrary, you say? Life has standards, I say.

Only 20 amino acids exist and these combine in an unimaginable number of ways to create all of the proteins required for Life. Most proteins require 300-500 amino acids in just the precise order and folded in a precise 3-D conformation. Some proteins, such as titin, need 30,000 amino acids. If the 30,000 amino acids are not assembled in perfect order and folded in just the right shape, the protein is useless. Titin makes muscle contraction possible, and without it we couldn’t move.

Then we need to calculate the astronomical odds that each amino acid assembled to the previous one results in meaningful protein information being produced, which is impossible to ascertain until the sequence is translated into a functional protein by….yep, another protein complex composed of 2 subunit proteins, called the ribosome, which also needs to spontaneously assemble by chance, at the right time, just to facilitate this process.

The insurmountable odds of one protein being assembled correctly, by chance, would require more time than the entire supposed age of the Universe. Worse still, the odds for this one protein joining hundreds or thousands of others through an unguided process to collaborate in joining to create the first simple living anaerobe would require a few thousand ages of the Universe. Noted astrobiologist Paul Davies stated the chances of Life emerging are “perhaps one in a trillion trillion.”

If one simple anaerobe needs about 7 months to produce enough energy to transcribe and translate its DNA into functional proteins, how much time would billions of microbes need?  When would they obtain the extra energy needed for cell-to-cell communication or horizontal gene transfer events? How often/fast/slow could these events occur? What random processes would blindly result in sugar molecules being correctly assembled in the correct chirality for fuel and wouldn’t these dissolve in the “primordial soup” they are supposed to appear in? And finally, during all this time the bacterium would need to survive in a chaotic, toxic and violent environment of the assumed early Earth at the height of the LHB, while avoiding predation, preventing radiation/UV damage and apoptosis.

So, going back to our 2:1 ratio, if you were tempted to think that in 500 million years, there should be 1 billion anaerobes creeping about, you’d be wrong. It would appear that the chances of even one simple anaerobe appearing and surviving – much less “evolving” into something more complex such as a eukaryote – are practically and realistically 0.0000%, or else the time required might as well be infinity… and beyond!

But math doesn’t deter long-age evolutionists! For them, Evolution of Life from non-life is a fact and you’re a science denier if you think otherwise. In that case, sign me up.

A Date with Potassium and Argon

The general equation for calculating the age of any volcanic-based rock using the Potassium-40 (P40) decay into stable Argon-40 method (Ar40) is,





t = time in years

ln = natural log

x = quantity of measured Ar40 in your sample

The Potassium ->Argon method is only deemed accurate for ages past 100,000 years and up to 4.3 billion years, which is near the assumed age of the Earth. I find it ironically convenient that the only results one can hope to calculate with any mathematical certainty are those beyond 100,000 years. That in itself is difficult to relate to as finite beings who can only empirically experience a mere 120 years at best, but we are only getting started.

Potassium-40 (P 40) is a metallic radioactive element that accounts for 0.0117% of all known naturally occurring Potassium on Earth in all of its forms, mainly salts. It is thought to be a product of ancient stars that went supernova, at which time they spewed all manner of elements including Potassium into dust clouds that, over hundreds of millions of years, would accrete into planets such as our Earth. In light of recent admissions, we are already starting off with a hypothetical scenario of Big Bang Origins and long ages which we cannot hope to adequately test nor verify in anyone’s lifetime.

Be that as it may, P41 accounts for 93.25% of all known Potassium, while P39 accounts for 6.74%. These are both stable isotopes of Potassium occurring naturally. But since we are only concerned with the decay of the radioactive P40 into stable Ar40, a noble gas, how reliable is any test that relies on only 0.0117% of the P40 radioactive element? Wait, it gets worse.

There are important assumptions that need to be made in order to calculate anything at all.

These are:

  • The potassium and argon must BOTH stay put in the mineral (eg, the rock) over geologic time.

This is the hardest condition to meet, partly because radioactive elements are always moving around at the atomic level (see quantum physics). They can’t always be detected when looking in only one spot, time after time. Consequently, amounts calculated based on mass spectrometry do not always account for all of the available material we could find, isolate and measure. And “geologic time” is a direct product of this dating method which results in millions and millions of years. This is faulty logic akin to citing an unproven claim that, by also using it as a standard, proves it exists. 

In addition, the typical mass amounts of Ar40 calculated after mass spectrometry are usually much less than 1mg. So we are relying on extremely small samples, such as 0.0005mg of a gas, to extract huge unverifiable numbers of years and are then applying this universally across strata found all over the world, many times without even testing subsequent rocks; only by taking a depth and correlating it to the strata charts. That’s like saying one grain of sand is exactly the same as all other grains of sand on all the beaches and deserts of the planet and if you’ve measured one, you know them all; quite a tall tale!

  • The rate of decay is a constant exponential.

This is not always the case, as shown by recent tests, and therefore should not be assumed to have held in the distant past either, since it is assumed by geologists and astronomers that both Earth and the Sun were much more volatile than now. With regard to solar activity specifically, continuous and sporadic bombardment of earth’s crust by solar neutrinos or other particles can influence the rate of decay of a radioactive element’s protons into neutrons to form the stable element(s). In the case of P->Ar, a proton of radioactive P40 turns into a neutron through quantum physics. The mass does not change and the radioactive element decays into two stable elements, Ca40 and Ar40. We will ignore Calcium, another metallic salt, since it is not used for dating purposes here, even though I could write another post solely on Calcium’s importance to the human body, and the physiologic processes that require it.

In total, during one half-life cycle of P40, 11% of it turns into stable Argon gas and 89% into stable Calcium. Beginning in the 1950s, this half-life has been calculated and “refined” to be 1.25 billion years currently. We question how accurate this figure is, based on the newly discovered effects of the aforementioned solar activity during past maximums/minimums and the Sun cycle itself, which have never been taken into account. Given that astronomers are convinced the Sun’s activity in the distant past was much different than today, what does this mean for solar activity’s potential effects on radioactivity over millions of years? In a word: much.

  • There is no subsequent atmospheric addition of Ar40 into the sample.

This cannot always be verified to be the case due to groundwater infiltration, tectonic plate motion generating heat and breakage or recycling of various strata, and solar neutrino or other particle activity, all of which can alter the Ar40 content in a given sample. If this is suspected, it must be accounted for and requires additional steps to isolate.

These additional steps can alter the accuracy of the overall test because they reduce the total available Argon in the sample. Any alteration or fracturing of the rock means that the Potassium or the Argon, or both, have been disturbed and the rock is useless for dating. Of note, geologists are told that the site must be “geologically meaningful,” meaning it must clearly relate to fossil-bearing rocks that need a good date to “join the story,” which of course refers to Evolution over deep time; this being the only accepted story.

Let’s assume that our careful geologist friends obtain a rock sample out in the field, and that the strata they’re digging in has not been disturbed since it was laid down as lava that eventually cooled “millions and millions of years ago.” That means it hasn’t been jostled or disturbed by earthquakes, or infiltrated by any groundwater for millions of years, or dug up by other cultures and peoples before the modern age, etc. Let’s then also assume that our physicist friends back in the lab are equally, if not more so, careful in their preparation of the rock sample in order to conduct this test, including the removal of any contamination.

We must also assume that they have no interest in faulty data that would skew age results because they are honest scientists and are willing to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. Of course, if they are only 99.9% successful in preventing errors and the numbers they get are in the millions and billions, we have no way of verifying that empirically anyway. Are we having fun yet?

The assumption that Ar40 completely escapes from volcanic lava during its liquid stage and that none will remain by the time the lava cools into rock is questionable in light of recent discoveries. In addition to solar, atmospheric, temperature, and friction effects, scientists are only now beginning to account for groundwater recycling of elements including Argon, and that groundwater can and does infiltrate rock, including deep in the earth’s crustal layers.

Another assumption is that the incredibly tiny amount of 0.0117% of P40 found in the earth’s crust and lava rocks that we are trying to test has decayed into stable Argon-40 INSIDE the rock only, because it’s unable to escape as when the lava was liquid. Ar40 is a noble gas, it doesn’t react with anything and doesn’t bond with anything, it just bubbles completely out of a solution such as liquid lava. So when the lava cools and becomes hard rock, there should be no naturally occurring Ar40 left in it. Therefore if your rock sample contains it, then you have to conclude it’s only by decay of the radioactive P40, of which only 0.0117% exists in all of the earth’s crust. Note that we cannot conclusively ever rule out groundwater contamination, crustal upheaval due to earthquakes, solar neutrino bombardment, etc.

Going back to our ratios of 11% and 89% after decay, 11% represents Ar40 and we can use the ratio of P40 today (that tiny 0.0117%) to what must have originally existed when the Earth first formed (verified how??) to calculate an age for that rock. The problem is that the measured Ar40 in the sample is usually on the order of tiny fractions of less than 1mg.

For example, a reasonable amount of Ar40 one might expect to find is 0.005mg. This number is further reduced when dividing it by 11%, which represents the total Ar40 left after a half-life decay cycle, all things being constant (pun intended!). Plugging in the known quantity and other numbers into the above equation, a sample containing 0.005mg of Ar40 would result in a calculated age of ~80.2 million years, or roughly the Cretaceous era.

Those of you who have any experience in a science lab will affirm that 0.005mg of any substance, particularly a gas, is an incredibly small amount which is difficult to isolate, purify and accurately wield in a variety of precision instruments such as mass spectrometers. If we are lucky enough to find a bit more of our target substance (and rule out contamination with Argon gas from any other source) to increase the mass tenfold, to about 0.05mg, the sample would date to ~675.7 million years ago, which would place it (and any fossil found nearby, coincidentally) in the pre-Cambrian! A difference of 0.045mg can result in 595.5 million years! And remember that we are measuring a gas, not a solid substance. How easy is it to lose or misplace 0.045mg of gas? Imperceptibly so.

It should go without saying that any errors in handling, decontaminating, or measuring the sample could give incredibly different numbers that we may never catch. Neither would we be able to verify these ages in the real world since we’re mere mortals. Not to worry though, peer review always catches every mistake!

Suffice to say that these unbelievably small mass numbers, combined with irrational numbers such as “e,” which is Euler’s constant (a separate discussion) to calculate the constants required for determining age, are not verifiable in a real-world real-time empirical setting. It is purely an abstract mathematical result.

Why is any of this important?

Because if the results of these calculations yield millions and millions of years, then supposedly any fossil found near or in that layer of dated volcanic rock must be the same age. Right? What’s more, we get to come up with fancy terms like “deep time.” 

But is this sound, rational reasoning and should we apply one result in the lab to the entire geologic column all over the world and at all times? And if it turns out that more and more fossils are found to contain soft tissues, these can and should be carbon-dated. Then what? If those soft tissues include pliable muscle fibers, or red blood cells, or proteins that we can extract dinosaur DNA from, knowing that these structures degrade biochemically on the order of hundreds or thousands of years in ideal conditions, what conclusions should we reach? No, I’m not talking about building a Jurassic Park. Let’s not get distracted.

For example if carbon dating gives us an age of, say ~25,000 years, which is significantly within the accepted range of the test, then what do we do with the P->Ar or other methods that mathematically calculate the ages of the rock layer above or below that fossil, which say the layers are hundreds of millions of years old? What constraints can we subject the dating to? Do we throw out the carbon date? If so, based on what reasoning? Because it’s not as good as the P->Ar method? Or do we throw out the P->Ar date, knowing that it too is based on a myriad of assumptions and constants that we now know are NOT constant, and that we rely on error-prone human scientists with their own agendas, aspirations, and biases to collect, clean, organize, isolate, purify and accurately measure each and every sample?

Wouldn’t it be safer to restrict the results from types of dating methods to what we can accurately verify empirically and not just mathematically? What would happen to “the story?” At what point are we so far off the reservation with our significant figures that, if we stop to think for a moment how much time we are actually talking about, it boggles the mind?

Yet, despite these red flags evolutionists are willing to press on. But when we dig up a bone that contains soft tissue, including pliable stretchy muscle fibers and red blood cells in vessels that look like those from a recently dissected sample, does it not strain credulity to peer through the microscope looking at what appear to be fresh tissues and yet say to yourself, “Wow, these are 500 million years old? No way!”

And yet, that is the ONLY acceptable box within which you are allowed to conduct scientific inquiry as a modern scientist. Anything else will get you fired, or censored, or discredited, or ostracized, or all of these in succession. Just ask Mark Armitage. After being dragged through the mud for daring to question the only position allowed, he eventually came out on top.

My advice and free fact for today: we should take these dating methods and their results with a few grains of salt, and preferably larger than 0.05mg. Although, according to the American Heart Association, no more than 1,500mg daily.

Carbon Dating Time

The general equation for calculating an organic sample’s age based on Carbon-14 (C14) content is:




t = age of sample (organic in nature)

[ ] = absolute value (results in positive)

ln = natural log

N = % C14 remaining out of 100%

N0 = 100 %

C14 rate of decay = -0.693 (but is this always constant? I argue “No!” see here, here, here, here and here for starters)

t1/2 = half-life of C14 around 5,730.

The half-life of C14 can be 5,700 or 5,730 or 5,740 depending on the source. Early experiments starting in 1951 calculated it as 5,370 -/+ 200 years. In other words, anywhere from 5,170 to 5,570 years.

This has been revised up to a current value of 5,730 -/+ 40 years on average. But how to truly verify this? Since the late 1940s this value has been debated, from a low of 4,700 to a high of 7,200. And can we be sure this half-life is or will ALWAYS be constant? In light of recent discoveries, we simply cannot because of heretofore unaccounted for temperature and atmospheric effects, solar activity at maximum and minimum, as well as our own errors in measurements over the years. Again, see links above.

Let’s allow for the rate of decay to change due to solar activity, as it is documented it can. Instead of -0.693, why don’t we try other figures such as -1.337, which is about double. The result?

Example: A fossil containing 35% C14 yields 4,500 years before present. But is this reliable?

For this dating method to be reliable, both the half-life and the rate of decay must be verified to be correct, time after time after time. Being unable to verify whether they are or not means we are unable to fully accept absolute ages calculated using this method. It may give us a plausible range, but it will be impossible to verify. The plausible range is any age result up to 50,000 years; anything past that is discarded as unreliable. For example, a barely trace amount such as 0.05% C14 would yield an age of approximately 62,847 years before present, which is well beyond the region of plausibility for the C14 test and would therefore be dismissed.

Consequently, any result under 50,000 years of age must then be carefully evaluated for contamination with more recent carbon using more than one lab test result, and is often performed.

The important point is that C14 should not be detectable in ANY organic sample claimed to be millions of years old, unless it is present via contamination and properly accounted for as such.

However, if the C14 content in the sample is original and yields ages up to 50,000 years before present, then that fossil cannot possibly be millions of years old and neither can the strata that it was found in. A whole paradigm shift would need to take place. Logic dictates that an old rock cannot contain a young fossil.

Certainly, an old rock cannot contain a young  fossil which contains soft tissues such as red blood cells, blood vessels, muscle tissue, skin or proteins which all break down within several thousand years.

Therefore, both the rock and the fossil MUST be the same age.

Except that I don’t think any paleontologist will submit his or her fossil samples for C14 testing, the results of which would only encourage YECs like me. Certainly there have been offers from creationists to pay for the test but as of this writing, no paleontologist has agreed. A few samples were actually successfully submitted for testing by the Paleochronology group, with whom I have no affiliation. The results they received were scandalous to the point where they were dis-invited from a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS), where they had been accepted to speak and present their findings.

Their initial publication was also subsequently recalled and the carbon dating lab they had worked with informed them that no further samples would be accepted for testing due to the group’s “anti-science” position. Note that there were no complaints as to the validity of the ages assigned via C14 dating,  rather the conclusion of the group – that these dinosaur bone samples must not be millions of years old – was not acceptable in mainstream science. To read more about the issue and to see a list of age results for the samples, as well as the letters of refusal to test further samples, the curious can visit

The outright refusal to even test for C14 speaks volumes as to the level of paranoia at being questioned, and an implicit lack of trust in the evidence to substantiate original organic matter being present in fossils supposedly millions of years old, which paleontologists cannot explain. Indeed, when these soft tissues findings were first revealed, the general reaction of the entire paleontology field was to ridicule and deny the observations and researchers who made them. Now they dare to claim “preservation may be more common than previously thought.” 

Funny guys.

It is important to remember that proteins, blood cells and amino acids all degrade within a few thousand years, even in the best of conditions. To date, no mechanism or lab-reproduced process can adequately explain the exquisite preservation of these extremely sensitive soft tissues in fossils purportedly millions of years old.

No biochemical process is known to exist that we can look to for answers. A few iron studies were performed, but were incapable of reproducing the required variables or conditions and could not be used to conclusively support the idea. These few experiments conducted with iron chelates are insignificant and cannot compare to the millions of years’ preservation claimed. It would be irrational and illogical to rely on them alone. As a result, the only solution is for scientists to now claim that this preservation is more common than thought and is likely to result in more soft tissue finds in the future. (Indeed, this is the case and I’ve linked some of them at the bottom of this post.)

In light of this, why are fossils dated to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old? Because they were found in strata layers believed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old, which is based on other dating techniques themselves fraught with assumptions that cannot be verified and constancy rates that are not constant! Revision of these would undermine current evolutionary dogma and are therefore anathema to mainstream Science, as already seen above. We will discuss some of these at a later time.

Meanwhile, here’s a short list of science publications in which soft tissues have been found in samples claimed to be millions of years old (Myo), for which contamination has been ruled out. The results are that the organic matter/tissue is original to the sample and therefore likely contains sufficient residual C14  to be carbon-date tested. When will we see the results? (Muscle tissues in 18Myo salamander) (Oil gland in 48Myo bird.) (Protein and pigment in 54Myo turtle.) (Blood vessels of dinosaurs.) (Collagen proteins in T. rex bone.) (Cretaceous fossils containing soft-tissues) (Cretaceous fish with complete demineralized skeletons)  (More soft-tissues in 6 specimens tested; preservation may be more common than previously thought.) (100+Myo dino egg coloring pigment.) (110Myo spiky armor soft-tissue protein with color.) (200Myo leaves with organic molecules that were analyzed and prove similar to current ones.) (300Myo yet “modern beetle.”) (540Myo jellyfish fossils in Death Valley. How can such soft bodies be preserved without being destroyed in the process and remain intact that long? Plus they look just like modern jellies.) (540Myo soft-tissues from metazoans.) (1.9Byo soft-tissue and organic structures found in the Gunflint cherts.) (C14 in mosasaur bone corresponding to an age of 24,600 years before present, using the accepted half-life of C14, defying that they are 60+Myo as claimed.)

Questions and Answers (10:4)

Lou: Here is a somewhat unrelated question. “The Larger View,” this person writes, “seems very intricate, very subtle and needing of a lot of study. Does this imply that a simpler view is still necessary for the masses of people who do not have the time or the knowledge to understand the Larger View?” And here’s a related question, “What is the truth about God? I hear it must be simple, and yet it seems almost too complicated to encompass. Please help me understand.”
How would you respond to these?
Graham: Ah, those are very fair questions. I think that the number one characteristic of the Larger View is its simplicity. Nevertheless, it might require a good deal of study to figure out. But when you apply the very best scholarship available to you, and you do a thorough job on the sixty-six books, you come up with this view about our God. All He asks of us is trust; not trust in a stranger, or trust in mere claims, but on the basis of demonstration. I don’t think anything could be simpler than that.
But I see validity to the question. Paul on Mars Hill delivered a magnificent address (Acts 17:22-31). He quoted the philosophers. He quoted the poets. He used long words. In fact, he used the longest word in the Greek New Testament. To the Athenians he said, “Oh, you are deisidaimonesteros (very religious)” (Acts 17:22). He even won a few of them that way (Acts 17:34). But in 1 Corinthians he says, “I’ll never preach like that again, magnificent as it was. This one thing I’ll do from here on: I will preach the message about Christ and Him crucified” (based on 1 Cor 2:1-2). So Paul, with all his scholarship, eventually focused in on the all-important thing. But when he preached Christ and Him crucified, he was preaching the Larger View about the One who died for angels as well as men. So the focus on the cross led him to the Larger View. I believe the thief on the cross knew enough to be saved, but I wouldn’t want to settle for that. So I’m going to keep on investigating, but if my discourses become more complicated, I’m moving in the wrong direction. So I like the implication here. It ought to be clear. It ought to be simple. But there are no shortcuts to that kind of clarity and simplicity.

Lou: Here’s a question that really touched my heart. This person wrote, “How are we, who have been raised as Seventh-day Adventist Christians, and have been taught to fear God and His judgments, to change to a love relationship? I am afraid of God! How do I dispel this fear?”
Graham: The One who would love to hear that question the most would be God Himself. If you came face to face with God and said, “God, I hesitate to tell You this, but I’m scared,” I wonder what He would do. Would He say, “I appreciate that?” Or would He say, “I think maybe I’d better not talk to you any longer, you’re so scared. I’ll send for My Son.”
In practical terms, the solution is to become convinced from Scripture that the One who came down to earth is fully God. We’re not afraid of Jesus. Yet the One who was with us is no less than God! And that’s what the Sabbath reminds us of, that same gentle Jesus is the Almighty Creator. When we know Him, perhaps, we could truly accept the “testimony of Jesus.” The ultimate testimony of Jesus is, “Do you want to know what My Father is like? If you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father” (John 14:9). We find it hard to believe that. It takes a little time. For one thing, it seems incredible on the face of it. And second, the enemy is opposed to our knowing this, so he will throw up every roadblock he can to keep us from believing this incredible truth.

Lou: In the next chapter we’re going to talk about “God’s Emergency Measures.” Those are the actions of God in the Bible that have raised a lot of questions.
Graham: Yes, because these measures can be misunderstood as supporting Satan’s charges. But when I think about God’s use of emergency measures, I think it speaks very well of Him. He took a number of risks when He chose to run things the way that He has done. We’ll get into all that in the next chapter.

Questions and Answers (10:3)

Lou: When we talk about the seventh day, we’re talking about thousands of years, and the question has been asked, “How do you know what day is the seventh day? Could we be mistaken?”
Graham: One thing is for sure, nothing has meant more to a devout Jew than the seventh-day Sabbath. Jews can certainly look back to when the manna fell, double on Friday and none on Saturday. When that happened, everyone knew that was the seventh day—by God’s direction. And no devout Jew has lost track of the weekly Sabbath since that time. I would say that’s not debatable. We definitely know.
Lou: Jesus didn’t seem confused about it when He was here, either, and even the idea of Sunday as a day of resurrection would confirm the consistency of the weekly cycle.
Now the Sabbath command says, “Thou shalt not do any work, thou nor thy manservant. . .” and so forth (Exod 20:10). Is the Sabbath a day to just sit in a rocking chair in total idleness? What is the meaning of the phrase “Thou shalt not do any work?”
Graham: I’m curious that God would say, “In it thou shalt not do any work,” yet not tell us what work is. I take that as a compliment. God says, “The day is yours. I have suggested its many meanings. Just to sit there under duress and do nothing all day is not keeping the Sabbath. It’s supposed to be a delight.” And so God leaves it up to us to decide what work is. But many devout people through the years have consulted their theologians to determine what work is. In fact, I have a very large volume which describes Sabbath work. This book, called the Mishnah, says, “There are forty kinds of work save one.”
There are thirty-nine kinds of work, in other words, and each of the thirty-nine is broken down into many sub-categories. How far may you walk on the Sabbath? May you carry a pencil on the Sabbath? How many letters can you write on the Sabbath? I don’t mean epistles, I mean letters of the alphabet, all spelled out. The beauty of that system is, you always know whether you’re keeping the Sabbath or not. On the other hand, those rules also leave you fearful that you may have broken the Sabbath. That is why Jesus said, “You have placed burdens on people that are too heavy to bear.” The God of the Sabbath intended it for us to remember Him. But just how to do that is left up to us, and I like that.

Lou: A “Dear Abby” column once responded to a girl who wrote in saying she was going to marry a Seventh-day Adventist, and she wondered what that might mean. Abby suggested that she ought to talk to the man’s pastor and find out. But then another person wrote in and said, “I know about Seventh-day Adventists. If you marry a Seventh-day Adventist, there a whole lot of things you won’t be able to do.” Among these, the person suggested that the girl and her husband would never have any kind of marital relationship on the Sabbath. Some think Isaiah 58 says you shouldn’t do anything that’s your own pleasure on the Sabbath. Is God wanting us to be unhappy on the Sabbath?
Graham: When I heard about that column, I did a little research on the meaning of Isaiah 58:13. It really reads, “If you restrain your foot on the Sabbath from doing your business on My holy day, if you call the Sabbath delightful and Yahweh’s holy day honorable, if you honor it by refraining from business, from pursuing gain and from excessive talk then you will delight in Yahweh, and I will make you ride upon the heights of the earth” (The Anchor Bible).
Many other versions agree that the word “pleasure” is better translated “business.” You are invited on the Sabbath to enjoy yourself all you like, but don’t do your own business on that day. You don’t pursue your own interests on that day. It even says, “Value My holy day and honor it by not traveling, working or talking idly on that day.” Or as The Jerusalem Bible puts it, “Abstaining from travel, from doing business and from gossip.” But the main point there is, “Call the Sabbath a delight.” We’re supposed to enjoy the day, rather than pursue our own business or our own worldly gain on that day.
Lou: How can you command someone to “call the Sabbath a delight?”
Graham: Now we know from experience you can’t do that. When your girls were growing up, did you ever say to one of them, “Now look, don’t make any more faces. I want you to eat your spinach?”
“Yes, Daddy.”
“Yes, but I want you to enjoy it.”
“Yes, Daddy.”
“I want you to tell me how delicious it is.”
“Daddy, I’d be fibbing if I did, and I’d be breaking one of the commandments.”
There’s no way you can order somebody to enjoy something. But consider the things that God desires the most: Love? You can’t command it. Trust? You can’t command it. The enjoyment of the Sabbath? You can’t command it. It’s an invitation. We either do it or we don’t, and if we really observe the day, we do it in the highest sense of freedom and it is truly a delight.

Questions and Answers (10:2)

Lou: Here’s another question: “In Colossians 2 doesn’t Paul say that the Sabbath has been nailed to the cross? And in light of that, doesn’t Paul say that no one should judge you regarding religious festivals or even a Sabbath day?” What about that Colossians 2?
Graham: That question is important enough for a whole chapter, but I’ll try to deal with the basics in a paragraph or two. I think first we need to note just what it was that was nailed to the cross. The King James Version says it was “the handwriting of ordinances” (Col 2:14). Many take that to be the Law. But the first key word is literally “hand writing” (Greek: cheirographon), a word compound combining “hand” and “writing.” The second is “requirements” (Greek: dogmasin). The phrase “handwritten document of requirements” is a technical term for a legal obligation. The “document” contains the sentence that stood against us because of rebellion and sin. That is what was nailed to the cross.
When people read this text to suggest that the Sabbath was nailed to the cross, that reading creates a serious difficulty. You see, whatever the “handwritten document of requirements” is, the text says it was “contrary” (Greek: hupenantion) or “hostile to us” (Col 2:14, KJV). In other words, Jesus took it out of the way because it was bad for us. But nowhere in the Bible is the Sabbath pictured as against us, or bad for us. Rather, it was given to help us. Did Jesus say, “The Sabbath was made for you, but in a short while I’m going to nail it to the cross because it’s been against you?” No, the Sabbath was made for our sake (Mark 2:27, Greek: dia ton anthrôpon). So some interpreters have been nailing the wrong thing to the cross! Rather, when Jesus died He took care of the sin problem. He took care of the sentence against us, or whatever word you want to use there. And I think when Paul says “Don’t let anyone judge you with respect to the Sabbath, either” (Col 2:16), he was saying, “You’re right. Don’t you go around condemning people who disagree with you on the Sabbath.”
Sometimes we say that Paul is talking about ceremonial Sabbaths in Colossians 2. In that case he would be saying, “Don’t criticize people when they disagree on the ceremonial laws. But when they disagree with you on the seventh day, you can go condemn them all you want to.” Paul did not want us to condemn anybody for anything. That’s not our business. His message was the same in Romans 14: “One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom 14:5, RSV). . . . Why do you pass judgment on your brother?” (Rom 14:10, RSV). I include the seventh-day Sabbath in that. We are in no position ever to criticize or condemn anyone who disagrees over this matter of the Sabbath. “No,” Paul says, “Each of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom 14:12, RSV).
So going back to Colossians, something that was against us was nailed to the cross. And once we understand how God has handled this problem of distrust in the universe, we won’t go around condemning other people. But in my own heart I’m very much persuaded that the Sabbath is for me. I wouldn’t want to waste it. I hope I can make it look good to other people so they won’t waste it either. We should present it as a gift, not as an obligation.

Lou: Graham, some of our friends of other faiths see Sabbath-keeping as legalistic. When you’re concerned about sundowns and what is appropriate to do on the Sabbath, aren’t you back into a kind of bondage, where you’re so careful about these things? Isn’t that legalism?
Graham: That word “legalism” needs to be defined, and in Chapter Twelve we’ll have more to say about it. But to me, the essence of legalism is preoccupation with one’s legal standing with God. Many of the same people who think Sabbath keepers are legalistic are themselves utterly concerned with their legal standing before God. They thank God that His Son came and paid the penalty so that they could be in good legal standing. It seems to me that if you have a legal model, you’re a legalist, whether or not you observe the Sabbath. But in the larger view, you’re saying, “God, I don’t want to miss out on a thing You have given me.” The Sabbath is a gift that points us to so many of God’s acts of blessing. We keep the Sabbath as a blessing, not as a burden.
Lou: It makes so much difference whether a person is keeping the Sabbath as a requirement or keeping it as a celebration of the glorious things that the Sabbath stands for.
Graham: Yes, it’s supposed to be all about freedom. If in the middle of church a person does not feel free, maybe he should walk out, take a breath of fresh air and decide whether he wants to come back in or not. Nobody should be sitting in church because he has to. Everybody should be in church because they feel good about it.
Lou: You might lose your audience if they did that. What if some children hear about that comment and decide not to go to church anymore?
Graham: Well, that’s a different story. It makes me think of the next chapter, “God’s Emergency Measures.” You can’t expect little children to understand these things. For example, they won’t brush their teeth because it’s good to brush their teeth. They brush their teeth because Mommy says so. They don’t want to upset Mommy. She might take “emergency measures.” Our little children might not gladly follow us to church. But while you want to preserve their freedom, when it becomes time to go to church you say, “Billy, we’re leaving, and you’re coming, too.” So there are children who sit in the pews under some duress. But you hope they’ll sit there long enough to hear the pastor tell them that God values nothing higher than their freedom, and you hope that one day they’ll choose to continue on their own.

Questions and Answers (10:1)

In the original lecture series done in 1984 at the Loma Linda University Church, Graham Maxwell spoke for about a half hour each Friday night followed by written questions and answers from Lou Venden and also from the audience. The next several posts contain questions and answers from the tenth presentation, “The Reminder of the Evidence.”

Lou: You’ve laid a great deal of emphasis upon the fact that you don’t see the Sabbath as arbitrary, something imposed as a kind of test. And you’ve certainly provided a great deal of meaning to the Sabbath. But I’ve heard people raise this question: All of that may be true, but if so, why couldn’t one keep the Sabbath on another day? Does it really matter? Everyone agrees that nine of the commandments are important because if you really love God and your fellow human beings, that’s the way you’re going to act. But why the seventh day in particular?”
Graham: The word arbitrary suggests that there is no reason, that God ordered it just because He wanted to, just to show His authority. I would say if it really were arbitrary, it could be any day. But it’s the seventh day because it’s so loaded with reasons. Did you ever try on Marjorie (Lou’s wife), “It doesn’t matter when we celebrate our anniversary this year, why don’t we have it some other day?” I don’t think she’d go for it.
On top of that the Bible adds meaning after meaning and reason after reason for the seventh day, which makes it less and less arbitrary. It seems to me that no other of God’s commands is associated with so many meanings. It is the least arbitrary of them all. What bothers me most about considering it as arbitrary is the thought that if it is arbitrary, the only reason why we keep it is to prove that we are God’s good people. We are the only ones who obey. Whereas I understand the purpose of the Sabbath is to say something about Him. But those who keep the Sabbath as meeting an arbitrary requirement are simply saying to the world, “Look, there aren’t many in the world who are good, but we keep the seventh day. The seventh day is not to say something about us. It is to say something about God. So that is an important difference.
Lou: So the meaning inherent in the seventh day makes that the Sabbath day?
Graham: Yes, because He chose to create the world the way He did. Now He did make a decision to do it slowly, but I think to do it slowly is not arbitrary. The universe was watching. The charges had to be met. And God in His own good time and in that very dramatic way unfolded His plans for our world. And every day was saying more of the truth about Him, and the falsity of Satan’s charges. That was a dramatic week!

Lou: I can hear one of our friends asking, “In the light of all this, do I have to keep the Sabbath to be saved? If I don’t keep the Sabbath, am I going to be lost?
Graham: Ah, that reflects on our discussion earlier of what sin is (Chapter Two). If you think of sin as just breaking the rules, then one might follow that line of thought: If I break that rule, I’ll be lost. It all depends whether there is a distrust and a rebelliousness involved in a failure to keep the Sabbath. I think, rather, the Sabbath was made to be a great benefit to us. If I don’t observe it, I lose. If I don’t take my medicine, I lose. God offers it to us. There are some who have never heard of it. I don’t think the thief on the cross ever kept one. But in the legal model, if you violate that rule like any other, then you’re out, because sin is a breaking of the rules. But in my view, sin is internal distrust, rebelliousness and unwillingness to listen. If the gift God has given us inspires a hostility within you, a rebelliousness within you, an unwillingness to listen, that would be a serious thing.
Lou: Because that’s where the problem began.
Graham: Exactly.

The True Meaning of the Sabbath

The Sabbath has answered the basic questions of thoughtful people through the years. Questions such as: Where have we come from? Why are we here? Where do we go in the future? And above all, what kind of a Person is our God, and what does He want of His children? The Sabbath all through the years has answered those four questions. Where have we come from? We were made in the image of God at Creation. Why are we here? How do we attain to the greatest good in life? Our whole purpose in the present is restoration of the damage done by sin, through faith in God. The Sabbath encourages us to rest from our futile striving to heal ourselves. Instead, all good things will come to those who trust God. And where do we go in the future? The Sabbath has always pointed forward to the second coming and the earth made new. And what about our God? Every Sabbath we are reminded that God is just like Christ our Creator, for Christ is God.

Is there any information Satan would like to hide more than this? No surprise then, that Satan seeks to confuse the meaning of the Sabbath day. Notice Moffatt’s rendering of that Exodus 20:12 text: “I gave them my Sabbath to mark the tie between me and them, to teach them that it is I the Eternal, who sets them apart.” Most of the world has broken that tie. The last message of God to the world is the restoration of that tie. It’s a message of love and trust.

Keeping the Sabbath is not legalism: It is not God saying “If you don’t keep this day, I will kill you.” Rather, whenever we preach Christ as our Creator, our Saviour, and the One who is coming again, whenever we preach that God is like His Son, we are preaching the message of the seventh day. According to the sixty-sixth book, the world will be divided into two sides at the very end. Revelation 13 speaks of Satan’s final campaign, and that the whole world will be worshiping him, except the few described in Revelation 14:12: “This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God’s commandments and remain faithful to Jesus” (GNB). In that day, the intelligent, wholehearted observance of the seventh-day Sabbath will represent this very faithfulness and loyalty to Jesus. There will be a group who still worship Jesus as their Creator and their God.

Notice that the Sabbath is really not about us. It is about God. I like to think that is why we put it in our name: Seventh-day Adventists. We didn’t put it in there to say something good about us, but to say that we have taken a position about God. I believe a real Seventh-day Adventist is a Christian who accepts and believes all that the Sabbath has to say about our God. I wish it always meant that.

Someday God will recreate our world and give it to His trusting saints. We know that the world as we know it has to be purified by fire: “The elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2 Peter 3:10, KJV). A burned up earth would be no place to live, so after that there will be a re-creation: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away” (Rev 21:1, RSV). And Isaiah adds: “Behold I will create new heavens and a new earth” (Isa 65:17, NIV).

How do you think God will create our world the next time? He, of course, could do it in an instant, as He could have during creation week. But patient Teacher that He is, is it possible that He might do it in days one, two, three, four, five, and six again? Just to say something to saints that have questions about that simple Genesis account. I can see Him doing it like that and smiling the whole week. But there will be one difference between the creation and the re-creation. There will be no need to create another Adam and Eve. He will just open the pearly gates and welcome His children home.

Isaiah describes how in the new earth we will be delighted to meet and worship our God. Isaiah 66:23: “Month by month at the new moon, week by week on the Sabbath, all mankind shall come to bow down before me, says the Lord” (NEB). If on the first Sabbath in the new earth, God should say, “Children, would you like to join with me in celebrating? I’d like to keep this first Sabbath as the most special one we have ever had.” Would you say, “Oh, no! There we go—back under the law again. Why do you need to put an arbitrary test of our obedience upon us? Haven’t we proved that we can be trusted? How could you talk about the Sabbath still?”

Would you say that to God? Think of all there would be to remember. Can you imagine the first twenty-four hour Sabbath in the new earth? What a celebration! And if at the end of that first happy Sabbath, God would say “I have enjoyed this so much, I would like to do this again every week from here on,” would you say, “Well, one is surely enough. Do we have to do it again and again?” No, Isaiah says it will be our delight to meet and celebrate with God.

Summing up. Is Sabbath-keeping arbitrary legalism? It can be. And it was on that sad Friday 1900 years ago. But as God designed it, it is supposed to be a monument to freedom. It is supposed to remind us of the evidence; that infinitely costly evidence, that God is not the kind of person His enemies have made Him out to be. He is not arbitrary, exacting, vengeful, unforgiving and severe. He gave us the Sabbath to remind us of that everlasting truth. He designed it to be a day of freedom, peace, love and trust. But most of all, it is a day to remember and be with our God.