Truth Magazine

By Ken McLemore

Every false teaching eventually argues against itself. On the question of life on Earth, evolutionary theory argues against itself by failing to answer the question of the “first cause” (Rom. 1:20-21). The same kind of assumption under-lies the argument for the premise of the popular book and film “Jurassic Park.”

While the book and movie might be considered a good monster yarn, that is all they can be because there are too many questions that bedevil the premise about cloning dinosaurs in both. Cloning is considered to be the genetic equivalent of “xerography,” but it is not the creation of life; it is, at best, the successful use of existing genetic structures from one cell to produce a duplicate of that cell in an independent environment. No-one can create the genetic material within a cell; hence, the primary need in cloning theory is to obtain a complete cell nucleus from the subject to be cloned.

That is where the scientific premise of “Jurassic Park” begins, and where it begins to argue against itself as well. In order to clone a dinosaur, the scientists in the story need dinosaur DNA, the genetic material in the nucleus of a cell which encodes the biological blueprint of the dinosaur. They extract blood from a mosquito which had been trapped in amber so many millions of years ago, and now they have dinosaur DNA . . . but how do they know they have dinosaur blood? Granted that they have blood, but how do they know its dinosaur blood since they have nothing with which to compare it? They assume what they cannot prove.

The assumptions upon which the rest of the story is based grow directly out of the first one. Consequently, because scientists assume that dinosaurs were similar to birds and, therefore, had nucleated red blood cells like birds, they know that the blood contains DNA and they can clone a dinosaur. But, no-one has yet proven that they have dinosaur blood. And, that raises the problem of the source, blood drawn from a prehistoric mosquito that supposedly bit a dinosaur and later became encased in amber. Now, consider the probabilities of actually finding a mosquito trapped in amber which happens to be full of dinosaur blood, not to mention finding 15 different mosquitoes with 15 different species of dinosaur blood in them, as is supposed in the book. The mathematical probabilities of finding one such mosquito appear so improbable as to be a negative possibility. It is suggested in the book that some dinosaur DNA is obtainable from fossil specimens, but that only raises a fundamental question about the next major assumption.

Simply because a cell has a nucleus does not mean that all of its DNA will remain intact over time. DNA apparently deteriorates over time after active cell reproduction has stopped. Consequently, DNA obtained from a prehistoric blood sample or a fossil specimen would be incomplete. That raised the problem of DNA reconstruction and the genetic mathematics of a cell. Every cell nucleus has an hierarchy of genetic relationships which must be present for it to be complete. In humans, for instance, that hierarchy revolves around the presence of 46 chromosomes in each nucleus. Each chromosome is composed of a specific number of genes, and each gene is composed of a specific number of DNA strands, and each DNA strand is composed of a specific number of sequences of pairs of four basic compounds that interact with other chemicals to provide genetic instructions. Each human gene, for example, supposedly contains about 3 billion of these “base pairs” per DNA strand. The question is, then, even if dinosaur DNA could be recovered, who knows how many chromosomes are contained in the cell nucleus, and how many genes comprise a chromosome, and how many DNA strands comprise a gene, and how many base pairs per DNA does a dinosaur cell have? That important genetic mathematics is simply ignored in the premise of the story.

Assuming the unimportance of the genetic mathematics of the cell, the story premise becomes more concerned with the exotica of repairing broken or incomplete dinosaur DNA with that of modem animals with similar DNA, such as frogs. But how does frog DNA help if dinosaurs are supposed to have been similar to birds? And, the question arises, that, if the genetic mathematics of the dinosaur are unknown, then how will repairing dinosaur DNA with frog DNA produce a dinosaur rather than a dinofrog?

In the same way that medieval alchemists attempted to transform lead into gold, “Jurassic Park” argues for a kind of genetic alchemy that allows man to change the laws of creation. But, genetic theory cannot escape the principle that every seed reproduces after its own kind. Jesus Christ taught the principle almost 2,000 years before Gregor Mendel first observed it (Matt. 7:16-20). And, Moses revealed the principle in his inspired account of creation more than 2,000 years before that (Gen. 1:24-25,29).

The dinosaur in “Jurassic Park,” which is supposed to be from the Jurassic Period of prehistory, is not more than theoretical compilation of Jurassic Parts. It is the genetic fantasy equivalent of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein.” It is built with spliced DNA from a frog, an assumed modem relative though the dinosaur is assumed to have been more like a bird, based upon an assumed genetic mathematics of red blood cells assumed to be a dinosaur’s, which are extracted from a prehistoric mosquito that it is assumed can be found.

“Jurassic Park” assumes that its conclusions are possible because they are based upon evolutionary theory, which allows man to play the role of God, as one of the characters in the film argues, that, “God made dinosaurs; God creates dinosaurs.” Man may assume cloning to be equivalent to creating life, but that assumption argues against itself by not answering the question of the “first cause” which puts life into its genetic building blocks (Ps. 139:13-16; Eccl. 7:13; 8:16-17).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 21, p. 14
November 4, 1993

By Luther Bolenbarker

One of these days you’ll shout, “Why don’t you kids grow up and act your age?” And they will. Or, “You guys get outside and find yourselves something to do . . . and don’t slam the door.” And they will.

You’ll straighten up the boys’ bedroom neat and tidy. . . bumper stickers discarded… spread tucked and smoothed . . toys displayed on shelves. . . hangers in the closet … animals caged . . . And you’ll say out loud, “Now, I want it to stay this way.” And it will.

You’ll prepare a perfect dinner with a salad that hasn’t been picked to death and a cake with no finger traces in the icing and you’ll say, “Now there’s a meal for company.” And you will eat it alone. You’ll say, “I want complete privacy on the phone. No dancing around. No pantomimes. No demolition crews. . .Silence! Do you hear?” And you’ll get it.

No more plastic tablecloths stained with spaghetti. No more bedspreads to protect the sofa from damp bottoms. No more gates between the door to stumble over. No more clothes-pins under the sofa. No more playpens to arrange a room around. No more anxious nights under a vaporizer tent. No more sand on the sheets or cartoons on TV or comic books. No more iron-on patches; wet knotted shoe-strings; tight boots; or rubber bands for pony tails.

Imagine a lipstick with a point on it, or a work shop with all the tools in their proper place. No more babysitters. Washing only once a week. Seeing a steak instead of ground beef. Having a dress that’s not wrinkled or wet because of the baby on your lap. No PTA meetings. No car pools. No blaring radios. No hair washing at midnight.

Think about it. No more birth-day presents made out of toothpicks and paste. No more sloppy oatmeal or juicy kisses. No more tooth fairy. No giggles or pillow fights in the night. No knees to heal or boohoo’s to kiss and make well. No responsibility.

Only a silent voice keeps crying loudly, “Why don’t you grow up?!” And the silence echoes back, “I did!”

Moms and Dads, are you taking time to really enjoy your children? You should! Oh, how quickly they grow up and go. Will you do a good task in their rearing and up-bringing? “Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” “Children, obey your parents in the Lord.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 21, p. 1
November 4, 1993

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Of great interest is the role and status of Satan. His origin, work, and nature continue to seize the attention of people in general and that of the religious in particular. Satan’s relation to the fallen angels and their relation to men also capture the imagination and interest. The question to be considered in this column concerns Satan and his condition.

Question: Why isn’t Satan reserved in chains of darkness till the judgment as the other spiritual beings who left their habitation?

Response: The question assumes that Satan is not bound but the basis on which the querist makes this conclusion is not stated in connection with the question. The first issue to consider is whether Satan is bound. This is the issue with which this response will begin. No doubt, the querist by the expression “reserved in chains of darkness” alludes to Jude 6. Evidently, the querist believes that Satan is not now in those chains but that the other fallen angels are, which angels are to be identified as those mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. It is on these assumptions underlying that I shall deal with the issue addressed in the question. Accordingly, my remarks should be interpreted in this light.

Satan is a term which means an adversary or opponent. Satan is also to be identified with devil, which term means false accuser or slanderer. In Matthew 4:1, 5, 8, it is said that the devil tempted Jesus but in verse 10, Jesus referred to him as Satan. In verse 11, it is said that the devil left Him. Accordingly, one is justified in using the term Satan and diabolos interchangeably to refer to the same being. Mark relates that Jesus was tempted of Satan, whereas Matthew says he was tempted of the devil (Mk. 1:13). Jesus also equated the term Satan with the term beelzebub (Matt. 12:22-30). In the moral world, Satan is the accuser and the slanderer in dealing with men as he seeks to lead them away from God. It is evident that he is permitted to do this by God who is the sovereign of the entire universe, both material and spiritual. By nature, he is a spiritual being with powers normally associated with angelic beings but is limited in what he can do by God who cast him and those in association with him from heaven (2 Pet. 2:4: Jude 6).

Satan and those in association with him were cast into tartarus, a division of hades, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved to judgment (2 Pet. 2:4). Jude says they are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness to the judgment of the great day (v. 6). It should be observed that each shares the same state or condition, both Satan and the angels associated with him in the rebellion. This rebellion consisted in their leaving their proper rank or level of authority and exceeding the limits of their jurisdiction within their ranks. Principality in Jude 6 is from arche and refers to level or rank. Their sin consisted in their not observing the rank and order that God set. Likewise, they did not keep their proper habitation. Habitation is from oiketerion which literally means a dwelling where an inhabitant resides. In the context of Jude 6, it evidently refers to the dwelling or bounds appointed to them by God which they deserted in the rebellion.

In response to their rebellion, God cast them out of heaven into hades, a compartment of which is tartarus. Is this a place or location in the same literal sense as is understood in our everyday language? One must remember that these are spirit beings not subject to material place and location as are we. Evidently, when place or location is used in relation to them, it is metaphorical or figurative language used for our comprehension. One can only understand the unseen and unknown by use of terms which one knows and understands from experience. Metaphors are helpful because they are stated or implied likenesses by which comparisons are made. Consequently, what is not understood is made clear by a metaphor. The metaphor is a comparison that makes clear the unknown thing. Parables are extended metaphors. When Jesus wanted His followers to understand aspects of the kingdom of heaven, He used parables such as the sower. From what they knew from common life and experience, they could grasp through the comparison made that which they previously did not know. Metaphors are therefore most useful.

If Satan and his angels are reserved in darkness in chains, what is their condition? Learning this will enable one to be able to answer the question raised with greater clarity and accuracy. Reserved is translated from the verb tereo which means to guard, keep, preserve. It can have a happy outcome such as one’s being kept to a deliverance or salvation yet to be revealed (I Pet. 1:4) or can be one of retribution as it is in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. Consequently, the term does not have the meaning of a place or location but rather refers to the keeping that God has decreed. But if God is doing the guarding, the keeping, or the preserving, this is within the realm of His jurisdiction and His power to permit or not permit. In other words, they can only do as God permits for it is He who does the guarding, the keeping, or the preserving.

Chains is from desmos which means bonds. Again, the language is metaphorical. As a prisoner is bound and limited in what he is able to do, so it is that God has bound the rebellious angels and they can do only what is permitted by the nature of their bonds. The metaphor does not imply place or location as does the literal condition upon which it is based. God keeps or guards these rebellious angels to the punishment of the great Day of Judgment. Satan, the leader of the rebellious angels, suffers their same bonds. Consequently, there is no distinction between him and the other angels. All of them share the same retribution of bonds.

Having understood from scripture what Satan’s punishment is and having understood the nature of this punishment enables one to grasp the truth in relation to the issue posed by the querist. There is no distinction between Satan’s punishment of bonds and the other angels’ bonds. Therefore, he is not in one condition and they in another. Both of them share the same punishment and are in the same condition. What is described in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 is shared by all of them alike. It is my conviction that the question is based on a position (that Satan is not bound or reserved in the same sense that the other rebellious angels are) which is not taught by the scriptures.

Within the bonds, the guarding, or the keeping that God has these angels in, there is given to them a certain permission to interface in the moral and spiritual world with men. For instance, Job was afflicted by Satan but God put a limitation on him as what he could do to Job. Satan had a broad range of things that he could do to Job but he could not take his life (Job 2:6). Satan was kept or guarded by God and could not exceed what God had set as his bonds. Demons, whom I believe are rebellious angels as appears clear from their interaction with Jesus (Matt. 8:2; Mk. 5:7; Lk. 4:34), likewise have permission to interface with men as is evident from what the New Testament shows them doing. They knew Jesus to be the Son of God and that they were reserved for torment or punishment. They wondered if Jesus was going to torment them before the time set (the judgment of the great day). It is obvious that they had the same permission as did Satan but both they and he are reserved to punishment.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 21, p. 5
November 4, 1993

By Dena Roberts

Are you thinking, “Here comes the standard article saying women can stay home and raise their children, teach children’s classes, etc.”? We live in a time when many are not satisfied with the role God has given to women, and are actively seeking to broaden that role into unauthorized areas. Perhaps we should re-examine the significance of what women can do. In this I believe we will find that women are neither unimportant nor required by God to do virtually nothing. Think for a moment what the church would be like without dedicated, Christian women.

Without women, there would be no elders. If that sounds strange to you, look at 1 Timothy 3:2. An elder is to be the husband of one wife, and that wife is to be dignified, not a gossip, temperate and faithful in all things (1 Tim. 3:11). An elder needs a wife who will help him in his work. Every woman should begin today to work on putting these characteristics into her own life. Then when her husband is qualified, she will not be holding him back from this very vital function.

Without women, much of the taking care of the sick and elderly simply would not get done. Most men are not great cooks. I know my husband can make hot dogs and that is about it. If sick and elderly people had to eat hot dogs when they needed help, the church would soon die off from such a poor diet! Seriously, women can do so much in this area  take food to the sick, clean the house for the elderly, send cards to those who are ill, absent or lonely, baby sit, or call to cheer up someone who is discouraged. Every woman can do these things. If you think God has deprived you of any meaningful service in the kingdom, plan right now to help someone this week. We are commanded to do good to all men, especially those who are Christians (Gal. 6:10). Let’s do it!

Without women, what would happen to hospitality? Who would arrange and plan the get-togethers which help Christians come to know each other so much better? The few words exchanged in the foyer on Sunday can never build the deep brother-sister relationship Christianity requires, so hospitality is commanded (1 Pet. 4:9; Rom. 12:13). How can we truly help Christians in need if we do not know them? Decide that you will introduce yourself to anyone you don’t recognize at the next service. Continue to do this each time the church meets. You may be nervous about introducing yourself to others, afraid that you will mistake another member as a visitor. If that happens, you needed to get to know that brother or sister anyway. Don’t let that fear keep you from being friendly! You’ll be surprised at how quickly you can get to know who are members and who are visitors if you will try. As you get to know more people take the next step and invite them into your home where you can further your friendship. Women must be willing and able to spend their lives doing whatever it takes to help their brothers and sisters in Christ. That means practicing hospitality that we might know others, and be able to help them.

Without older women, who will teach the younger women their responsibilities? Titus 2:3-5 tells younger women they need to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, and subject to their own husbands. Older women, do not retire when your children leave home. You still have God-given responsibilities, and teaching Titus 2’s responsibilities should keep you very busy! Too many older women quit teaching Bible classes saying, “I’ve done my time.” Yet, you are the ones who the children need the most. You have the wisdom that the young women do not possess. Children need someone who isn’t a mom reinforcing what they are being taught at home. You can be that someone if you will break out of retirement and get involved.

Now, how important are these kinds of works? Think about what you remember the most about different congregations you’ve attended. Was it the wonderful song leaders, inspiring prayers, and the reverent officiating at the Lord’s table? Besides the preaching, my fond (or not so fond) memories of congregations past are of how hospitable, loving and friendly the members were. When we must move away from a congregation, we remember the brothers and sisters who helped and encouraged us, who had us into their homes, and who we felt close to. Public assembly practices are soon forgotten. People who are involved in others’ lives will never be forgotten. In short, we remember the very things that women do. The work and activities of women shape the atmosphere, spirit and feel of a congregation! Who would dare say such is unimportant or useless?

A congregation can have the best public worship assembly around, but if the members are not friendly to visitors, do not extend hospitality to each other, or do not help those among them in need, then that congregation will not be viewed as a family of God’s people who show their love for Christ by showing their love for each other (John 13:34-35). Women operate in this vital area.

Women, we are not less important than men. God has given us different functions in the church and in the home, but this does not mean we are “second-class citizens.” If we devalue the work God has given to women we will inevitably want to usurp other roles not given to us. Thus, as Eve sinned by taking what God had not given to her, so we will follow in her footsteps. Instead, we must work on the obligations God desires for us to fulfill. This will not leave us bored or with nothing to do. Indeed, we will be very busy in the kingdom with some of the most important work to be done! I have plenty to do. How about you?

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: No 21, p. 2-3
November 4, 1993