Evolution or Divine Intervention

Can you believe in evolution and still be a saved Christian?

Evolution or Divine Intervention
By Dennis D. King
ISBN 9781005129682
Copyright 2021 Dennis King
          License
          This work is licensed for your personal enjoyment. Any and all information herein may be used in Christian Bible Study without seeking additional permissions. Thank you for respecting the work of this author.
Disclaimer
         This is a Biblical based instruction. All subjects and persons mentioned are from information gathered from private and public sources.
Acknowledgments
          I wish to thank many unnamed others for their assistance in bringing you these Christian messages.


Table of Contents
Introduction
         

Darwin's Theory of Evolution

         

The Birds and the Bees

         

Interdependent Evolution

         

Water

         

Divine Authority

         

Evolution

         

False Evidence of Human Evolution

         

Conclusions

          Introduction
There are many conflicting ideas on Divine Intervention and Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Can you believe in evolution and still be a saved Christian? What are the "Christian" requirements to gain eternal Salvation?
Near the end of His first earthly ministry, Jesus, Son of the Most High, willingly, though somewhat reluctantly, died on the cross for the remission of all our sins so we could have a chance of salvation. Three days later, He physically rose from death, left the burial tomb, and proved to the Apostles--He was alive again before ascending to heaven. While there is no multiple choice bible test you have to pass to get to heaven. you can not get there on your own merit or good deeds. Any "chargeable" sin will deny entrance into Paradise.
After reading this essay, if you feel I have missed any pivotal factor or crucial considerations, please contact me. The great thing about digital publishing, particularly at SermonCentral.com, is that any work can be easily updated.


Darwin's Theory of Evolution
          Divine Intervention and Darwin's Theory of Evolution are opposing intellectual points of view.
          Which do you favor? How do you feel when the "experts" sheds light only on the "facts" that support their point of view? Many scholars that support the work of Charles Darwin are quick to discount God as the Creator of all.
Seemingly, everybody has been exposed to Darwin's Theory. Did you know its original 1859 title was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"? Or, later, in the 1872 sixth edition, the title was changed to "The Origin of the Species." Then it became Darwin's Theory of Evolution of Species. Meaning distinct species transformed into other species.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion (Author's comment: Really? By who and how wide?) that all life is related and has descended from a single, common ancestor: bananas and birds, fish and flowers--are all related. Darwin's general, all-purpose theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic or undirected "descent with modification." That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival--a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism, not just a variation of the original, but a totally different creature.
In reading the above, one might surmise that Darwin did not believe in God. That is not true. Two crucial pieces of the puzzle of Darwin's faith were the deaths of his father in 1848 and his 10-year- old daughter Annie three days after Easter in 1851. His father's death was very stressful. Reflecting later, Darwin wrote, "I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the [New Testament] text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and most all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." His wife was so distressed by this passage in his autobiography that she expunged it from the first published edition of that work.

Darwin became increasingly agnostic in the last three decades of his life. Surprisingly, there is a persistent story that Darwin actually came back to Christian faith shortly before his death--and that he also denied the truth of evolution. An evangelist named Elizabeth Cotton, calling herself "Lady Hope," said that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and found him reading the biblical book of Hebrews. When she mentioned the Genesis creation story, he was troubled and spoke about how the "unformed ideas" of his youth had spread like "wildfire." Somehow, others had "made a religion of them." Then, he invited her to preach the gospel to his servants, tenants, and neighbors.
Have you ever heard the supporters of his theories give credit to God? From their raging vitriol, you might believe Darwin was anti-god? Did or do any of his supporters have the courage to relate the introductory quotes from the first edition of Darwin's On the Origin of Species as published in 1859. Opposite the title page are two epigraphs. The first one comes from Wallace Whewell's Bridgewater Treatise. The second is from Francis Bacon's highly influential book, The Advancement of Learning. Bacon recommends diligent study of both "the book of God's word" (the Bible) and "the book of God's works" (the creation).
          "But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this--we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interposition's of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws."W. Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise, 1834.


          "To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word,or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficiency in both." Francis Bacon:Advancement of Learning, 1605.


Both of the preceding quotes can be considered as philosophical arguments for the existence of God's divine powers. Wallace Whewell even wrote Darwin a letter.
          My dear Mr Darwin
          I have to thank you for a copy of your book on the 'Origin of Species'. You will easily believe that it has interested me very much, and probably you will not be surprised to be told that I cannot, yet at least, become a convert to your doctrines. But there is so much of thought and of fact in what you have written that it is not to be contradicted without careful selection of the ground and manner of the dissent, which I have not now time for. I must therefore content myself with thanking you for your kindness.
          believe me | Yours very truly | W Whewell


Furthermore, Whewell's "Astronomy and General Physics Considered with Reference to Natural Theology," written in 1833 stated:
          "The contemplation of the material universe exhibits God to us as the author of the laws of material nature; bringing before us a wonderful spectacle, in the simplicity, the comprehensiveness, the mutual adaptation of these laws, and in the vast variety of harmonious and beneficial effects produced by their mutual bearing and combined operation."


The details of Darwin's exodus from Christianity to agnosticism, and its relationship to his theory of evolution, take on serious importance. Some have transformed his intellectual philosophy into a profane icon for atheism--even though Darwin refused to identify himself as such. For others, he became a plagiarizing prophet of science who accomplished little original work.
An expression that Darwin did apply to himself when reflecting on the evolutionary picture he painted was "a devil's chaplain."
Even the word "Evolution" did not appear within the pages of Darwin's work about how the variations in life came to be. Rather he used the term, "descent with modification." Even the word "evolve" occurred only once, as the final word of the closing sentence, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
Leaving the history of the 19th century behind, I would like to revisit portions of Darwin's theories and related topics, not necessarily from a Christian's viewpoint, but to explore what the observable world offers as evidence, to our own eyes.
As we know, Darwin's natural selection theory suggests that millions of life-cycle accumulated improvements resulted in every new species and humans in particular. The idea of natural selection may sound convincing when considering only animals, like any rabbit that can sense early signs of danger and run the quickest to escape a predator will pass these genes onto their offspring. But can a female rabbit pass along wings to her brood, no matter how high she may hop? Impossible!
Ask yourself how many wingless creatures unexpectedly, or out of necessity, grew wings? Where are the evident fossils to support this theory for just a few of the 70,000 fishes, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians that evolved into the 10,000 known species of birds? Yet, the evolutionists are often vocal about one species transforming into birds. A view the average Christian does not hold.
It is a biological falsehood that a wingless animal or fowl would evolve even a single wing, let alone a pair of wings perfectly balanced by body style and muscularly correct to lift its own weight. How this occurs is unanswered by the evolutionists? Wing-like stubs don't make any creature more adaptable or better. The first wing-like stubs to be sprouted would be much too small for any benefit. So there would be no reason for any creature to grow them.
God gave all his creatures certain attributes for the benefit of that singular species. A hummingbird does not need the camouflaging fur of the cougar, just as a cougar doesn't need iridescent wings beating 12 to 80 times per second. Silly examples, but the points should be well taken because those would be the evolution of unnatural selection. In those frivolous examples, changes of that nature would be a disadvantage.
Fools or deceivers spouting evolution want you to accept amoebas crawled up on shore, and through a cycle of random changes became man and woman. The Evolution Theory is a cunning falsehood to the purpose of undermining the truth in God's word.
Some evolutionists say "All species are nothing but accidents" Others give credit to miracles of mathematical formulas where billions of years multiplied by millions of accidents caused all living things to be what we see them now--but not miracles from the lips of God. All somehow seamlessly interwoven, allowing one species to spring into another. And monkeys, chips and other primates transformed in to man? What hogwash!
In fact, it is such a pile of malarkey that evolutionists require more faith in their errant theories than Christians believing in God. How reasonable is it to believe in the millions upon millions of accidental miracles necessary to create the creatures of our world? You see evolutionists don't have 'One Theory' supporting accounting for all life, they must have individual accidents for atoms, wind, rain, seasons, earth, moon, plants, animals, day, night, and even the characteristics of water, and gravity.
Yes, evolutionists believe that billions of miracles made us, earth, and the universe as we know it today. They parrot a mantra saying that it took plant life billions of years to accidentally produce a single bloom so that species of flowers could reproduce. Yes, now that would require individual miracles for every flowering plant on earth. Wow, that's a lot of evolutionary miracles. Or did each particular plant somehow first produce a seed that made the next generation plant bear freshly designed flowers? Wait! Not all plants produce flowers.
Since evolutionists believe it took billions of years for those flowers to accidentally produce the seeds to multiply, what happens when we ask the evolutionist to explain what other key factors are needed for flowers to flourish? I mean, of course, besides nutrients in the earth, the exact balance and amounts of sunshine, water, and the proper weather conditions? You still need something else for flowers to reproduce.
The Birds and the Bees
You need living creatures, most particularly birds, bees, and mammals. Why? To pollinate the flowers so the flowers can produce seeds so the next generation and repeat all these supposedly
          random miracles. Consider this--there are more than 4,000 species of bees in North America plus around 25,000 bee species worldwide. How was it that the right pollinator was there to pollinate the right flower--before the flower developed?

Some plants use colors to attract their ideal pollinators, bees aren't the only choice. Hummingbirds with their exceptionally long beaks are often, but not always exclusively attracted to red flowers with deep petals protecting their precious nectar. Red flowers are typically loaded nectar rich in carbohydrates, which provides nearly instant energy for the fast-moving hummingbirds. Many insect pollinators see color differently than we do because they are sensitive to ultraviolet light. UV light makes the reproductive areas of some flowers stand out. Bees are attracted to blue or yellow flowers. Flowers pollinated by animals who search for food at night are often pale, to be more visible under the moon and starlight.
Some plants must have a match with a specific animal pollinator. While this may be efficient because the pollinator will always visit that same species, dependency can be dangerous for both partners should one or the other become extinct. How did one evolve before the other? Impossible!
On a worldwide scale, creatures of many shapes and sizes pollinate over three-fourths of the staple plants that people eat. Scientists estimate that one out of every three bites of food we take results from successful animal-plant pollination. For instance, consider a common hot dog loaded up with ketchup, relish, mustard, and onions. Several bee species pollinated the flowers of the plants that produce tomatoes, cucumbers, mustard seeds, and onions. Other kinds of bees, wasps, and flies are responsible for the pollination of plants that become the side dishes. For example, hard-working bees pollinated the potato plant that eventually became potato chips, and French fries. An endless variety of ice cream flavors, such as strawberry, chocolate, and vanilla, are also the result of successful
         plant-creature partnerships. A world without pollinators, and thus without flowers and so many types of food, would be a poor world indeed!
Oops! Do you see a need for more accidental miracles? Now we don't just need a couple of accidents, we need accidents that are in synchrony with the other millions of accidents at exactly the right time and conditions. No flowers--no bees. No Bees, no you or me.
Evolutionists believe it took millions if not billions of years for bees to accidentally appear on the earth so that they could pollinate the flower so that plant species could reproduce. Not only do you need bees and flowers to 'evolve' at the right time, but you also need all the varieties of flowers and the different species of the birds and the bees to be evolving in perfect synchronization at the exact time and place on earth.
That would be miracles upon miracles. In my opinion, the birds and the bees, and the plants would have to have developed within far too many coincidences. All at just the right moments within all those billions of years the evolutionists call the "real" timeline of our planet. To be a true 'evolutionist' you would have to believe in uncountable, species changing, coincidences between plants, birds, and insects.
Interdependent Evolution
Many people who do not believe God created all life surmise that plants and mammals co-evolved together. Wow, looks like another case of great timing for millions of miraculous coincidences.
The process of interdependent evolution of two or more species is called co-evolution. Usually, these relationships are beneficial to both parties. Which explains how the desert tortoise and other animals eat plants and seeds to spread the seeds. The Desert tortoises feed on annual wildflowers, plus the buds of some cactus species found in their native habitat. The act of dispersing seeds in that biological manner is very beneficial for the propagation of the various plants. These annual desert plants might germinate, grow, flower, seed, and die in one location without an outside dispersal system since there is little wind in the dry months following the growing season. The seeds the tortoise ingest and pass through their bowls will germinate and grow under the right conditions, in other locations, the following season.
Another plant-animal combination is the large but endangered Australian tree-like shrub called the 'snottygobble' which needs the large winged Emu to pass seeds through its digestive system. The Emu has wings but can not fly. But if you looked at a fossil of an Emu, might you think it was an animal evolving into a flying bird? But enough of the 'Birds and the Bees.' What other evidence supports God's creations?
Water
Let's study water to begin to understand how exceptionally complex 'plain old water' is. Water may seem like an inconsequential curiosity, but it has many inherent contradictions and its strange behaviors are miracles in and of themselves. Water has three states, solid ice, as a vapor, and, most commonly, as a liquid. When pure, water is tasteless, odorless, and colorless.
Water breaks the rules of other materials known and observed by scientists. For hundreds of years, chemists have developed comprehensive frameworks to describe what other liquids are and what those other liquids do. Those ideas are almost useless at explaining the unusual behavior of water.
          This strangeness is observable every time you drop ice into a drink. Ice cubes and icebergs float because water expands when it freezes. Imagine something different for a moment, in front of you is a solid object floating on and below its liquid state. Solid gold doesn't float on melted gold, rocks don't float on molten lava when it spews out of a volcano, though a crust forms on the surface as the lava cools.
If you've mistakenly left a soda pop in the freezer overnight, you saw that water expansion is a powerful force. Strong enough to bulge out a can or shatter a glass bottle. In fact, water freezing in the cracks of boulders can shatter mountains. Water not only continually reshapes our planet but every type of life needs water to exist. Do Evolutionists think water evolved from something else? No, they just accept it without attempting to define its origin. Since their theories all begin with a "magical slurry" and "creatures crawling from the oceans" those chains of logic are already decimated without water. God made the waters to cover the earth.
We all, more or less, take for granted that water evaporates and goes up into the atmosphere, condenses, and returns to earth as rain, snow, hail, or condensation. Not just where it originated, but thousands of miles away. As a result, clean water is distributed throughout the earth so every creature can live. Just think, some of the water molecules from the time of Jesus may course through your blood today. The exact same molecules. Yes, molecules expanded to where groups of them were able to evaporate and rise on waves of external energy, but the molecules themselves remain the same.
Water is very strange indeed, it has a high density. If you heat it or cool it, it will expand. The expansion of water, when cooled to lower temperatures, is unusual since most liquids and solids contract when they're cooled, whereas water increases its volume by almost 10%. The weight of a given amount of water does not change with a change in temperature. What changes is the density. Ten pounds of water evaporated produces ten pounds of water vapor in the air. But it is spread out so much that its measurement is hard to comprehend.
We all know how slippery a wet floor can be or how a car can lose all traction on a sheet of ice. But if this watery stuff is so slippery, why do we sometimes lick a fingertip to pickup a small but stubborn piece of lint or fuzz? Wouldn't you think it would slide off? No, it sticks to your fingertip. If you thought that was strange, how about this: Hot water freezes faster than cold water.
Water is not only attracted to itself but will stick or cling to almost anything it contacts. Over time, it is the nearest substance to a universal solvent, able to tear apart other compounds. Because of that attribute, water is one of the most reactive and corrosive chemicals we know. Almost every known chemical compound will dissolve in water to small, detectable, amounts. Common salt easily dissolves in plain water because the hydrogen bonds pull the sodium and chlorine atoms away, leaving them freely suspended through the liquid. Water is such an incredible solvent that it is almost impossible to find in a pure state. Even producing pure samples in the laboratory is difficult.
The ability water demonstrates daily to interact with so many different things is crucial for life. For us, water dissolves a wide variety of nutrients and other ingredients and moves them exactly where our bodies need them. The basic molecules of life, like DNA, proteins, and molecules that form our cell membranes, couldn't work without water. The billions of protein molecules inside your body only fold into the right shapes to do their jobs because their interaction with water nudges them into the correct three-dimensional formats. This is true even though the Evolutionists try to convince you this all happened randomly. Does all this randomness turning into all these perfect creations even seem reasonable?
Divine Authority
Well, we learned of the little things having such a major impact on our lives, let's consider the big things we often gloss over. There is no actual need to go into details on other observable facts that point to all of God's creations but Evolutionists would have you believe the following (and more) just happened without a Divine Authority:
         

The exact size of the sun is perfect for the right gravitational pull on the earth. We are at the exact distance from the sun for life, not too close, not too far away. The sun emits the precise amount of light, warmth, and radiation needed for life.

         

The earth has the exact tilt for seasons to prevent excessive heat or excessive freezing. The rotational speed is perfect; longer days could overheat one side and freeze the other. Faster spin would cause reduced gravity, causing essential elements to drift into space.

         

Somehow gravity keeps us from floating into space.

         

Moon cycles produce tides, seasons, and fertility cycles.

         

The size of the moon prevents the earth from wobbling out of orbit.

         

Our atmosphere burns up meteors ranging in size from micro-particles to boulders.

         

Our atmosphere blocks harmful radiation and allows essential radiation for life.

         

The exact composition of gases in our atmosphere produces life.

Evolution
So is evolution a real thing or not? Yes, but not as most public schools teach, where Darwin's theory of evolution of the species is taught as fact. There, students are indoctrinated that humans or all living creatures, and plants as well, were made from some insignificant electrical discharge combined with an oozing chemical slurry.
Yes, plants evolve. In my younger years, dandelions were as much as 14 inches tall. In a short period, they have evolved to grow, bloom, and go to seed almost flat to the ground to survive under the height of power-driven lawn mowers. That is just one example of nature's ongoing evolution. But the dandelions did not change into moles to burrow safely below the grass.
Charles Darwin discussed selective breeding in his essay, Origin of Species. Its first chapter discusses selective breeding over consecutive generations and domestication of such animals as horses, cats, cattle, and dogs. Darwin used artificial selection as a springboard to support his theory of natural selection. Natural selection is an actual process. The fastest hares can evade the fox, thus those genes can be passed along to the rabbit's baby bunnies. Humans can graft one fruit branch to a different type of "host" tree. None of those techniques are evolutionary.
Because we are made in the image of God, by God, humankind did not evolve through random processes from a single-celled organism into rational, emotional beings. Is there proof of evolution among mankind or animals? Yes, but not animal to man. All nature and humankind are exposed to evolution but within species. Every species evolves separately, usually according to the bountifulness or shortfalls of their particular environment. Over the centuries, we've grown stronger, faster, and taller based on more plentiful resources.


False Evidence of Human Evolution
          Lucy was discovered in Discovered 1976 Primate fossils found in Ethiopia were presented as evidence supporting the idea that Lucy walked upright and therefore, was a missing link to modern man? Footprints found nearby were considered to be transitional to modern man's footprint.
          Make your own inspection of the feet pictured with Lucy.
          Just kidding. No feet were found with Lucy's skeletal remains. However "a composite foot" derived from other fossil bones, found at a different site and combined with toe bones from yet another site were compared to and verified by fossilized tracks miles away. Any real bone, as seen below, is brown colored. Notice how much is fabricated or missing? So the nonexistent feet from Lucy's site were confirmed from fossilized tracks far, far away? Does that sound like reliable tried and true logic to you?
          But the narrative gets even more outlandish. In 1986, Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of
Missouri in Kansas City on how he determined Lucy is our ancestor. Looking head-on, chimpanzee knees have an angle of zero degrees, humans nine degrees. Lucy's knee has an angle of 15 degrees. After the lecture, questions were asked; "When and how far away from Lucy did you find the knee bone?" The answers were "about 1.5 miles away, about 200 feet lower, and about a year prior to Lucy's discovery." Does that add up for you?
          Nebraska Man was discovered in 1917 This figment of imagination was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922 and illustrated by London News based on a single tooth. Although Nebraska man may not have been a deliberate misrepresentation, the original classification proved to be a mistake and was retracted in 1927. More digging at the same site proved the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig.
          Peking Man was discove
red in 1926 Do you remember seeing the skull of Peking Man in school textbooks? Peking Man is not one skeleton but a collection of bones from forty or so individuals that were grouped together to form one skeletal specimen. The skeleton is purported to be that of a possible missing link. However, this compilation of Chinese bones was lost in WWII. Peking Man was touted as a hunter that had discovered fire and made tools.




          Cro-magnon Man was discovered in 1868 Often labeled as the earliest likely form of modern Homo sapiens, so say the archaeologist. Cro-Magnon people settled in Europe. They manufactured a variety of sophisticated flint tools, as well as bone, shell, and ivory jewelry and artifacts. Cro- Magnon artists produced cave paintings in France and Spain. Sounds to me like humans.






          Modern Man Our species is more diverse than you might imagine. As examples, Chandra Dangi of Nepal was irrefutably the shortest adult human who's entire height was recorded at 21 and one-half inches. He lived to be seventy-five. At the other end of the spectrum, the tallest human ever to live was Robert Wadlow. He was only one inch shy of nine feet. Robert died in 1940 at age 22 from an infected blister because of an ill-fitting leg brace. Imagine the bones of those two modern people unearthed by an archaeologist? What would their outlandish theories hypothesize?
Conclusions
Since Darwin's theoretical work is now taught throughout the education system as fact, you would think the evidence within would be rock solid. Not true. Charles himself wrote about missing fossils and he understood the significance of their absence. The following quotes are from his Origin of Species.
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth?" page139.
"Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" page 143
"But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" page 144.
"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed." page 149.
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." page 280.
Humans come in a variety of skin tones. Some say there are four races of humans, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid. If you go strictly by color, that could be true, but God's Word settles this issue.
We did not evolve from monkeys. There is only one human race, as humans today are 99.9% genetically identical even though physical appearances differ from one person to another. Most of the genetic differences are rooted to adaptations to dramatic local environments, gender, and unique individual attributes.
Big or little, black, red, yellow, or white, God's human creations are wonders to behold. Far too many coincidences would have to happen, all at the precise time, for life on earth to exist as we know it if we were a resultant of evolution of the species.
But even after decades of arguments, heated or friendly, overall one side has yet to convert even 50% of the holders of opposing views. For the purpose of consideration, will the evolutionists finally acknowledge God and Jesus Christ before it is too late for them? Pray that their time to know God will not have come and gone for them prior to their judgment. Then, there is nothing neither you nor I can do to save them from a torturous eternity in the fiery agonies of hell.


Congratulations! You have reached the end of this essay!


         

The choices are now yours to make!

          Please contact me, Dennis King, at [e-mail] if you have questions or just wish to share your thoughts, troubles or testimonies. If you, or someone you know, would benefit from personal email contact, just forward your request with details.
Author's Notes
          As an ordained Chaplain, I have led ministries in Prisons, Senior Facilities, and in Baptist and non-denominational Bible Study groups. By way of a transparent introduction, I have no theological degree. However, as you may gather, I do have a burning desire to do my small part to encourage spreading the Word of God. Shoring up the weak in faith and helping unbelievers gain insight into salvation are two very rewarding endeavors.
          Every topic included within this brief writing has been discussed in volumes by believers and unbelievers alike in studies, books, videos, and a multitude of inerrant and errant opinions scattered all over the world and airwaves of the Internet. To that regard and for the salvation of souls, I have written this to be a simplistic, unadorned understanding of the topic at hand. I have incorporated material information from the Bible and traditional (non-biblical) sources. For clarity, I generally use the New International Version (NIV) of the Holy Scriptures. To achieve a more in-depth enlightenment, please refer to any King James Bible version. Or speak with any mainstream Christian Clergy.
         Also a host of information is offered freely at the BibleGateway internet site. Once there, you may choose any Biblical version(s) you prefer. There, you can compare a Bible verse against varying interpretations and that can be time well spent.
          Also consider, you do not have to join a church to visit on any given Sunday or to speak with a Minister! If you are searching, I wholeheartedly encourage you to visit more than one church to find the Pastor and congregation that is most appealing to you.