Lucy, the Ape

Lucy is No Longer in the Sky with Diamonds

In the Genesis creation account, the Bible describes that all land-dwelling creatures were created on Day 6, with man being the pinnacle of God’s creation. In chapter 2 of that same book, Moses describes the creation of man and woman in detail, informing readers “and the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7). In verse 20 of that same chapter we find Adam giving names to “all cattle, to the birds of the air, to every beast of the field,” indicating that he possessed the intelligence to name them and understand instructions from God. The Darwinian Theory describes man evolving from some primordial soup, initially carrying a club and living in a cave with not much intelligence. These two theories of origins could not be more diametrically opposed.

The evidence that Lucy was human, is not missing.  It doesn't exist.

The evidence that Lucy was human, is not missing. It doesn’t exist.

So which is correct?

Scientific knowledge regarding the origin and antiquity of man is primarily based on fossil discoveries made by anthropologists, such as the world-famous Leakey family. Scientists would uncover fossilized bone fragments and then speculate as to what features the original creature possessed and precisely where it fit on the evolutionary tree of life. Each new discovery was heralded as a major scientific contribution—no matter how fragmented the fossil or how few remains were actually discovered. But as more and more fossils were unearthed, many scientists took delight in designating their finds as entirely new species, providing the scientist with the privilege of designating a new scientific name. While being able to name a new “species” of hominid was beneficial to one’s career, the real advantage came in announcing the discovery of the oldest upright-walking hominid fossil. The race was on to find the “missing link” that led back to a common ancestor that humans allegedly shared with the apes.

On November 30, 1974, Donald Johansson and graduate student Tom Gray loaded up in a Land Rover and headed out to plot an area of Hadar, Ethiopia, known as Locality 162. There they unearthed a fossilized skeleton that was nearly 40% complete. Dr. Johansson named his discovery Australopithecus afarensis meaning “the southern ape from Ethiopia’s Afar depression in northeastern Ethiopia.” The creature earned the nickname “Lucy” from the Beatles song “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” that was playing in the camp the night of the discovery. While there was a great deal of pomp and circumstance offered by the mainstream media when Lucy was first announced, her star does not shine as brightly today. In fact, having over 20 years to examine the fossils, there are several problems wrong with Lucy. For instance:

A. She has curved fingers and ape-like limb proportions (see Stern and Susman, 1983, J. Phy. Anthrop., 60:280) that point toward her being an ape.

B. She has locking wrists—a trait identified in quadrupeds (see Richmond & Strait, 2000, Nature, 404:382-385). Maggie Fox reported in the March 29, 2000, San Diego Union Tribune: “A chance discovery made by looking at a cast of the bones of ‘Lucy,’ the most famous fossil of Australopithecus afarensis, shows her wrist is stiff, like a chimpanzee’s, Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., reported. This suggests that her ancestors walked on their knuckles” (Fox, “Man’s Early Ancestors Were Knuckle Walkers,” 2000, Quest Section, March 29.).

C. The microwear on the teeth indicate this creature was tree fruit eater (see Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 358). Alan Walker, a professor of anthropology and biology at Penn State University, believes he might be able to reconstruct ancient diets from paleontological samples. In speaking of Alan Walker’s material, Johanson noted:

Dr. Alan Walker of Johns Hopkins has recently concluded that the polishing effect he finds on the teeth of robust Australopithecines and modern chimpanzees indicates that Australopithecines, like chimps, were fruit eaters…. If they were primarily fruit eaters, as Walker’s examination of their teeth suggests they were, then our picture of them, and of the evolutionary path they took, is wrong (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 358).

D. Lucy’s rib cage is conical like an ape’s, not barrel shaped like a human’s (see Leakey and Lewin, 1992, p. 193-194). Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich, Switzerland, received a replica of Lucy and noted,

When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy being very modern. Very human. So I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross section. More like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross section. But the shape of the ribcage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human ribcage is barrel shaped. And I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped ribcage, like what you see in apes (Peter Schmid as quoted in Leakey and Lewin, Origins Reconsidered, 1992, p. 193-194).

E. The semicircular canals of Australopithecines resemble an ape’s, not a human’s or a transitional creature’s (see Spoor et al., 1994, Nature, 369:645-648).

F. The pelvis of Lucy is not large enough to give birth, leaving one to wonder if she is really a “he” [“Lucy or Lucifer?”] (see Hausler and Schmid, 1995, J. Human Evol. 29:363-383).

This doesn’t stop textbooks or museums from perpetuating the lie. For instance, at the “Living World” located in the Saint Louis Zoo, they have built a shrine to Charles Darwin. As you walk into the “Introduction to the Animals” hall, you are immediately confronted by a life-size animatronic version of Charles Darwin. The area also features a life-size replica of the alleged Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) proclaiming: “This life-sized model shows a likely ancient ancestor of the human family.” However, there were never any feet or hand fossils discovered. The question becomes how can they be so sure about what this creature looked like? According to David Menton from Washington University, the statue is “a complete misrepresentation. And I believe they know it is a misrepresentation.” When asked how in good conscience they could display a creature possessing feet and hands without fossilized evidence, Bruce L. Carr, the zoo’s director of education, declared, “Zoo officials have no plans to knuckle under. We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. We look at the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct” (St. Louis Post Dispatch, July 22, 1996, p. 1). In other words, the impression supports evolution—let’s just forget what the evidence shows. Donald Johanson admitted:

There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it…. In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age…. Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils, which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 257, 258, emp. added).

He went on to state: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence” (p. 277).

The evidence clearly demonstrates that Lucy was nothing more than an ape. Entire books have been written about alleged missing links. But what does the evidence really show? One hundred and fifty years ago, Charles Darwin published On the Origins of Species describing the lack of transitional fossils as “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory,” but explained it by the extreme imperfection of the geological record. He believed that time would prove his theory correct. Grains of sand have indeed passed through the hourglass of time—but those shifting sands have never turned up Darwin’s missing links.

References

Hausler, Martin and Peter Schmid (1995), “Comparison of the Pelvis of Sts 14 and AL 288-1: Implications for Birth and Sexual Dimorphism in Australopithecines,” Journal of Human Evolution, 29:363-383.

Johanson, Donald C. and Tim D. White (1979), “A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids,” Science, 203[4378]:321-330, January 26.

Johanson, Donald, Lenora Johanson, and Blake Edgar, (1994) Ancestors: In Search of Human Origins (New York: Villard Books).

Leakey, Richard and Roger Lewin (1992), Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human (New York: Doubleday).

Richmond, Brian G. and David S. Strait (2000), “Evidence that Humans Evolved From a Knuckle-Walking Ancestor,” Nature, 404:382-385, March 23.

In the Genesis creation account, the Bible describes that all land-dwelling creatures were created on Day 6, with man being the pinnacle of God’s creation. In chapter 2 of that same book, Moses describes the creation of man and woman in detail, informing readers “and the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7). In verse 20 of that same chapter we find Adam giving names to “all cattle, to the birds of the air, to every beast of the field,” indicating that he possessed the intelligence to name them and understand instructions from God. The Darwinian Theory describes man evolving from some primordial soup, initially carrying a club and living in a cave with not much intelligence. These two theories of origins could not be more diametrically opposed.
So which is correct?
Scientific knowledge regarding the origin and antiquity of man is primarily based on fossil discoveries made by anthropologists, such as the world-famous Leakey family. Scientists would uncover fossilized bone fragments and then speculate as to what features the original creature possessed and precisely where it fit on the evolutionary tree of life. Each new discovery was heralded as a major scientific contribution—no matter how fragmented the fossil or how few remains were actually discovered. But as more and more fossils were unearthed, many scientists took delight in designating their finds as entirely new species, providing the scientist with the privilege of designating a new scientific name. While being able to name a new “species” of hominid was beneficial to one’s career, the real advantage came in announcing the discovery of the oldest upright-walking hominid fossil. The race was on to find the “missing link” that led back to a common ancestor that humans allegedly shared with the apes.
On November 30, 1974, Donald Johansson and graduate student Tom Gray loaded up in a Land Rover and headed out to plot an area of Hadar, Ethiopia, known as Locality 162. There they unearthed a fossilized skeleton that was nearly 40% complete. Dr. Johansson named his discovery Australopithecus afarensis meaning “the southern ape from Ethiopia’s Afar depression in northeastern Ethiopia.” The creature earned the nickname “Lucy” from the Beatles song “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” that was playing in the camp the night of the discovery. While there was a great deal of pomp and circumstance offered by the mainstream media when Lucy was first announced, her star does not shine as brightly today. In fact, having over 20 years to examine the fossils, there are several problems wrong with Lucy. For instance:
A. She has curved fingers and ape-like limb proportions (see Stern and Susman, 1983, J. Phy. Anthrop., 60:280) that point toward her being an ape.
B. She has locking wrists—a trait identified in quadrupeds (see Richmond & Strait, 2000, Nature, 404:382-385). Maggie Fox reported in the March 29, 2000, San Diego Union Tribune: “A chance discovery made by looking at a cast of the bones of ‘Lucy,’ the most famous fossil of Australopithecus afarensis, shows her wrist is stiff, like a chimpanzee’s, Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., reported. This suggests that her ancestors walked on their knuckles” (Fox, “Man’s Early Ancestors Were Knuckle Walkers,” 2000, Quest Section, March 29.).
C. The microwear on the teeth indicate this creature was tree fruit eater (see Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 358). Alan Walker, a professor of anthropology and biology at Penn State University, believes he might be able to reconstruct ancient diets from paleontological samples. In speaking of Alan Walker’s material, Johanson noted:
Dr. Alan Walker of Johns Hopkins has recently concluded that the polishing effect he finds on the teeth of robust Australopithecines and modern chimpanzees indicates that Australopithecines, like chimps, were fruit eaters…. If they were primarily fruit eaters, as Walker’s examination of their teeth suggests they were, then our picture of them, and of the evolutionary path they took, is wrong (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 358).
D. Lucy’s rib cage is conical like an ape’s, not barrel shaped like a human’s (see Leakey and Lewin, 1992, p. 193-194). Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich, Switzerland, received a replica of Lucy and noted,
When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy being very modern. Very human. So I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross section. More like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross section. But the shape of the ribcage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human ribcage is barrel shaped. And I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped ribcage, like what you see in apes (Peter Schmid as quoted in Leakey and Lewin, Origins Reconsidered, 1992, p. 193-194).
E. The semicircular canals of Australopithecines resemble an ape’s, not a human’s or a transitional creature’s (see Spoor et al., 1994, Nature, 369:645-648).
F. The pelvis of Lucy is not large enough to give birth, leaving one to wonder if she is really a “he” [“Lucy or Lucifer?”] (see Hausler and Schmid, 1995, J. Human Evol. 29:363-383).
This doesn’t stop textbooks or museums from perpetuating the lie. For instance, at the “Living World” located in the Saint Louis Zoo, they have built a shrine to Charles Darwin. As you walk into the “Introduction to the Animals” hall, you are immediately confronted by a life-size animatronic version of Charles Darwin. The area also features a life-size replica of the alleged Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) proclaiming: “This life-sized model shows a likely ancient ancestor of the human family.” However, there were never any feet or hand fossils discovered. The question becomes how can they be so sure about what this creature looked like? According to David Menton from Washington University, the statue is “a complete misrepresentation. And I believe they know it is a misrepresentation.” When asked how in good conscience they could display a creature possessing feet and hands without fossilized evidence, Bruce L. Carr, the zoo’s director of education, declared, “Zoo officials have no plans to knuckle under. We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. We look at the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct” (St. Louis Post Dispatch, July 22, 1996, p. 1). In other words, the impression supports evolution—let’s just forget what the evidence shows. Donald Johanson admitted:
There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it…. In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age…. Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils, which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 257, 258, emp. added).
He went on to state: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence” (p. 277).
The evidence clearly demonstrates that Lucy was nothing more than an ape. Entire books have been written about alleged missing links. But what does the evidence really show? One hundred and fifty years ago, Charles Darwin published On the Origins of Species describing the lack of transitional fossils as “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory,” but explained it by the extreme imperfection of the geological record. He believed that time would prove his theory correct. Grains of sand have indeed passed through the hourglass of time—but those shifting sands have never turned up Darwin’s missing links.
References
Hausler, Martin and Peter Schmid (1995), “Comparison of the Pelvis of Sts 14 and AL 288-1: Implications for Birth and Sexual Dimorphism in Australopithecines,” Journal of Human Evolution, 29:363-383.
Johanson, Donald C. and Tim D. White (1979), “A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids,” Science, 203[4378]:321-330, January 26.
Johanson, Donald, Lenora Johanson, and Blake Edgar, (1994) Ancestors: In Search of Human Origins (New York: Villard Books).
Leakey, Richard and Roger Lewin (1992), Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human (New York: Doubleday).
Richmond, Brian G. and David S. Strait (2000), “Evidence that Humans Evolved From a Knuckle-Walking Ancestor,” Nature, 404:382-385, March 23.
Posted in Brad Harrub | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Lucy, the Ape

¡EXISTE UNA IGLESIA!

¡EXISTE UNA IGLESIA, Y SOLAMENTE UNA QUE PERTENECE A CRISTO!

UNA PROMESA QUE NO FALLO

La Iglesia: Una promesa que no Fallo.

La Iglesia: Una promesa que no Fallo.

Las palabras que se encuentran registradas en Mateo 16:18, ciertamente son unas de las más importantes, quizás en toda la Biblia para el hombre “…edificaré mi Iglesia…” Si la Iglesia no existiera el ser humano simplemente No podría ser salvo. Note con particularidad que más allá de eso la frase revela una promesa que Cristo mismo está haciendo, El mismo iba sin duda alguna a edificar SU Iglesia, una y solo una. El Señor NO dijo: “una de las iglesias” o, “ “alguna iglesia”. Nuestro pasaje en cuestión se encuentra (gramaticalmente hablando) en Singular- posesivo. Es decir; iba a construir la  “I-g-l-e-s-i-a” (una) que le iba a pertenecer a EL. Por Ejemplo: Si colocamos mis anteojos en una mesa y yo le dijera a usted; tome los anteojos que prefiera ¿Cual Sería su respuesta? -Tal vez algo como ¡No existen opciones, más que una! y eso es exactamente correcto en la mesa solo se encuentran los anteojos que le pertenecen a Heiner. Amados amigos Dios NO ha dado el derecho a ningún ser humano para decidir a que iglesia añadirse. El ha establecido una y solo una para poder alcanzar la salvación y cuando alguien obedece el verdadero evangelio de Cristo, el Señor le añade a su Iglesia (Hechos 2:47), no ningún hombre ni siquiera usted mismo sino que es el Señor. 

EXISTIO SOLO UNA IGLESIA EN EL SIGLO PRIMERO

Algunos proclaman ser la única iglesia verdadera, pero no solamente porque yo me desmaye gritando que ¡los caballos vuelan, en realidad los caballos vuelan!. Todo razonamiento correcto demanda evidencias que lo acompañen. En 1517,  Martín Lutero abiertamente se reveló contra el catolisismo y sus distorsiones a la verdad. De ahí en adelante inicia la proliferación del protestantismo. Ninguna denominación puede probar su existencia antes de esa fecha, siendo la más reciente de todas la sexta de los evangélicos, comenzando cerca del año 1900 y los Luteranos los protestantes más antiguos regresando a los 1500’s. Por otra parte la Iglesia Católica Romana de hecho es la más antigua de las denominaciones, regresando al año 300  D.C aproximadamente y la alianza que inicia con el emperador Romano Constantino. La Iglesia de Cristo no responde ninguna de estas fechas más que al año 33 D.C cuando en el día de Pentecostés se predicó la palabra de Dios y una multitud como de 3000 personas obedecieron el evangelio a travez del bautismo (Hechos 2:41). Nadie podía decir algo como ¿A que Iglesia iremos este domingo?, ¿Sabe la razón del porqué?,  Porque no existía ninguna otra, así de simple. Pablo en su carta a los Romanos envía saludos de parte de “las iglesias de Cristo” (Romanos 16:16). Alguien ha dicho: Sí, pero es solo un versículo que lo menciona. Bueno podrá ser un versículo pero está ahí y no podemos arrancar esa hoja de la Biblia, por el lado contrario quisiéramos ver uno, SOLAMENTE UN versículo, que diga: “ os saludan todas las iglesias evangélicas, o católicas, o mormonas, o testigos de Jehová, o bautistas… permítame ahorrarle tiempo, NO existe tal versículo. En el primer siglo existió Una iglesia y solo una, la Iglesia de Cristo. Jesús prometió edificar su Iglesia como antes lo vimos, y de hecho lo hizo. Decir que todas las iglesias llevan a Dios es hacer a Jesús mentiroso porque no estableció una como dijo lo haría, sino muchas. Yo  personalmente no creo que El haya mentido ¿y usted?.

LA LOGICA DEMANDA EXCLUSIVIDAD

“Logofobia”, es el termino correcto que describe la oposición a la lógica.  Dios siempre ha pedido al hombre razonar (Isaías 1:18), la nueva hermenéutica se opone tajantemente a la lógica volviendo al hombre casi insensato. La palabra griega traducida como razonable es logikos, definido por Vine como “ uno que hace uso de sus facultades mentales, razonable, racional”. Con esto mente por favor considere con nosotros:

  1. La Iglesia es descrita como La ESPOSA de Cristo (Efe. 5:22-23; Rom. 7:4;  2Co. 11:2) Cristo mismo enseño la monogamia (Un hombre para una mujer, Mateo 19:4) ¿enseño el una cosa y ahora práctica otra en referencia a la iglesia?¿Tiene el Señor muchas esposas o solamente una?.
  2. Cristo es el pastor de su REBAÑO. Existe solamente un rebaño, una Iglesia (Hechos 20:28; 1Ped. 5:2; Juan 10:16) Decir que existen diferentes rebaños nos traería también a la conclusión que existen otros pastores aparte de Cristo, eso es  profundamente interesante ¿No cree usted?
  3. La iglesia es la FAMILIA de Dios (1Tim. 3:15; Efe. 3:14-15; Hech. 10:2) Está más que claro que Dios no tiene más que una familia. Si esa familia de acuerdo a estos pasajes es la Iglesia entonces, no hay más que una Iglesia. Simplemente no puedo ni siquiera imaginarme a Cristo con muchas diferentes familias.
  4. Un Dios, un camino, una Iglesia. Muchos pueden citar Juan 14:6 de memoria, y están en acuerdo; Cristo es el camino, y ¡hábleme todo el día de Cristo!, no hay ningún problema, Mahoma no salva, ni la virgen solamente Cristo. También El es la verdad, existe una verdad que es la que va a salvar al mundo y todo esto es aceptable y bien visto para la gente pero… ¡Existe solamente una Iglesia!, ahí si NO es del agrado de muchos… Amigos ES IMPOSIBLE separar a Cristo de su Iglesia a como es imposible separar a la Cabeza del Cuerpo (Efe. 1:21-22).  Sí existe un Dios por sobre y sobre todos, Sí existe un evangelio que salva, Sí existe un Señor que se entregó por nosotros, Sí existe un solo bautismo, Sí existe una sola fe y una sola esperanza ENTONCES… EXISTE UNA SOLA IGLESIA, LA IGLESIA DE CRISTO. Y esto se llama “razonar correctamente”.

Algunos pueden observar todo lo anterior presuntuoso y hasta falsamente acusarnos de arrogancia. Sin embargo esto no tiene origen en ninguno de nosotros. El plan de exclusividad de la Iglesia fue de Dios a El le plació en la eternidad pensar en un grupo de personas llamados Iglesia de Cristo, porque iban a ser comprados con sangre por El para salvación (paráfrasis de Efe. 1:3-4), El punto es ¿Porque defender lo indefendible? Entra tanta confusión religiosa y tantas Iglesias y denominaciones de acuerdo a la la Biblia, Existe hoy una Iglesia y Solamente una que pertenece a Cristo. ´El un día regresará por segunda vez  a llevar a su esposa la iglesia que `EL estableció aquel día de pentecostés en Hechos 2. Es mi ruego que usted para ese entonces sea ya parte de la Iglesia de Cristo. 

Posted in Heiner Montealto | Tagged , , | Comments Off on ¡EXISTE UNA IGLESIA!

When Jesus Returns

Your Final Act Before the Final Trumpet

When Jesus foretold the time when not a single stone of that majestic temple in Jerusalem would rest upon another, the disciples asked for signs which would precede the destruction of that temple and the end of Judaism (Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7). The Lord gave at least eight distinct signs which would come before that event. He then foretold of another event which would happen for which there was one single sign to announce its coming. Jesus spoke of a day when, not the temple, but heaven and earth would pass away. He gave no sign for that day, for it will come as an unannounced thief (Mark 13:31-32).

When Jesus Returns, what will be happening?

When Jesus Returns, what will be happening?

It will happen when men are doing things which happen all the time—eating, drinking, marrying and weddings. It will be unannounced and will come when no one is expecting it to happen (Matt. 24:44). What is happening on that day will be the same things which happen every other day. What kinds of events will be happening when Jesus returns?

When Jesus returns, some will be sitting in worship. Every day there are gatherings of Christians in various time zones around the world like Bible classes, devotions, gospel meetings, lectureships and special church events. This was brought home to me when I preached in Columbus, Ohio, several years ago. A brother prayed, “Lord, if you are assembling your angels right now to come to judge the world, we beg you to wait long enough for brother Dan to finish his sermon and let us sing one more song.” It could happen. It is truly possible that He will come before the end of an evangelistic sermon.

When Jesus comes, some will be attending a funeral. For all the reasons given above, just imagine what it would be like to be at a funeral or at a graveside when that shout comes from heaven. All of the grieving which accompanies these events will be meaningless. Such thoughts should help us deal with the loss of our loved ones. It is truly possible that He will come before a funeral filled with grief ends.

When Jesus comes, some will be involved in sinful actions. Imagine those who are cursing and blaspheming God and His holy name just as the last trumpet sounds. Imagine those who are involved in sexual immorality as the shout from heaven comes. It is possible that just as words profaning His name leave someone’s lips the heavens will be rolled up as a scroll.

When He comes, many will be involved in “washing the feet” of those around them. What a joy to think that when He comes we will be doing right. Think about this. Live every minute of every day knowing that that minute is when He might come!

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , | Comments Off on When Jesus Returns