Tuesday, 31 July 2012


I sometimes meet people who are sure that the Bible contradicts itself. "Look around at all the evil in the world.", they say.  "Is that a sign of a 'good God'?" Or, "How can there are two contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis? It would be nice if the Christian reference books in my library held the answers but sometimes they cause the problems!

My Christian reference books endorse the idea that Genesis contains two versions of creation. The first version starts with "In the beginning".. and ends in Gen 2:4 and the second ends in Gen. 3:24. The reason for this is the opening statement in Gen 2:4b, "In the day that God made the earth and the heavens..."  This has been interpreted to mean that the story of creation is being retold. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Up until this point in the text the phrase in Genesis that represents creation has been the 'heavens and the earth'. Now the order is reversed. Why? Because the creation of the universe had been completed and a new emphasis was being introduced that was restricted to an earthly perspective. It would not have been appropriate to use the same phrase 'heavens and earth' when the creation of the universe was being described.

The second story is not about the creation but about the addition of something new to creation. It has been assumed that the end of God's creative work ended in the sixth day and on the seventh day He rested. And this is true. But it is not true that God ended His supernatural intervention into the natural order.

Gen 2:5 continues, "before any plant of the field had grown and before any herb of the field had grown." This is interpreted as the creation of the plants and herbs in Gen 1:29.  However, there is here one strange omission. In Gen 1:29 God created the seed-bearing trees. There is no mention of trees in Gen 2:5. If this is a creation account that would be a major omission. The second omission is the purpose of these plants. In Gen 1:29 the seed-bearing fruit is to be used for food. In Gen 2:5 no purpose is stated for the plants.

There is also a new assertion.  In Gen 2:5 it states it was the time before the plants and herbs had grown. This does not say before the time they were created. The second new  assertion is the reason they had not yet grown. God had not yet made it rain and man had not yet tilled the soil. What has this to do with the origin of these plants and herbs?

The word for plants here is 'siah' and the word for herb is 'esebh'. These two words also appear at the end of the story in Gen 3:17b-19, "Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat  of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles (siah) it will bring forth for you and you shall eat the herb (esebh) of the field. In the sweat of your face ye shall eat bread...".

It now becomes clear what the author is explaining. Verse 2:5 ought to read, "Before any thorns and thistles were in the earth and before the bread-making grains had grown up...". Or to make it even plainer; before Adam had sinned and the creation had been cursed by his sin so that thorns grew to thwart man's pleasure and before man was forced to wait for the rain and till the soil... The siah are different from the fruit-bearing trees and herbs in Genesis 1. They are not manifest before the creation of man. They are not yet grown until after God made it rain and man tilled the soil. This is not an In-the-beginning moment but a before-the-fall time.

The purpose of these chapters in Genesis is to explain an enigma to upcoming generations. Why did God declare that everything He made was good when He made it and yet there are thorns and thistles found in the earth.  This would appear to be a contradiction. As the story unfolds though it becomes clear that the sin problem has arisen. Adam must humbly admit that the flaws in creation are not God's doing but the supernatural outcome of the curse that falls on disobedience. This world's imperfections are the fault of man and not God.

We must all come into agreement with this truth. Many tragedies that happen in this age are avoidable if we believe and receive a lifting of the curse on the ground and the presence of the thorns through Jesus Christ. Jesus bore the thorns on His head on the cross so His people would not have to live out the curse. He sweated blood on Gethsemane so that His people would be set free from the sweating for bread. He is the bread you need.  God has provided it out of His grace and mercy.

Alan Montgomery

Thursday, 19 July 2012


While you were in school and still naive, your biology science textbook probably showed you the tale of  two biston betularia, or peppered moths. One moth was dark and was difficult to see on the dark tree trunk and the other was light and easily seen. Maybe they also showed you the reverse with a light tree trunk.Then you read in the textbook that the light tree trunks were common before the industrial revolution and made the light-coloured moths difficult to see. Thus the birds that prey on the moths ate more of the dark moths than the light moths and so the light moths became dominant.

Then came the nasty industrial revolution and the trees became black with soot from the industrial smoke, which made the light moths easily visible to birds and the dark moths hard to see. Bird predation led to the dominance of dark moths. Then environment reversed again and restored the dominance of the light-coloured bark and the light-coloured moths prevailed again. Evolution was proved NOT!

There are boundaries to natural selection and they were known from before the time of Darwin. Breeders in his day choose the visible traits of dogs, cats and horses, to decide which animals to mate. This produced collies and chihuahuas, Persians and Siamese, pintos and quarter horses but  never did it produce a new kind of animal. Only if you delete the requirement to produce new species can this be called evolution.  However, in this case you fail to explain the origin of species and that was the point of Darwin's book!

A leading British zoologist, L. Harrison Matthews, in the Introduction to the 1971 reprint to Darwin's Origin of Species, said: "The peppered moth experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for . . . all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia." The only change that has taken place is a change in the frequency of the dark and light genes in the gene pool. Merely reshuffling pre-existing genes is not evolution in the Darwinian sense. Using the peppered moth and "industrial melanism" as an example of evolution is intellectually dishonest.

The evolutionist's argument of the peppered moth commits the "Hey Diddle Diddle" fallacy. If I can train a cow to jump over a fence post a feet off the ground does not mean that I can make a cow jump over the moon. This is a feat of a different dimension entirely. Changing the gene frequency is different than changing the species genome. It is a different kind of change that cannot be achieved by selection alone.

Judith Hooper wrote the story about the fall of the iconic moth in a book entitled, Of Moths and Men. She noted in her prologue that she was not a creationist [1]. She had to say this to be taken seriously. Any comfort for the Creationists would be treason! She wrote, "Behind the story, like a monster lurking under a five-year-old's bed, is the bogeyman of creationism.[ibid]"

Well, just what was so bad that Hooper called it a scandal? Well the field worker for all this research, Dr. Kettleworth, never did see a biston betularia  on the bark of any tree. The moth apparently changed without the help of camoflage on tree trunks. The pictures you saw in your biology textbook were taken using dead moths pinned to the trees. The moths have never been seen on these trees by anyone. The whole story of natural selection of peppered moths by predator birds is a fanciful myth of evolutionists. If the evolutionists have the truth why do they need to invent myths to support their faith? The reason they invented this myth is that they did not have any real science that was better. That's what science teachers ought to put in biology science textbooks.

Alan Montgomery

Wednesday, 18 July 2012


Jesus walked along the busy shores of the sea of Galilee. He stopped at a boat that belonged to Simon. Until now, He told Simon, you have been a fisher of fish but I will make you a fisher of men. That would be strange enough for most of us but what happened next is stranger. Simon left his boat and his nets and followed Jesus. It perhaps does not strike us that this is strange because we understand the rest of the story. But it is indeed strange that a successful fisherman leaves his profession and becomes the disciple of an itinerant preacher.

Jesus approached the tax booth as he crossed the border. He told one of the tax collectors to follow Him and he does. Jesus is not collecting only fishermen. He then dines with Matthew's friends, the publicans and sinners. The difference between a tax collector and a fisherman is substantial in many ways and it would seem that Jesus is choosing a widely diverse group to train them to reach an even more diverse group.

There is a trend among in the West to accommodate strangers and foreigners.  Certainly, Jesus's approach to the Kingdom of God shows His desire to be inclusive."Whoever believes in me shall not perish but have eternal life." [John 3:16b]. Seems to be inclusive. Yet there is another time when His inclusivity is lacking. Jesus said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you.Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day." [John 6:53,54]. The response of some of his disciples was, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"[John 6:60].  Jesus replied to them. "Does this offend you?"

Indeed it did offend many. They began to leave. When I first read this I was expecting that Jesus would explain that he was speaking metaphorically and not to the natural realm. However, he did not. Through misunderstanding of Jesus, many went away and yet He did not stop them. My heart did not understand why Jesus did not want to save these people also.

Eventually, Jesus turns to Simon Peter and asks him why he is not leaving also. Simon Peter does not have any insight into what Jesus said either. He simply says, "Lord, who else has the words of eternal life?" Indeed who else does! The crowd (and I at that time) had an expectation that Jesus would explain things to us. After all, do not the advertisers, the professors and the politicians bend over backwards to explain why we should follow their point of view? But the advertisers, professors and politicians have agendas other than telling us the truth.

Why oh why Jesus, did you let these people walk away? I did not understand this for a season. Peter, though he failed to understand what Jesus said, did understand who Jesus was! This made a huge difference on that day. Though Jesus was not comprehensible on that day He was still the Christ, the Messiah. If you cannot trust the Messiah, who can you trust?

Jesus was preparing a group of 12 disciples to revolutionize the world. He needed people who understood who He was and the principles of spiritual living. One of the principles in spiritual living is that you are following Jesus; He is not following you. He is doing things you do not understand but He does them with you. His victories require unconditional following. That is what discipleship means. If you cannot follow Jesus unconditionally you will be held back one day by your lack of understanding. Jesus needed unconditional followers. So he let go those who put conditions on their following.

So is it possible to give Jesus your unconditional following? Only if you believe He is who He says He is.

Monday, 9 July 2012


There was great elation and much celebration last week as the CERN large hadron collider (the European atom smasher) announced they had detected the Hicks Boson - nicknamed 'The God Particle'.  A strange thing to celebrate perhaps, but then the God Particle has been eluding them for a long time. This has been the central quest for physicists since the H-bomb. It is the most expensive particle ever. In fact without this particle atomic physics will have to change in a radical way sending it back a century. This too may seem strange to the layman. The boson is theorized to cement the world of particle physics together and to provide the Big Bang cosmologists with the solution to the dark matter problem.This would put critics in their place.

In a previous blog, The Big Bang Never Happened, I mentioned Eric Lerner, a science writer who laments the failure of conventional physics to come to grips with physical reality, causality and unity. He says, "It would be satisfying if...I could present an alternative to fundamental physics which resolves the contradictions of the conventional physics. Unfortunately no such theory exists.[1]" What Lerner is talking about is quantum mechanics or particle physics.

In quantum mechanics the electron is an infinitely small spherical charge. Physically such an electron would explode and everybody knows it. Also particle physicists think that everything within the atom works on different principles than the everyday world. In the atom the position and energy of an electron, proton or neutron is determined by a probability function and not caused by some event! Furthermore, the quantum mechanics theory contradicts Einstein's relativity theory. The two cannot be true at the same time.

Thus logically the quantum mechanics electron is physically impossible, acts in defiance of a cause and effect and is not in unity with other accepted scientific theories. So even if the boson exists the problems facing  modern physics are considerable. What happened that physics ever got into such a muddle?

Back in the 19th century Faraday developed his laws about magnetism and electricity.. He was the first to understand that when electricity moved it created magnetic fields and vice-versa. These experiments were used to develop Maxwell's electrodynamics equations, but embedded in these equations was the simplifying assumption that the electron was a point particle. Everybody knew that this is not true, just convenient to obtain some useful results. However, a deeper problem was the unrecognized magnetic induction effect at high velocities. This effect was the reason for the development of Einstein's theory and his relativity factor, (beta = 1 / squareroot (1 - v-squared / c-squared).  A proper reformulation of Maxwell would have produced the same factor. Thus Einstein's theory was the fix necessary to correct the errors produced by Maxwell's simplifying assumption.

The problem was that not enough was known about the electron and it took over 50 years before somebody could propose a shape for the electron [2,3]. But the physicists like Bohr and Heisenburg went another way into quantum mechanics. It was not until 1990 that Bergman and Wesley resurrected the ring model of the electron [4]. His worked proposed a spinning charged ring in which its magnetic field pinched the ring to balance the electric pressure to keep it stable. It had the correct electron spin, magnetic moment, size and mass. The problem of infinitely small mass was solved.

The electrons were kept in positions in the atom where electric and magnetic forces balanced. This solved the problem why moving electrons did not radiate energy -they did not move. The Lucas model of the nucleus was constructed [5]. The spins of 1,500 isotopes and the half-lives of hundreds of radioactive isotopes were correctly calculated; something quantum mechanics cannot do. The structure of the atom and its nucleus was solved.

Hydrogen gas molecule
Nucleus of Oxygen-16

In quantum mechanics  a Higg's field and bosons are necessary to give mass to electrons. The spinning charged ring also yields a mass of the electron as the sum of their electric and magnetic energies divided by c-squared i.e. Einstein.  The problem of particle mass was solved without 'God' particle!

Now we are finally back to the Higgs boson aka the God particle. If the Higg's boson has not been found, physicists have no mechanism to explain mass in the atom and a major crisis will surely follow. Boson Crisis But then, given the work of Bergman, Wesley and Lucas who needs a Higg's boson? Well, the cosmologists need the Higg's boson because these particles are massive non-light-emitting particles - "dark matter" (See previous blog The Big Bang Never Happened. )

The mass of real particles like electrons and protons is about 2-4% percentage of the universe. The Big Bang cosmology needs 8 times more physical mass to fit the requirements of their theory. Without the Higgs boson, the Big bang is in real trouble - again. Michael Brooks, former senior features editor for New Scientist , wrote on the impending crisis. The energy  required for the cosmological constant in theory is much larger than measured in the lab unless some massive shift takes place in the composition of the universe. He states, "The cosmological constant problem is widely the (italics in original) most embarrassing mismatch between theory and experiment ever. [6]": 1 in 10 to the power 120,000. Oops! What part of 1 in 10 to the power 120,000 do they not understand!

With so much at stake I believe they will pronounce this as the God particle they are looking for. They have no choice. They cannot afford to admit that physicists have botched the last 100 years of research or see the last rational explanation of the evolution of the universe go down the tubes.

We Can Do Better Than That 1.0. The spinning charged ring model [7] is rapidly catching on with disenchanted physicists. Its appeal is it restores the atom to physical reality, causality and unity to other physical theories. Although Eric Lerner is not one, the model does fit all his demands for a new particle physics[1]: Resolve the conflict between Einstein's relativity with Quantum Mechanics; explain what particles exist and remain stable; give particles real shape and dimensions; explain how they can have mass and how is it measured; and explain which particles decay and why.  A theory that answers these questions puts quantum mechanics in the obsolete bin  (no longer needed) and the Big Bang in the better-luck-next-time jar.

Alan Montgomery

Sunday, 1 July 2012


Gideon was a man in a small family of a small clan. Nobody thought highly of him, except maybe mom and dad. In his day the Midianites had invaded and had so impoverished the Israelites that they cried out to God [Judges 6: 6]. And God showed up. The Angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon and said, "The Lord is with you, mighty warrior." Then Gideon made an offering of a goat and unleavened bread on a rock. Fire from the rock consumed the offering and the Angel disappeared.

God came to him again and instructed him, "Take the second bull from your father's herd, which is 7 years old. Tear down your father's altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole. Build a proper kind of altar to the Lord your God. Using the wood of  the Asherah pole that you cut down offer the second bull as a burnt offering." Wait a minute. The altar belonged to Gideon's father! Gideon's father is leading Baal worship! I checked the King James version and it is there also.What a choice to lead Israel against the Midianites.

Gideon took ten servants and did what the Lord commanded - at night when his father was asleep. Now the men of the town noticed the new altar and offering and the broken old altar. They wanted to know who was responsible. Well, as soon as they discovered it was Gideon, they were angry. The son of the priest of Baal had destroyed his father's altar and Asherah pole! They felt betrayed. They demanded that Gideon be killed.

Now Gideon's father had to choose between his son and his altar. Well, since Baal was not really god, it was not really a hard choice. He chose Gideon. But then he had to calm the anger of the mob. He said, "Are you pleading Baal's cause? [Judges 6:31]" In other words it was Baal who was insulted and humiliated. Surely he is strong enough to respond. This statement came from the priest of Baal so it looked like faith. Nobody could answer. So they said, "Let Baal contend with him".  It is up to Baal to punish Gideon. Since Baal was not god nothing happened and everybody understood it was time to worship the real God. Gideon's generation and his father's generation were now united.

One has to ask why these town people were so easily persuaded to leave Gideon to Baal. Well, they remembered the trouble Pharaoh had with a stuttering shepherd from the backside of the desert named Moses. He came to Egypt with his brother Aaron and went to Pharaoh to tell him to let God's people go. Remember his haughty arrogant reply. I don't know this God. Rulers were typically not impressed with the gods worshipped by their slaves. After all, if their god was so powerful, they would not be slaves!

But Yahweh was different. Ten plagues followed; each one prophesied by Moses. God cannot only punish without hindrance but tells you in advance of the punishment. Not only that but each plague came through something that the Egyptians considered as god. Frogs were gods; the Nile was god; gnats were gods. It seemed like the gods of Egypt were turning against Pharaoh, who was a god himself. Then God parted the Red Sea for Moses and the Israelites left free. Pharaoh and his army followed and were drowned. God's vengeance on Pharaoh was finished, complete and total. Whose vengeance is better: yours or His?

The lesson here is that God knows how to take care of His enemies. Using your anger to take care of God's enemies (or worse your enemies) is a snare of Satan to lock you into a vicious cycle of hatred and violence. If you let your enemy go and God does not punish him it is God showing His mercy. This mercy glorifies God and his goodness provided you do not rob Him of the opportunity. If God does punish him you will know your enemy refused God's mercy. You win both ways. Vengeance is for losers. Put it down.