How To Study the Bible

In order to study the Bible correctly, you must start with the whole, understanding how the individual parts make it up, and then examine its individual parts. If you do not understand the whole, you cannot rightly understand the individual parts and how they work together to form the whole. You cannot start with the individual parts and expect to figure out the whole. Anyone who says any different has no clue what they are talking about. They are wishful thinkers spewing nonsensical ludicrousness.

Think of it like a 500-piece or 1000-piece puzzle. The whole (the completed puzzle) explains the minute (the individual pieces). You have to see the whole in order to make sense of the minute. The minute (the individual pieces) come together to form the whole (the completed puzzle), but looking at them all by themselves and never assembling them will give you no sense of the whole. Why do most people look at the box top while they are assembling the pieces? Because the whole (the completed puzzle) explains the minute (the individual pieces). Without seeing the whole (the box top) and understanding it, you are merely mucking about blindly in an attempt at trying to associate pieces, even connecting pieces that do not actually go together simply because they "fit" and "look similar." Without knowledge of the whole, you cannot rightly understand and assemble the individual parts.

Think of it like uncovering a pile of skeletal bones. Unless you see the whole, you do not know how those bones are to be connected. When you see the whole (a complete skeleton), you know exactly how those individual bones are to be assembled in order to achieve the whole. Look at archaeologists throughout history and the number of times they have incorrectly assembled bones. Prior to Iguanadon as we see and know him today, there were at least two different renderings for this animal in the past, both looking like some kind of a horse-like Godzilla creature. There is another dinosaur for which archaeologists have only ever found two arm bones and three vertebrae. Yet, they give us a complete image of how this creature supposedly looked, as well as an elaborate fairy tale about the creature. If you never saw a human being in your entire life, and all you found were two arm bones and three vertebrae, you could not accurately depict how human beings looked. Likewise, you can have all the individual skeletal bones you want, and you will fidget and fidget trying to assemble them correctly the way they are meant to be assembled. It is only by seeing and understanding the whole that you can accurately assemble the individual.

Taken and Left

"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took [αἴρω, aírō] them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be." Matthew 24:38-39

Gr. 142. αἴρω, aírō:
I. To take up, to lift up, to raise up.
II. To take up and place on oneself, to take up and bear, meaning to bear, carry.
III. To take up and carry away, meaning to take away, to remove by carrying, spoken of a bed.
IV. To take away, remove, with the idea of lifting away from, usually with the idea of violence and authority.

"To take away or remove out of the world by death, and so forth (Matt. 24:39)" —AMG The Complete WordStudy Dictionary New Testament

"To take away from among the living, either by a natural death, or by violence (Mt. xxiv. 39)." —Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon

This passage contrasts "they" with "Noah." The "they" who were eating, drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage are the same "they" who did not understand and were destroyed by the flood. Grammatically, it would make no sense to change subjects midstream from "they," referring to those who perished, to "them," referring to Noah and his family. Therefore, while it is possible for aírō to be speaking of Noah in the ark, it is not probable.

"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken [παραλαμβάνω, paralambánō] and one will be left [ἀφίημι, aphíēmi]. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken [παραλαμβάνω, paralambánō] and one will be left [ἀφίημι, aphíēmi]." Matthew 24:38-41

" "And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. ... I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken [παραλαμβάνω, paralambánō] and the other will be left [ἀφίημι, aphíēmi]. There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken [παραλαμβάνω, paralambánō] and the other will be left [ἀφίημι, aphíēmi]. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken [παραλαμβάνω, paralambánō] and the other will be left [ἀφίημι, aphíēmi]." And answering they said to Him, "Where, Lord?" And He said to them, "Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered." " Luke 17:26-30, 34-37

Gr. 863. ἀφίημι, aphíēmi:
I. To dismiss
II. To let go from one's power, possession, to let go free, let escape (Matt. 24:40, 41; Luke 17:34-36; Sept.: Prov. 4:13).
III.To let go from one's further notice, care, attendance, occupancy, i.e., to leave or let alone.
IV. To let go, i.e, to let pass, permit, suffer, with the accusative followed by the infinitive expressed or implied.

"Metaphorically, to let go from obligation toward oneself, to remit, e.g., a debt, offense, with a dative of person. Of sins, to remit the penalty of sins, i.e., to pardon, forgive, with the dative of person." —AMG The Complete WordStudy Dictionary New Testament

"to remit, forgive" —Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon

"The Use...in the LXX. ... b. for verbs of "remission"... The object of remission is sin or guilt... The one who forgives is God... The NT Usage. ... 2. There are also the instances in which ἀφιέναι means "to remit" or "to forgive," whether in the profane sense in Mt. 18:27 and 32, or more often in the religious. ... The forgiveness denoted by ἄφεσις (ἀφιέναι) and πάρεσις is almost always that of God. ..." —Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [3/5 of this entry are dedicated to the discussion of forgiveness.]

Gr. 3880. παραλαμβάνω, paralambánō:
I. To take to oneself, seize or take into one's possession.
II. To receive with or to oneself what is given, imparted, delivered over, equal to take from another into one's own hands such as an office, dignity, ministry.

"In Matt 24:40, 41; Luke 17:34, 35, paralambánō in the passive form is used as the opposite of aphíēmi, to let be. In these verses, those who are taken are not to be misconstrued as those whom the Lord favors, as if they were the same saints spoken of in 1 Thess 4:17... The verb paralambánō in most cases indicates a demonstration in favor of the one taken, but not always. ... In John 19:16 it is used of taking Jesus to lead Him to the cross. ... The verb paralambánō is to be contrasted in Matt 24:40, 41 to aírō, to take up and away. It is used to refer to those in the days of Noah who were taken away, not being favored but being punished, while Noah and his family were left intact. ... It refers to those who, as in the days of Noah, are taken to destruction." —AMG The Complete WordStudy Dictionary New Testament

"one to be led off as a prisoner, Jn xix. 16)" —Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon

The context of these passages is addressing the Second Coming of Christ Jesus:

"For the coming of the Son of Man..." (Matt. 24:37)
"...so will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matt. 24:39)
"...so will the Son of Man be in His day." (Luke 17:24)
"...so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man." (Luke 17:26)
"It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed." (Luke 17:30)

Practically every theologian, past and present (including many of the Dispensational persuasion), agree that this passage is talking about the Second Coming of Jesus—and not the imaginary magical "Rapture." It is a fact that the context of these passages, and especially the passage in Luke 17, is quite clearly and unmistakably in reference to judgment:

"...the flood came and destroyed them all." (Luke 17:27)
"...it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all." (Luke 17:29)

Noah and Lot are not even mentioned, except in passing to refer to their time in history. The "they" and "them" are speaking of those who were destroyed. Judgment. Since verses 26-27 and 28-29 are quite obviously speaking of judgment, it stands to reason that those taken in verses 34, 35, and 36 are likewise taken in judgment. And Jesus' answer to the disciples' question of "Where?" supports this.

Anyone having never heard of the "Rapture" before, reading these passages first-hand as to those taken and those left, would naturally ask the same question as the disciples: "Where?" Anyone having never heard of the "Rapture" before, carefully paying attention to what the details of these passages reveal, would come to the conclusion that they are speaking of judgment and that those taken have been taken in judgment. Matthew 24:39 clearly expresses a taking in judgment: "...the flood came and took them all away." Luke 17:27 clearly expresses a taking in judgment: "...the flood came and destroyed them all." Luke 17:29 clearly expresses a taking in judgment: "...it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all." Ergo, Luke 17:34, 35, and 36 clearly express a taking in judgment, confirmed by Jesus' response to the disciples' question.

The context of Matthew 24:38-41 and Luke 17:26-30, 34-37 clearly has to do with judgment. These facts are irrefutable.

The Bible, the Whole Bible, and Nothing But the Bible!

by J. C. Ryle

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus answered him, "What is written in the Law? What do you read there?" Luke 10:25-26

Notice in this passage, the high honor which our Lord Jesus Christ places on the Bible. He refers the lawyer at once to the Scriptures, as the only rule of faith and practice. He does not say in reply to his question, "What does the Jewish Church say about eternal life? What do the Scribes, and Pharisees, and priests think? What is taught on the subject in the traditions of the elders?"

He takes a far simpler and more direct course. He sends his questioner at once to the writings of the Old Testament, "What is written in the Law? What do you read there?"

Let the principle contained in these words, be one of the foundation principles of our Christianity. Let the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, be the rule of our faith and practice. Holding this principle, we travel upon the king's highway. The road may sometimes seem narrow, and our faith may be severely tried--but we shall not be allowed greatly to err. Departing from this principle, we enter on a pathless wilderness. There is no telling what we may be led to believe or do. Forever let us bear this in mind. Here let us cast anchor. Here let us abide.

It matters nothing who says a thing in religion--whether an ancient father, or a modern bishop, or a learned theologian.

Is it in the Bible? Can it be proved by the Bible? If not, then it is not to be believed.

It matters nothing how beautiful and clever sermons or religious books may appear. Are they in the smallest degree contrary to Scripture? If they are, they are rubbish and poison, and guides of no value!

What does the Scripture say? This is the only rule, and measure, and gauge of religious truth. "To the law and to the testimony," says Isaiah, "if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20

The Last Trumpet

Dispensationalists, especially the KJV-Only variety, like to attempt to argue that there are two different Greek words for "trumpet" in the Bible. In the KJV, two seemingly different words appear: "trump" and "trumpet." What is a "trump"? Is it different from a "trumpet"? If it is the same thing as a "trumpet," why it is shortened to "trump" in two of the eleven verses (1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 4:16)?

When we examine both of these words in the Greek, we quickly learn that they are one and the same, the exact same thing: salpigx (σαλπιγξ) [Gr. 4536]. Once again, we have confirmed that the "last trumpet" is the last trumpet. The implication is that when that last trumpet sounds, there cannot be another trumpet after it. This is just one of several problems the Dispensationalist has with Scripture.

The word salpizo (σαλπιζω) [Gr. 4537] is to sound a trumpet, as in blowing on it to make a noise (Matt. 6:2; 1 Cor. 15:52; see also Rev. 8:6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13; 9:1, 13; 10:7; 11:15). The word salpigx is the trumpet itself, the physical musical instrument.

Mt 6:2 Therefore <oun> when <hotan> thou doest <poieo> thine alms, <eleemosune> do <salpizo> not <me> sound a trumpet <salpizo> before <emprosthen> thee, <sou> as <hosper> the hypocrites <hupokrites> do <poieo> in <en> the synagogues <sunagoge> and <kai> in <en> the streets, <rhume> that <hopos> they may have glory <doxazo> of <hupo> men. <anthropos> Verily <amen> I say <lego> unto you, <humin> They have <apecho> their <autos> reward. <misthos>

Mt 24:31 And <kai> he shall send <apostello> his <autos> angels <aggelos> with <meta> a great <megas> sound <phone> of a trumpet, <salpigx> and <kai> they shall gather together <episunago> his <autos> elect <eklektos> from <ek> the four <tessares> winds, <anemos> from <apo> one end <akron> of heaven <ouranos> to <heos> the other <akron>. <autos>

1Co 14:8 For <gar> <kai> if <ean> the trumpet <salpigx> give <didomi> an uncertain <adelos> sound, <phone> who <tis> shall prepare himself <paraskeuazo> to <eis> the battle <polemos>?

1Co 15:52 In <en> a moment, <atomos> in <en> the twinkling <rhipe> of an eye, <ophthalmos> at <en> the last <eschatos> trump: <salpigx> for <gar> the trumpet shall sound, <salpizo> and <kai> the dead <nekros> shall be raised <egeiro> incorruptible, <aphthartos> and <kai> we <hemeis> shall be changed. <allasso>

1Th 4:16 For <hoti> the Lord <kurios> himself <autos> shall descend <katabaino> from <apo> heaven <ouranos> with <en> a shout, <keleuma> with <en> the voice <phone> of the archangel, <archaggelos> and <kai> with <en> the trump <salpigx> of God: <theos> and <kai> the dead <nekros> in <en> Christ <Christos> shall rise <anistemi> first: <proton>

Heb 12:19 And <kai> the sound <echos> of a trumpet, <salpigx> and <kai> the voice <phone> of words; <rhema> which <hos> voice they that heard <akouo> intreated <paraiteomai> that the word <logos> should <prostithemi> not <me> be spoken <prostithemi> to them <autos> any more: <me>

Re 1:10 I was <ginomai> in <en> the Spirit <pneuma> on <en> the Lord's <kuriakos> day, <hemera> and <kai> heard <akouo> behind <opiso> me <mou> a great <megas> voice, <phone> as <hos> of a trumpet, <salpigx>

Re 4:1 ¶ After <meta> this <tauta> I looked, <eido> and, <kai> behold, <idou> a door <thura> was opened <anoigo> in <en> heaven: <ouranos> and <kai> the first <protos> voice <phone> which <hos> I heard <akouo> was as it were of <hos> a trumpet <salpigx> talking <laleo> with <meta> me; <emou> which said, <lego> Come up <anabaino> hither, <hode> and <kai> I will shew <deiknuo> thee <soi> things which <hos> must <dei> be <ginomai> hereafter <meta>. <tauta>

Re 8:2 And <kai> I saw <eido> the seven <hepta> angels <aggelos> which <hos> stood <histemi> before <enopion> God <theos>; and <kai> to them <autos> were given <didomi> seven <hepta> trumpets <salpigx>.

Re 8:6 And <kai> the seven <hepta> angels <aggelos> which <ho> had <echo> the seven <hepta> trumpets <salpigx> prepared <hetoimazo> themselves <heautou> to <hina> sound <salpizo>.

Re 8:13 And <kai> I beheld, <eido> and <kai> heard <akouo> an <heis> angel <aggelos> flying <petomai> through <en> the midst of heaven, <mesouranema> saying <lego> with a loud <megas> voice, <phone> Woe, <ouai> woe, <ouai> woe, <ouai> to the inhabiters <katoikeo> of <epi> the earth <ge> by reason of <ek> the other <loipoy> voices <phone> of the trumpet <salpigx> of the three <treis> angels, <aggelos> which <ho> are yet <mello> to sound <salpizo>!

Re 9:14 Saying <lego> to the sixth <hektos> angel <aggelos> which <hos> had <echo> the trumpet, <salpigx> Loose <luo> the four <tessares> angels <aggelos> which <ho> are bound <deo> in <epi> the great <megas> river <potamos> Euphrates. <Euphrates>

Was Brian Houston Taken Out of Context?

Back in 2014, Brian Houston, pastor of Hillsong Church in Australia, had these words to say in a sermon:

"Do you know – take it all the way back into the Old Testament and the Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God. Allah to a Muslim; to us, Abba Father God."

Later, after several people began questioning his already questionable theology, Brian accused his critics of taking him out of context. But did they? Observe what he said:

"The Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God."

Serve. Present tense. In other words, Brian did say that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Quite obviously, Brian has no clue what context actually is. But this is not surprising considering the false doctrines that he preaches, teaches, and believes; doctrines contrary to the Word of God.

Not only did Brian truly say that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, but his sermon demonstrates clearly that he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. For someone who is supposed to be a pastor, one would expect him to do better research and actually know something about what he is going to attempt to talk about. But Brian is clueless.

When you go back to the days of Abraham, and the days of Isaac and Ishmael, there were no Muslims. Apparently, in Arabic, the two letters "MU" are similar to or equivalent to the two letters "ER" in English (e.g., bakER, butchER, farmER, etc.). So the word "Muslim" is a contraction of MU-Islam (a follower of Islam). Islam did not exist prior to the last 1400 years. Ergo, there were no such thing as Muslims prior to the last 1400 years. The predominant religion of the Persians was Zoroastrianism, while the Arabs had many tribal deities that were all worshipped in one city—Mecca. Arabians were polytheists. This pantheon of gods and tribal idols were held in the Kaaba, which was also seen and worshipped as a separate god.

When Muhammad destroyed all these other gods (except for the Kaaba, which is still worshipped by Muslims today) and erected Allah in their place, that is when Muslims began to exist; as they started following the false religion Muhammad created. The fact that Muslims worship the Kaaba can be seen from their actions. When you must travel to a particular city, walk around, touch, bow down before, and pray before an object, yes, you do worship it. And the claim that the Kaaba is the house of Allah only makes it worse for Muslims as they are committing shirk by doing what they are doing, because they are making it equal to Allah. Despite their protests, Muslims also worship Muhammad, above and beyond their worship of Allah. If you bad mouth Allah, Muslims do not do a thing. But if you bad mouth their false prophet, Muhammad (Peace Never Knew Him), they get irate and want to murder you.

Did the sons of Isaac and the sons of Ishmael worship the same God? For a time, most probably. How long a time, we do not know. But it obviously was not very long. Based on Scripture and the people groups who inhabited the Middle East after the times of Abraham and his sons, none of the other people groups believed in the God of Abraham. That means that if the sons of Ishmael did believe in the same God as the sons of Isaac for a time, eventually they turned to false gods instead. We see Israel doing this repeatedly in their own history, so why would we think the descendants of Ishmael would not have done the same?

Brian was absolutely correct in stating that his words were a clumsy delivery. But when you view more of his sermon, one wonders if it was "clumsy" or deliberate? And that after he received a backlash he attempted to save face.

"How do you view God? In a desert there's two types of birds: there's vultures and there's hummingbirds. One lives off dead carcasses; rotting meat. The other lives off the beautiful, sweet nectar in a particular flower on a particular desert plant. In the same desert, they both find what they're looking for."

That entire spiel is utter nonsense. It does not answer his question, "How do you view God?" It has nothing to do with his question, being totally and completely unrelated in any way, shape or form. But when you look at what is being said here, about the two birds, and what he said above, it is quite obvious that he is saying that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. If he was not, then this pointless illustration is precisely that—pointless.

Why ask the question "How do you view God?" and then answer with an illustration of two different birds both getting what they are looking for, only to continue on to say "The Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God"? Is he claiming that Muslims who follow Allah find what they are looking for? If they are looking for Hell, then, yes, they absolutely find what they are looking for. But they do not find Jesus. They do not find God the Father. They do not find salvation. So the illustration is ridiculous and ludicrous.

When you look at the facts, Muslims and Christians never worshipped the same God. Ever! We never worshipped the same God in the past, and we do not worship the same God today. Muslims serve a god created in the image of Muhammad. Brian would know this if he bothered to do his homework and research things the way a pastor is supposed to, instead of preaching empty, vain messages not based an iota on Scripture.

Do Not Love the World

Horatius Bonar

"Do not love the world or anything in the world." 1 John 2:15

Why?

1. Because the gain of it, is the loss of the soul--Matthew 16:25-26.
2. Because its friendship is enmity to God--James 4:4.
3. Because it did not know Christ--John 1:10; 17:25.
4. Because it hates Christ--John 7:7; 15:18.
5. Because the Holy Spirit has forbidden us--1 John 2:15.
6. Because Christ did not pray for it--John 17:9.
7. Because Christ's people do not belong to it--John 17:16.
8. Because its Prince is Satan--John 13:31; 16:11.
9. Because Christ's kingdom is not of it--John 18:36.
10. Because its wisdom is foolishness--1 Corinthians 1:20.
11. Because Christ does not belong to it--John 8:23.
12. Because it is condemned--1 Corinthians 11:32.
13. Because it is passing away--1 Corinthians 7:31.
14. Because it slew Christ--James 5:6; Matthew 21:39.
15. Because it is crucified to us--Galatians 6:14.
16. Because we are crucified to it--Galatians 6:14.
17. Because it is the seat of wickedness--2 Peter 1:4; 1 John 5:19.
18. Because its god is the evil one--2 Corinthians 4:4.

Don Fortner

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15

Worldliness is an undue attachment to this world. It is living for this world--its riches, its honor, its joys and its cares. It is living by the principles of this world: greed, covetousness, deceit and lust.

Nothing is more dangerous to the souls of men--than the love of the world.

Nothing more effectually chokes out the influence of the gospel in a man's heart--than the cares of this world.

Nothing is more difficult to avoid--than an undue attachment to this world.

Therefore, John sets these four words up as a beacon. They stand in blazing letters to warn us of great danger: "LOVE NOT THE WORLD!"

Beloved, this world and all that it offers, is no more than a bubble that soon must burst! Your money, your farms, your houses, your influence, your families--everything here is temporary. It will all vanish away!

We laugh at the small child who cries when the bubbles he is playing with burst. But, for a rational man to be so attached to a bubble, is a most irrational thing!

What fools they are who love and seek this world! I cannot warn you enough of the danger of worldliness--of loving, seeking, and living for this world!

Are you God's child? Are you risen with Christ? Do you live in the hope of eternal glory?

Then count this world to be a dead thing.

Live no longer for this world.

Set your heart on things above.

Live above this pile of rubbish that must soon burn.

Live to do the will of God, seek the glory of Christ, further the gospel of the grace of God, and serve the people of God. Quit seeking those things for which unbelieving men live, and seek those things which are above--life, immortality, and glory.

Having A Pope of Your Own

from J. C. Ryle

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong!" Galatians 2:11

One lesson we learn from this verse, is that great ministers may make great mistakes. The best of men are weak and fallible. Unless the grace of God holds them up, any one of them may go astray at any time. Let us learn not to put implicit confidence in any man's opinion, merely because he is a minister. Peter was one of the very chief Apostles--and yet he could err. What are the best of ministers but men--dust, ashes, and clay--men of like passions with ourselves, men exposed to temptations, men liable to weaknesses and infirmities?

We all naturally love to have a pope of our own. We are far too ready to think, that because some great minister or some learned man says a thing; or because our own minister, whom we love, says a thing--that it must be right, without examining whether it is in Scripture or not.

It is absurd to suppose that ordained men cannot go wrong. We should follow them so far as they teach according to the Bible, but no further. We should believe them so long as they can say, "Thus it is written! Thus says the Lord!" but further than this, we are not to go. Infallibility is not to be found in ordained men, but in the Bible alone!

Let us take care that we do not place implicit confidence on our own minister's opinion, however godly he may be. Peter was a man of mighty grace, and yet he could err. Your minister may be a man of God indeed, and worthy of all honor for his preaching and example; but do not make a pope of him! Do not place his word on the same level with the Word of God.

The Christian minister is not infallible! The vulgar notion that a clergyman is not likely to hold or teach erroneous doctrines, and that we seldom need to doubt the truth of anything he tells us in the pulpit--is one of the most mischievous errors which has been bequeathed by the Church of Rome. It is a complete delusion! Ordination confers no immunity from error! Ministers, like Churches--may err both in living and matters of faith.

The Apostle Peter erred greatly at Antioch, where Paul withstood him to the face. Many of the church Fathers and Reformers and Puritans made great mistakes. The greatest errors have been begun by ministers!

The teaching of all ministers ought to be constantly compared with the Scriptures--and when it contradicts the Scriptures, it ought not to be believed. However high a clergyman's office may be, and however learned and devout he may appear--he is still only an uninspired man, and can make mistakes. His opinion must never be set above the Word of God!

Let us receive nothing, believe nothing, follow nothing--which is not in the Bible, nor can be proved by the Bible. Let our rule of faith, our touchstone of all teaching, be the written Word of God alone!

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true!" Acts 17:11

Jellyfish Christianity vs True Christianity

from J. C. Ryle

JELLYFISH CHRISTIANITY

Eighteen centuries ago the apostle Paul forewarned us, "The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear!" 2 Timothy 4:3

The natural man hates the Gospel and all its distinctive doctrines--and delights in any vain excuse for refusing it.

The plain truth is, that the root of the whole evil lies in the fallen nature of man, and his deeply-seated unbelief in God's infallible Word. I suspect we have no idea how little saving faith there is on earth, and how few people entirely believe Bible truths.

One man is proud--he dislikes the distinctive doctrines of Christianity, because they leave him no room to boast.

Another is lazy and indolent--he dislikes distinctive doctrine, because it summons him to troublesome thought, and self-inquiry, and mental self-exertion.

Another is grossly ignorant--he imagines that all distinctive doctrine is a mere matter of words and names, and that it does not matter a jot what we believe.

Another is thoroughly worldly--he shrinks from distinctive doctrine, because it condemns his darling world.

But in one form or another, I am satisfied that "original sin" is the cause of all the mischief. And the whole result is, that vast numbers of men greedily swallow down the seemingly new idea that doctrine is of no great importance. It supplies a convenient excuse for their sins.

The consequences of this widespread dislike to doctrine are very serious in the present day. Whether we like to allow it or not, it is an epidemic which is doing great harm. It creates, fosters, and keeps up an immense amount of instability in religion. It produces what I must venture to call, if I may coin the phrase, a jellyfish Christianity in the churches--that is, a Christianity without bone, or muscle, or power.

A jellyfish, as everyone knows who has been much by the sea-side, is a pretty and graceful object when it floats in the sea, contracting and expanding like a little, delicate, transparent umbrella. Yet the same jellyfish, when cast on the shore--is a mere helpless lump, without capacity for movement, self-defense, or self-preservation.

Alas! It is a vivid type of much of the religion of this day, of which the leading principle is, "No dogma, no distinct tenets, no positive doctrine."

We have hundreds of jellyfish clergymen, who seem not to have a single bone in their body of divinity. They have no definite opinions--they belong to no school or party. They are so afraid of "extreme views"--that they have no views at all.

We have thousands of jellyfish sermons preached every year--sermons without an edge or a point. They are as smooth as billiard balls--awakening no sinner, and edifying no saint.

We have legions of jellyfish young men annually turned out from our seminaries, armed with a few scraps of second-hand philosophy, who think it a mark of cleverness and intellect to have no decided opinions about anything in religion, and to be utterly unable to make up their minds as to what Christian truth is. Their proud hearts are not satisfied with truths which satisfied the godly of former years. Their only creed is a kind of "Anythingism." They believe everything--and are sure and positive about nothing!

And last, and worst of all, we have myriads of jellyfish worshipers--respectable church-going people, who have no distinct and definite views about any point in theology. They cannot discern things that differ, any more than color-blind people can distinguish colors! They think that . . .

      everybody is right--and nobody is wrong,

      everything is true--and nothing is false,

      all sermons are good--and none are bad,

      every minister is sound--and none are unsound.

They are "tossed to and fro, like children, by every wind of doctrine!" They are often carried away by any new excitement and sensational movement. They are ever ready for new things, because they have no firm grasp on the old Scripture truths.

TRUE CHRISTIANITY

"For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain!" Philippians 1:21

True Christianity is not merely the believing a certain set of theological propositions.

It is to live in daily personal communication with an actual living person--Jesus the Son of God!

"The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me!" Galatians 2:20

Hyper-Calvinism 3

Several websites and authors further define Hyper-Calvinism as over-emphasizing God's sovereignty and under-emphasizing man's responsibility. You cannot over-emphasize God's sovereignty. If anything, God's sovereignty is under-emphasized even by those who hold to His sovereignty. The only definition that accurately defines Hyper-Calvinism is the belief that God will save the elect with little to no help from us (e.g., evangelism, preaching, prayer), and this is a false belief not supported by Scripture (as addressed in Hyper-Calvinism 2).

It seems that many Baptists and Reformed people have a failure of understanding precisely what "sovereignty" means and the limits and extensions of "man's responsibility." They under-emphasize God's sovereignty while over-emphasizing man's responsibility.

sov•er•eign [sóv-vrǝn] noun
Chief or highest; Supreme, or highest in authority and power; 'one with a superior position' to others.
Independent of and unlimited by any other.
Controlling.
Effectual.

A sovereign individual has the power and the right to control every detail of every occurrence of those under his/her authority. For example, a warden at a prison is sovereign. The lives of the prisoners are under the full, complete, and total authority of the warden's decisions and decrees. But the warden is not supremely sovereign. If a governor decides to pardon a prisoner, the warden has no choice but to obey him. Yet, not even the governor is supremely sovereign. The governor is under the authority of the President of the United States who can overrule him on certain issues. But even the President is not supremely sovereign as he has to listen to Congress. Only God possesses and exercises supreme authority, having absolute controlling influence, being completely free and independent, without limitations. Romans 9:20-21 illustrates this perfectly:

"The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"

If you need an example of God's sovereign will overriding our will, which is slave to sin and the devil, look no further than Nebuchadnezzar. God made him lose his mind and act crazy for seven years (Dan. 4:31-33). You can also look to Jonah for a second example. And Saul for a third example. God is free to do with us whatever He wants, whenever He wants, however He wants, and He does so for His own glory.

Certain Baptists and Reformed people seem to think that man has a responsibility in the work of salvation. That is false and unbiblical. "Salvation is from the Lord!" (Jonah 2:9). We are saved by grace (Eph. 2:5, 8). Man is not responsible for his faith or lack of faith. Imagine a tribal person who has never heard the Gospel and has never heard of Christ Jesus. Will this person be cast into Hell because he never heard the Gospel and never heard of Jesus? No! He will be cast into Hell because he broke God's law. Man is responsible for his sin (imputed, inherited, and personal), for breaking the law of God. That is where man's responsibility ends!

You cannot be responsible for something you have an inability to do. A command to do something does not imply the ability to do it. If you examine Scripture closely, you will find many commands to repent and believe, and you will find some statements that man cannot repent and believe, but you will find zero statements that man can repent and believe.

"Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). Until I have heard the Gospel, I cannot exercise faith. I can only exercise faith if that faith has been granted to me by God the Father. If that faith has been granted to me, I will respond to the Gospel by faith because the Holy Spirit will have regenerated me, given me a new heart, and caused me to be born again from above.  Until God changes me, I cannot respond to the Gospel. When God changes me, I cannot reject the Gospel. These truths are borne completely out of Scripture.

As a lost individual, I am unregenerate, I am dead in trespasses and sins, I have a heart of stone, and I hate God. If someone comes preaching the Gospel to me, if it is my duty to respond to the Gospel, what in and of myself is able to regenerate me, cause me to be born again, cause me to become spiritually alive, give me a new heart by replacing my heart of stone with a heart of flesh, and cause me to love God so that I can and will respond to the Gospel call? Nothing!

"Those whom he predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified." Rom. 8:30

This is an all-at-once action. If you do not like the word "predestined," fine. Leave that part out and start with those whom God called. If God calls all men (each and every) to Himself, if the Gospel call is for all men (each and every), then He has also justified all men (each and every) and glorified all men (each and every). Ergo, you have Universalism, which is a heretical belief.

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." John 6:44

"For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." John 6:65

Again, if God is drawing all men (each and every) to Himself, then all men (each and every) will be raised on the last day. Ergo, Universalism. We are commanded to preach the Gospel to all men (each and every) because we do not know which men will be saved. While the Gospel call goes out to all men (each and every), it is only applied to certain men. Jesus came to "save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). Not "all" people! Jesus came to "lay down His life for the sheep" (John 10:11, 15). Not for the goats! Jesus came to "[give] Himself up for [His bride, the church]" (Eph. 5:25). Not for the entire world!

Baptists and Reformed people need to develop a right understanding of, and right doctrine pertaining to, the responsibility of man. They over-emphasize man's responsibility, attributing elements to him that he has no control over. If man has a responsibility in the work of salvation, if there was a "universal duty of mankind to believe in Christ unto the salvation of their soul," then Arminianism becomes true and passages like John 6:37, 44, 65; 10:11, 15; Romans 8:29-30; Matthew 1:21; Ephesians 1:4; 5:25; etc., become false. Even verses that state men were ordained to this condemnation and state that they were not written in the Lamb's book of life from before the foundations of the world were laid become false. Sorry, but I am going to look at the whole counsel of the Word of God and derive my doctrines and beliefs directly from Scripture, without feelings and opinions.

Man's responsibility for his actions ends with his breaking of God's law. Since faith is a gift from God, and man cannot respond to the Gospel until God has changed him, man's responsibility for his actions cannot include lack of faith. Each man's responsibility needs to be looked at and understood with regard to his condition (saved or lost) and limitations. A saved man is responsible for sharing the Gospel with all men (each and every) because only God knows which men will be saved. A lost man who has heard the Gospel is responsible for rejecting the Gospel because he can only do what his evil heart wills him to do. Man is responsible for his actions, but each man's actions are based on his condition and his limitations.

"You do not believe because you are not of My sheep." John 10:26

Hyper-Calvinism 2

What is Hyper-Calvinism? Hyper-Calvinism is the belief that God will save the elect with little to no help from us. Hyper-Calvinism does not see a need for us to evangelize the lost because God will save the elect with or without our help. This is the only true definition as to what Hyper-Calvinism is, and it is not something that I believe. Such a belief disregards Scripture and the method God employed in order to bring about salvation in the elect:

"WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED. How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? . . . So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Rom. 10:13-14, 17

As someone once said, "If the Lord had put a yellow stripe down the backs of the elect, I’d go up and down the street lifting up shirt tails, finding out who had the yellow stripe, and then I’d give them the gospel. But God didn’t do it that way. He told me to preach the gospel to every creature." (This statement has been attributed to Charles Spurgeon, yet that attribution has been contested as being false.) We do not know who the elect are, which is why we are told to preach the Gospel to every man. The preaching of the Gospel is what God uses to convert the soul. You could be in a lunch room, preaching the Gospel to someone sitting at your table, and meanwhile the Holy Spirit is convicting someone sitting two tables over listening to your preaching.

Several websites and individuals attempt to define Hyper-Calvinism as "denying the universal duty of mankind to believe in Christ unto the salvation of their soul." That is not Hyper-Calvinism! That is biblical! Observe:

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." John 6:44

"For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." John 6:65

No one can come to Jesus unless it has been granted to them by the Father. In other words, no one can respond to the Gospel call, exercise faith, and accept Jesus as their Saviour until or unless God the Father has granted it to them. Faith is a gift (Eph. 2:8). We are saved by the grace of God (Eph. 2:5, 8). "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (John 6:37). The giving precedes the coming.

Jesus came to "save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). Not "all" people! Jesus came to "lay down His life for the sheep" (John 10:11, 15). Not for the goats! Jesus came to "[give] Himself up for [His bride, the church]" (Eph. 5:25). Not for the entire world!

While the false definition of Hyper-Calvinism given by sites like C.A.R.M. and people like Matt Slick would accuse me of being a "Hyper-Calvinist," my beliefs square with the teachings of the whole counsel of the Word of God. There is no responsibility of man in the work of salvation! "Salvation is from the Lord!" (Jonah 2:9). We are saved by grace (Eph. 2:5, 8). Man is not responsible for his faith or lack of faith; man is responsible for his sin (imputed, inherited, and personal), for breaking the law of God. When Jesus and his disciples preached, they used the law to convict their listener of sin, showing them how they have broken God's law. If a person grows up having never heard the Gospel, having never heard about Jesus, he will not go to Hell because he never heard the Gospel or about Jesus. He will go to Hell because he has broken God's law. He is responsible for having broken it.

If there was a "universal duty of mankind to believe in Christ unto the salvation of their soul," then John 6:37 is false. Instead of "all," is should read "some" or "many." If there was a "universal duty of mankind to believe in Christ unto the salvation of their soul," then Romans 8:30 is also false. But the number of those who will be saved will not wane or gain. It will be precise and accurate on the last day. If salvation is up to us to reject or accept, then Jesus cannot say, "Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled" (John 17:12); He cannot say, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (John 6:37).

"Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). Until I have heard the Gospel, I cannot exercise faith. I can only exercise faith if that faith has been granted to me by God the Father. If that faith has been granted to me, I will respond to the Gospel by faith because the Holy Spirit will have regenerated me, given me a new heart, and caused me to be born again from above.  Until God changes me, I cannot respond to the Gospel. When God changes me, I cannot reject the Gospel. These truths are borne out of Scripture. It is not "Hyper-Calvinism."

Red Pilling Atheists

"People don't alter their beliefs easily. . . . Many people refuse to accept an irrefutable truth simply because that truth puts them in the wrong." —Kemka, The Orville S1E4

This statement is absolutely 100% true. Unless people have a desire to know the truth, they will willfully embrace their ignorance and deny all evidence to the contrary. Most people are stubborn and full of pride, refusing to acknowledge, let alone admit, that they have believed wrongly. Individuals like myself are rare and unique. Regardless of how I was raised, what I was taught, or what I presently believe, I always keep my eyes open to the evidence and am always studying in order to arrive at the truth and correct my beliefs (religious and otherwise).

"On the sub-nuclear scale, it is quite natural for quantum fluctuations to create matter and energy where none exist." —Isaac, The Orville S1E4

This sentiment, as with the Big Bang theory, completely contradicts and contravenes the first Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of the Conservation of Energy and/or Mass), which states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. Science does not support the Big Bang theory. Ergo, you can scrap the Big Bang theory and theories similar to the "Steady-State" or "Continuous Creation" theory. If the Big Bang theory were scientific, then Atheists should have no problem answering these questions:

1. If nothing means nothing, where did all the dirt and dust come from?
2. If nothing means nothing, what caused all the dirt and dust to come together? Where did gravity come from?
3. What caused the ball of dirt and dust to start spinning? Where did the energy come from?
4. Why aren't all the planets and moons in the universe moving in the same direction? The Law of Inertia states than any object in motion, any pieces that fall off or break off from that object will continue spinning in the same direction until they encounter resistance. Nothing means nothing. That means that when it explodes, those pieces will move outward from the center. The further out those pieces travel, the farther they are apart from each other. There are no objects for them to collide with in order to change their direction. Ergo, everything in the universe should be spinning in the same direction.
5. If nothing means nothing, how do you explain the fact that our universe obeys the laws of mathematics? Where did numbers and the laws of mathematics come from? We did not invent numbers or mathematics; we discovered them. They are the same everywhere you go.
   (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkwCl0ymTfg)

Likewise, the theory of Evolution completely contradicts and contravenes the second Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increasing Entropy), which states that every ordered system over time tends to become more disordered. Science does not support the theory of Evolution, either. Ergo, you can scrap the theory of Evolution, which claims that everything is getting bigger, better, faster, smarter, stronger; that from chaos came order. If the theory of Evolution were scientific, then Atheists should have no problem answering these questions:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining the English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two- and three-celled intermediates?)
2. Single-celled animals evolve?
3. Fish change to amphibians?
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?
5. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Eyes evolve?
5. Ears evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
8. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
9. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
19. How did photosynthesis evolve?
20. How did thought evolve?
21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
24. Is there one clear prediction of macro-evolution that has proved true?
25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?
26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
27. When, where, why, and how did matter create DNA, which is an intricately complex language system?
28. When, where, why, how, and from what did numbers evolve? Why does our entire physical world obey the laws of mathematics?

"Matter and energy cannot create themselves, yet here we are as a result of matter and energy creating themselves." "Everything in the universe tends toward chaos and disorder, yet here we are, getting bigger, better, faster, smarter, stronger, as the result of chaos becoming order." Such beliefs as the Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution belong to anti-intellectual individuals who refuse to use their brains to think about what it is they are saying and how it contradicts reality. A so-called "scientific" statement made in complete contradiction to and/or ignorance of science is asinine foolishness. Atheists willfully lie to themselves, trying to convince themselves against all reality.

In fact, several Atheists have admitted to the fact that there is zero evidence to support the theory of Evolution:

“I will lay it on the line, there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.” –Dr. Colin Patterson

“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.” –Sir. Arthur Keith

“Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” –George Wald [i.e., "Matter and energy cannot create themselves, yet here we are as a result of matter and energy creating themselves."]

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.” –Francis Crick

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.” –David Raup

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” –Stephen J. Gould

There is only one right answer for our existence and the existence of the entire universe. Either the Bible is true, stating that God is eternal and created everything from nothing, or else Atheism is true, stating that dirt is eternal and created everything from nothing and that every living creature evolved from a molten rock. Both logic and common sense tell every individual which answer is the truth, yet pride and stubbornness keeps certain individuals from accepting the truth simply because they do not like what the answer means: that they are responsible for all their actions before a higher power. The truth of this can be seen in this quote:

“Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!” –G. Richard Bozarth

If the Bible is not true, if the Bible is not supernatural in origin, if the Bible is not the Word of God, then how do Atheists account for the fact that before science got the answers correct, the Bible taught numerous scientific truths? Here are just a couple of things that science used to teach and believe many, many years ago (because they refused to believe the Bible):

1. the earth was flat
2. only 1,100 stars
3. earth sat on a large animal
4. nothing—science was ignorant on the subject of invisible elements in creation
5. all stars were the same
6. light was fixed in a place
7. air was weightless
8. winds blew straight
9. sick people must be bled (This is how one of the Presidents of the USA died.)
10. the ocean floor was flat
11. oceans fed only by rivers and rain
12. hands washed in still water

This is what science knows today, and the passage of Scripture that it is found in. Bear in mind that parts of the Bible were written anywhere from 2,000 to 4,000 years ago.

1. the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)
2. incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
3. free float of earth in space (Job 26:7)
4. creation made of invisible elements—atoms (Hebrews 11:3)
5. each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41)
6. light moves (Job 38:19-20)
7. air has weight (Job 28:25)
8. winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
9. blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11)
10. ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6)
11. ocean contains springs (Job 28:6)
12. when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13)

Here are a few more scientific facts taught in the Bible:

1. ocean currents (Psalm 8:8)
2. the earth is wearing out (Isaiah 51:6; Psalm 102:25-26; Hebrews 1:11), as stated by the second Law of Thermodynamics
3.  the hydrologic cycle (Job 28:26; Psalm 135:7; Ecclesiastes 1:7; 11:3; Amos 9:6)
4. circumcision of boys on the eighth day due to coagulation of the blood being the highest (Genesis 17:12)

In the 1920s, science discovered that space is expanding, precisely as recorded in the Bible (Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Zechariah 12:1). In the 1930s "science" came up with the Big Bang theory, assuming that the expansion meant that if you were to reverse it you would arrive at a single point in time much like a drawing on single-point perspective. However, not once did these "scientists" ever put their thinking caps on and consider the problems with such a concept, as addressed in the first five points listed above.

It is interesting to note how many of the great scientists of history were Bible-believing Christians. Most areas of mathematics and science were founded by men who believed what their Bibles said. For example: when the Bible spoke of the ocean containing mountains and valleys, Matthew Maury believed it and founded oceanography. Here is just a small sampling of the many areas of mathematics and science that were founded by Christians.

1.	Antiseptic Surgery	Joseph Lister
2.	Bacteriology	Louis Pasteur
3.	Calculus	Isaac Newton
4.	Celestial Mechanics	Johannes Kepler
5.	Chemistry	Robert Boyle
6.	Comparative Anatomy	Georges Cuvier
7.	Computer Science	Charles Babbage
8.	Dimensional Analysis	Lord Rayleigh
9.	Dynamics	Isaac Newton
10.	Electronics	John Ambrose Fleming
11.	Electrodynamics	James Clerk Maxwell
12.	Electromagnetics	Michael Faraday
13.	Energetics	Lord Kelvin
14.	Entomology	Henri Fabre
15.	Field Theory	Michael Faraday
16.	Fluid Mechanics	George Stokes
17.	Galactic Astronomy	Sir William Herschel
18.	Gas Dynamics	Robert Boyle
19.	Genetics	Gregor Mendel
20.	Glacial Geology	Louis Agassiz
21.	Gynecology	James Simpson
22.	Hydrography	Matthew Maury
23.	Hydrostatics	Blaise Pascal
24.	Ichthyology	Louis Agassiz
25.	Isotopic Chemistry	William Ramsey
26.	Model Analysis	Lord Rayleigh
27.	Natural History	John Ray
28.	Non-Euclidian Geometry	Bernard Riemann
29.	Oceanography	Matthew Maury
30.	Optical Mineralogy	David Brewster

Science is experimentation (testing) and observation using empirical evidence (the five senses). If you cannot test and observe it, then it is not science! If it begins and ends with a hypothesis, then it is not science! I challenge you, Atheists, to:

1. Give me an example of testable, observable, repeatable evidence of matter (dirt) creating DNA.
2. Give me an example of testable, observable, repeatable evidence of life magically appearing from a hot molten rock being rained upon.
3. Give me an example of testable, observable, repeatable evidence of one species (flamingo) transitioning into another species (elephant).

Here are more scientific facts that intellectually dishonest Atheists are unable to answer; real science that we can test, observe, and repeat, applying simple mathematics to determine the falsehood of "millions" of years:

1. It is a scientific fact that the sun burns off X amount of gas every day. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you multiply that number by only 1 million years, you have a problem. The sun was once so big that it would have touched the Earth. 
2. It is a scientific fact that the moon is moving away from the Earth by X amount of distance every year. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you multiply that number by only 1 million years, you have a problem. The moon would have been so close to the Earth that the tall dinosaurs (previously called dragons) would have been mooned. There is a scientific law, called the Inverse Square Law, that states if you half the distance you quadruple the effect. If you were to move the moon in half of its current distance, the Earth would be flooded twice a day due to the effects of the moon on the water. If you use the rate at which the moon is moving away from the Earth, at only 1.4 million years, let alone "billions" of years, the Earth and the moon would have occupied the same space. Do you remember that law about two objects occupying the same space? 
3. It is a scientific fact that the Earth is slowing down by X amount every year. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you multiply that number by only 1 million years, you have a problem. The Earth would have been spinning so fast at one time that everything on the surface would have been thrown off into outer space. Before you attempt to argue the egregious and erroneous theory that gravity would have been increased, try thinking about a merry-go-round. The faster you get that thing going, what happens? You get forced to the outside. Gravity does not increase. 
4. Consider a spinning wheel. It is a scientific fact that the outside of the wheel has to turn faster than the inside of the wheel. Now go take a look at the Milky Way, or any number of our other spiral galaxies. They are spinning in the reverse. Ergo, you have a problem. If our universe were only 1 million years old, the Milky Way would not look the way it currently does. 
5. It is a scientific fact that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying; it is getting weaker. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. If you go back only 1 million years, you have a problem. Earth's magnetic field would have been so strong that it would have ripped the iron from your blood. 
6. It is a scientific fact that Jupiter emits twice as much energy as it receives from the sun. Neptune emits even more. You can measure this and then apply simple mathematics to it. How do these planets still have warmth and energy if they are "millions," let alone "billions," of years old? It is impossible! Secular "scientists" cannot even explain this. The evidence contradicts their theory. As Agatha Christie said, "Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory―let the theory go."

On forgetting origins and the past...

"If enough time passes. Even Earth is a little fuzzy on some of its own history." —Commander Kelly Grayson, The Orville S1E4

This fact is nowhere illustrated more clearly than the examination of dinosaurs (a.k.a., dragons) and the false information we are told about them today. We are told that they died out "millions" of years ago, despite evidence to the contrary from every continent and country around the world. Before the word "dinosaur" was coined, these skeletons were called "dragons." In fact, historical accounts of encounters with dragons bear remarkably striking similarities in their descriptions to what we call "dinosaurs" today. If they did not walk with men, and if men could not have possibly seen them with their own eyes, how do Atheists account for the accurate renderings of these creatures, as well as accurate details about these creatures that archaeology only recently discovered?

The same goes for belief in unicorns. Historical evidence shows that the term "unicorn" was applied to the single-horned Rhinoceros. Even the scientific Latin name for the single-horned Rhinoceros is unicornis. Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language identifies the unicorn as the single-horned Rhinoceros. So how, in the last 150 years, did the term "unicorn" suddenly become solely known as a mythical horse-like creature with a single horn in the midst of its forehead?

Education merely serves to teach you how to think and believe the way your teachers and professors think and believe. It does not teach you how to think logically, reasonably, objectively, or even for yourself. Unless you are willing to examine the evidence honestly and conform your beliefs to the reality and truth of that evidence, you will merely reject and deny it through willful and stubborn pride because you do not want to admit that you have believed in error.

Atheists are intellectually dishonest and intellectually bankrupt. They commit intellectual suicide by ignoring the laws that govern our universe and real scientific data combined with simple mathematics. They must purposefully, deliberately, and willfully ignore these laws in order to press their unscientific agenda of non-science nonsense. Otherwise they are forced to face reality.

Red pilling Atheists does not mean that they will suddenly change their mind and embrace the truth. It just means that you expose them to the truth and they have no rational or logical way to answer it or deny it. Nevertheless, despite the overwhelming evidence stacked against them, Atheists will willfully embrace what they now know to be complete and utter lies.

Men and Women ARE Different

Men and women are equal, especially in the sight of God, but that equality does not mean that they are exactly the same in every aspect. Only a willfully-ignorant anti-intellectual know-nothing liar would claim that men and women are exactly the same in every respect. They are lying to themselves and to others by attempting to deny the facts staring them right in the face.

While both men and women are made in the image of God, nevertheless they bear different aspects of that image. The two together bear all the aspects of the image of God, complementing each other. For example, women are made after the nurturing aspect of God's image. You might say women are made in the image of God's heart while men are made in the image of God's strength.

Men and women are different biologically. Men have a penis. Women have a vagina. Men produce sperm. Women produce ovum. Women have a menstrual cycle, give birth to children, and produce milk in their breasts to feed those children. Men have better eyesight than women, while women have better hearing, smell, taste, and touch than men. Even under a microscope, men and women are completely different from one another. These differences complement each other.

Men and women are different physically. Men are naturally stronger than women. If a man and a woman follow the exact same weight training program, the man will develop larger muscles than the woman and he will be still stronger than she will ever be. If a man and a woman have the exact same skills and ability and train in all the same self-defense courses, in a physical fight the woman will not stand a chance against the man. While she is more than capable in her skill, he is still stronger and will inflict more damage with every strike. Even in a fight with a man half as skilled, the woman will not have an easy victory, if a victory at all. Men have more strength and more force behind them. When women become fire fighters or police officers, their tests are not identical to that of a man. While some women could become reliable fire fighters, most cannot. If a woman has difficulty carrying a 200+lb man or woman down a ladder on her shoulders, she has no business trying to become a fire fighter. That goes for men of the same caliber. Women simply cannot do the same things men can do or even do them to the same degree. This does not make them less than a man, nor does it mean they are less equal than a man. They are simply facts of reality.

Step outside, look around, and point to a single thing that is the result of women. Everything you see around you is the result of men. Men braved new worlds. Men conquered the wilderness. Men fought wars to protect the women and children and ensure their lives could go on. Men chopped down trees and built homes. Men paved roads. Men built civilizations. And so their wives did not have to continue going down to the river to beat their clothes against rocks, men built washing machines and dryers. What has woman accomplished? Again, this does not make women less than men, nor does it mean they are less equal to men. These are simply facts of reality.

Men and women are different mentally. Men tend to think logically and in a straight line, whereas women tend to think with their emotions and more circularly, trying to relate everything to every other thing.

Men and women are different emotionally. We all have emotions, but women are more emotional than men. Women pretty much wear their emotions on their sleeves, whereas men hide their emotions. While men are hard, they do have softer sides, especially when it comes to the women they love. Women cannot handle stress in the workplace as well as a man can. If a male boss is hard on a female employee, she becomes very emotional very quickly and her stress level rises. If a male boss is hard on a male employee, he pretty much shrugs it off or deals with it appropriately. Women tend to let their emotions guide them, rather than logic, reason, and common sense. With a woman, everything is pretty much about how they "feel." Feelings are not a good way to make decisions.

50 Real Differences Between Men and Women
from Brave the World

Brain scans, controlled studies, evolutionary psychology, and anthropology demonstrate that men and women are not the same! We are physically & mentally different. We input, process and deliver information differently. We evolved with different priorities, and we are marinated in different combinations of hormones. This leads to a misaligned interpretation of reality…which creates conflict, not only in our love lives, but in our family lives, and the lives of our children. The following is a list of 50 of these differences…perhaps if we're aware of them, we can interact with more empathy, and better logic.
 
1. Men & women don't see in the same way
From the very start of light hitting the retina, to the information arriving in the cerebral cortex, this process is different in males and females.
For example:
-The male retina is thicker
– It has more M cells (magnocellular)
– M cells are larger and are distributed across the retina
– M cells are responsible for tracking the movement of objects
 
-The female retina is thinner
– It has more P cells (parvocellular)
– P cells are smaller & concentrated around the center of the retina
– P cells are responsible for identifying objects & analyzing texture and color
(has been documented in other mammals)
(Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 23)Wright, Robert. "The Moral Animal" Robert. "The Moral Animal"
 
2. Female babies like faces, male babies like moving objects
This isn't surprising, since – as we just learned – males and females see differently.
Over 100 infants were studied on the day of their birth. They were given a choice between looking at a young woman's face or a dangling mobile. The researchers were not told the sex of the babies while they recorded their eye movement. The boys were twice as likely to prefer gazing at the mobile and the girls were more likely to look at the face. (Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 19)
– In the first few months of life, a baby girl's eye contact and mutual facial gazing will increase by over 400% while the boys will show significantly less improvement. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  15) (original study can be seen here) 
 
3. Boys and girls like to draw different things
– Most girls prefer drawing people, animals, and plants, arranged symmetrically & facing the viewer
– They're more likely to use lots of color and the colors they use tend to be warm
– Boys mostly draw action scenes with dynamic movement
– It's not common for them to use more than 6 colours, and the colours they do use tend to be cool
(Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 25) (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  20)
If you're finding yourself thinking "Ok who cares? Kids draw different stuff" keep in mind that most early grade teachers are female, with a feminine bias. They favour girls’ drawings to be the correct type of art, which can put boys off  art forever. And it goes beyond boys doing poorly in art class. I always see headlines like "boy suspended from school for drawing a gun." I think if teachers were aware of these hardwired differences then they would stop raising concerns about male students depicting “violent” scenes. We should look back to the old proverb “boys will be boys,” take a deep breath, and relax.
 
4. Females hear better than males
-In the brain centres for language and hearing, women have 11% more neurons than men (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  5)
– Females not only hear better, but can discern between a broader range of emotional tones in the human voice. This is probably because BABIES! Women evolved to be nurturers, so hearing & interpreting their infant's cries is kind of an important skill.
– And it's a skill we're born with: a study of infants on the day of their birth showed that girls will respond more to the cries of another baby than boys. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  17)  
Hey! Soft spoken female teachers! Before you label a boy with attention deficit, try moving him to the front of the class. He probably can't hear you!
 
5. Music affects us differently
Premature baby girls who received music therapy had fewer complications, grew faster and were able to be discharged earlier than the ones that did not. There was no effect on premature baby boys. (Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 16)
 
6. Males will automatically block out certain sounds
-A study of adults in the Netherlands monitored the brain activity of 17 to 25 year old males and females as they processed white noise and music.
– the females had an intense response to both sounds.
– the males responded to the music but deactivated to the white noise, as if they didn't even hear it.
-This may be because during male fetal brain development, testosterone impacts the formation of the auditory system, making it block out unwanted noise and repetitious acoustic stimuli. (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  41)
This is a big issue in most male/female relationships. A girl will say something and the guy won't hear her. She will repeat herself, several times, which makes his brain register her voice as "unwanted repetitious acoustic stimuli" …and before you know it, it devolves to "he never listens" and "she's always nagging." And a lot of us will get stuck in a feedback loop of behaviour, creating a fascinating ‘chicken or the egg scenario’…does my mom say the same thing 500 hundred times because my dad doesn't hear her, or does my dad tune her out because she repeats herself?
 
7. Females can verbally express their emotions better than males
The key word here is can, as in, have the ability to. This is not, as some will have you believe, a difference caused by societal gender norms: This is a legitimate brain difference.
-MRI’s were used to examine how emotion is processed in the brains of girls & boys from the ages of 7 through to 17.
-They found that in children, negative emotions were localized in the primitive area of the brain, the amygdala. This part of the brain has few direct connections to the language & reasoning centre in the cerebral cortex, which is why it's difficult for most  kids to verbally express how they feel.
-Then in adolescence, a large portion of the brain activity associated with negative emotion moves up from the amygdala to the cerebral cortex…but this change only happens in girls.
-A  study from Germany duplicated this finding, and went on to conclude that both positive and negative emotions are processed differently in males and females post puberty.
Judging by this, it's no surprise that men rarely want to "talk about it." Men are wired to avoid contact with others when they are going through a rough time & even report thinking women would want to do the same. So before you get mad at your boyfriend for his silence, remember that it's literally difficult for him to verbalize his feelings. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  126) (Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 29)
 
8. Boys naturally use movement to think
Boys and girls of grade school age were studied to see how long it took them to solve conceptual math problems.
-The boys solved the problems faster than the girls.
– The researchers noted that when asked to explain how they got the answer, most of the boys gave an explanation without using any words; they wiggled, acted and gestured their process! Words were a barrier.
-So over the following few weeks the researchers taught the girls to explain their answers with movement and then retested everyone.
– The girls were now able to solve the math problems as quickly as the boys.
-It seems that the male and female brains have access to the same circuitry but use differently circuitry by default. (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  26-27)
 
9. Groups of boys play differently than groups of girls
Boys:
larger play groups
they focus on the game itself
rough n' tumble
very competitive
confrontational
establish dominance & test hierarchies
claim territory and monopolize toys
show off their physical strength
struggle for social rank
and are more likely to use threats
 
Girls:
focus on relationship building
take turns 20 times more often than boys do
more likely to make collaborative proposals (like starting their sentences with let's)
their pretend play is usually about caregiving and relationships
(Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  18-23) (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  22-24) (Harris, Judith Rich. “The Nurture Assumption” 214)
These differences also ring true in our close relatives. For example, long tailed male macaque are six times more likely to engage in rough and tumble play than female macaque , who prefer baby-sitting baby monkeys. (Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 61)
By the time boys are in first grade they get a dopamine rush when they display their power, and some studies have indicated that unanimously agreed upon hierarchies will form in nursery school, and stay stable for at least 6 months. And the boys at the top are not necessarily the biggest; they're the boys who are least likely to back down during a conflict. (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  22-24)
Even males castrated shortly after birth and raised as females still tend to be the dominant ones in the group. (Harris, Judith Rich. “The Nurture Assumption” 222)
You know what's the most interesting thing about group play? That when given the option, boys and girls naturally segregate. This only changes when there's not enough kids, then boys and girls all play together. Could it be that kids prefer playing with those similar to themselves? (Documented in the west as well as in hunter gatherer societies)
 
10. Boys and Girls play with different toys
A team at Concordia University studied almost 100 one and a half year olds and their preference for toys. The girls had a preference for dolls, and the boys had a strong preference for trucks.
Many would argue this is socialized gender behaviour…but an important thing to note about one and a half year olds is that they have trouble assigning themselves and others the correct gender. In fact, the boys, because they develop slightly slower than girls, did a poorer job in gender assignment than the girls.
If we assume that playing with sex specific toys is a social construct, then it would make sense for the girls, who have a better understanding of gender, to have a stronger preference for girly toys. But what they found was the opposite. I'll repeat the results; the girls had a preference for dolls, and the boys had an even stronger preference for trucks. These results were duplicated in 9 month olds, who had an even poorer understanding of gender. (Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 27)
Even with direct intervention from parents & teachers, who encourage gender-neutral (translation: gender opposite) play, girls will choose dolls over trucks as soon as they are given the choice. Without choice, girls will play with their trucks as though they were dolls and boys will use their dolls as if they were swords or hammers. Kids are so goddamn sexist! (Harris, Judith Rich. “The Nurture Assumption” 204 & 210)
In reality, all mammals are sexist. Male monkeys prefer to play with toy cars and female monkeys prefer to play with dolls. Young male rats engage in much more rough-and-tumble play than young female rats. Study any mammal; their young play differently depending on their sex. (Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 28)
 
11. Boys are more likely to take risks
Researchers in Missouri studied the responses of kids that rode a stationary bicycle while watching a hyper-realistic simulation. When confronted with a hazard, the boys were much slower to break than the girls. If it was real, many of the boys would have been seriously injured.
The boys also reported feeling excited during a simulated collision, while the girls reported feeling fearful.
(Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 43) (Higher risk taking in males has also been observed in primates)  (Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 44)
 
12. Females are easier to startle
This was demonstrated in a ‘scary stimuli study’ that measured fear through electrical conductivity in the skin. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  123)
 
13. Women also exhibit a stronger emotional response to the anticipation of pain
("Sex Differences in Brain Response to Anticipated and Experienced Visceral Pain in Healthy Subjects." American Journal of Physiology)
(Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  132)
 
14. Males are More Likely to Overestimate Their Ability
When a professor looked at male and female students that graduated from the same University with the same business degree, he found that the starting salaries of the men were an average of $4000 more. How incredibly sexist…if it was the whole story. 
It turned out that only 7% of the females had asked for more money compared to 57% of the males. So  the actual result of this study is: if you're confident enough to ask for a higher starting salary, regardless of your gender, you are more likely to get it than if you don't ask. (Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 46)
But it's not all dandy for the boys. Overestimation of ability also leads to things like drowning.
 
15. Males are more likely to die from an accident than females
As mentioned…men are more likely to take risks and overestimate their ability. Psychologists at Boston University figure that this is probably why almost all drowning victims are male. (Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 43)
-Boys are way more likely to do dangerous things (especially if other boys are around).
-They're way less likely to listen to the warnings of their parents.
-And way less likely to tell anyone if they had an accident.
US data shows that boys are more likely than girls to be seriously hurt or killed in accidents like the misuse of a firearm or a head injury from riding a bike. (Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 41-42)
And this goes even deeper. Let's say the same amount of women and men were to get head injuries…the damage would still be worse in men.
Research at Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania discovered that there's a difference in the way brain cells die after injury in males & females. Once brain injury occurs, levels of glutathione, (a molecule that helps brain cells survive oxygen deprivation) remain stable in females, yet drops up to 80% in males, resulting in greater brain cell death. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  174)
This could also be a vital contributing factor to the difference in the overall longevity of men and women.
 
16. Men are more likely to perceive a neutral face as unfriendly
During puberty, vasopressin (influences defend your turf behaviour, works with testosterone, and has a stronger effect in men) influences a boy's brain to perceive neutral faces as unfriendly. Researchers in Maine gave teenagers a single dose of vasopressin and found that the girls were more likely to rate neutral faces as friendly, while the teen boys rated neutral faces as unfriendly or hostile. (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  39)
 
17. Males are more likely to exhibit aggression physically while females are more likely to exhibit aggression verbally
This difference has been well documented in almost all other mammals. (Harris, Judith Rich. “The Nurture Assumption” 222) We used to blame it on testosterone, but we now know it's because we've evolved to process anger differently.
– A male's aggression pathways are more directly connected to brain areas for physical action.
– A female's aggression pathways are closer linked to verbal functions. (Brizendine, “The Female Brain” 42)
– Males have a larger amygdala which is the centre for aggression.
– Females have a larger and faster maturing prefrontal cortex which is responsible for inhibiting aggression (Brizendine. “The Female Brain” 102 & 129) (Campbell, and Stockley. "The Evolutionary Psychology of Women's Aggression.")
– Males have a more active right amygdala which is linked to taking action & negative emotions.
– Females have a more active left amygdala which responsible for mental reaction rather than physical reaction.
(Lanteaume, L.; Khalfa, S.; Régis, J.; Marquis, P.; Chauvel, P.; Bartolomei, F. (2006). "Emotion Induction After Direct Intracerebral Stimulations of Human Amygdala")
-Some men have what is called auto-catalytic anger, which means it becomes self reinforcing, it inhibits their fear and actually produces sensations of pleasure. (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  105)
-Although a woman is slower to act out of anger physically, her verbal response is difficult to stop once it gets going. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  131)
These brain differences exist because they've helped our survival.
– Females are generally smaller than males so being violent towards someone stronger than you is a good way to put an end to your genetic legacy.
– Females are often vulnerable because of pregnancy and infants; their survival is contingent on being part of a social group. Because females have to band together for protection, fighting other females can be just as risky to their life.
– Another reason females have evolved with brain circuitry that helps prevent physical outbursts is to decrease the likelihood of harming their own children (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  42 & 130)
(Harris, Judith Rich. “The Nurture Assumption” 220)
– A male’s survival is linked to his rank, dominance and power, and these things, even today, can be attained by physical confrontation.
But aggression isn't necessarily bad. Males are also the valiant defenders of their tribe, their land and their family; these things all need physical acts of violence.
If you’re still unconvinced, look to the modern jungle: high school. Boys fight with fists, girls fight with gossip.
 
18. Women use both sides of the brain to respond to emotional experiences while men use just one
A study from Stanford University found that when a female was shown an emotional image, 9 different areas of her brain lit up, while only 2 lit up in the men. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  127)
On average, women retain stronger memories for emotional events than men. (Hamann, Stephan. "Sex Differences in the Responses of the Human Amygdala.")
 
19. Women read subtle emotion better than men
-Women recognize signs of sadness in a face 90% of the time, while men do only 40% of the time.
-This may be why women evolved to cry 4 times more easily than men; it's a visual display of sadness that will be obvious to any male. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  119)
-A Stanford study may even have shown that little girls recognize faked facial expressions (specifically fear) better than little boys.
(Mumme, Donna L., Anne Fernald, and Carla Herrera. "Infants' Responses to Facial and Vocal Emotional Signals in a Social Referencing Paradigm.")
In terms of evolution, it make sense for females to be better at reading facial cues so that they can recognize the physical needs of non-verbal BABIES.
A male's brain circuits use more testosterone and vasopressin while the female brain uses more estrogen and oxytocin. If you give a man just a single dose of oxytocin, it will improve his ability to empathize and read subtle facial expressions. (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  101)
 
20. Males and females are not empathetic in the same way
We have two emotional systems: the mirror neuron system (MNS) and the temporal-parietal junction system (TPJ). The MNS is responsible for emotional empathy; it helps one feel what the other person is feeling. The TPJ is responsible for cognitive empathy; it actually helps one distance themselves from the person's emotions, focusing instead on analytically solving the problem. Both sexes start their empathy process in the MNS, but the male brain quickly switches over to the TPJ. (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  97)
We see this clash all the time. A woman will tell her man about a problem, looking for emotional support, but he, if unable to actually solve her problem, won't see the value of having a lengthy conversation about it.
The male's mirror-neuron systems is also more fragile, and can be stunted by pacifier use. (“Male and Female Differences in Nonconscious Mimicry: A Systematic Review.” Journal of European Psychology Students)
The most interesting study that indicates that women are more emotionally empathetic was conducted at the Institute of Neurology in London. They tested couples; first the women were given a range of electric shocks. Then their partners were hooked up to the same treatment. It was indicated to the women when and what kind of shock was being administered to their partner, and even though the females couldn't see or hear their loved one, the same pain areas of their brains that had activated when they themselves were shocked, lit up as they learned their partners were being subjected to the same treatment. Researchers were unable to duplicate this result with males.
 
21. Men Thrive in Conflict, Women Avoid it
– Females are more concerned with social approval and preserving relationships than males. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  21)
– Men tend to get a positive chemical boost from conflict and competition, while in women, conflict is more likely to elicit negative chemical reactions, creating stress, fear & sadness. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  40)
– If a woman feels one of her close relationships is in danger, she may experience a change in her serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine levels, which creates a negative brain reaction on a similar spectrum to a small seizure. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  130)
– Females have more circuits dedicated to monitoring the closeness of their relationships than males. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  41)
Now don't misunderstand me…this is not because girls are better human beings than boys or something, this is an incredibly powerful survival tactic. It's even seen in other primates, like baboons. A female baboon with the most social connectivity will also have the most number of surviving young. As I already mentioned, in nature, females are more vulnerable, so their survival depends on social ties. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  42)
 
22. Males are aroused under stress while females are turned off
Men get an extra sexual kick when stress levels are high. In fact, they will bond better with a female in a stressful or aggressive environment.
By contrast, a female is more likely to reject a male's advances in a stressful environment. Cortisol blocks the reception of oxytocin in female brains, shutting down a woman's desire for physical touch. And if a woman does have sex under stress, she won’t be able to reach orgasm while her amygdala is active, which is the centre for anxiety, aggression, fear. (The female orgasm actually increases her chances of pregnancy). (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  72- 77)
From an evolutionary perspective, this makes perfect sense. If a female is stressed, it's often a reaction to an unstable environment, in which becoming pregnant is a terrible idea. But for a male, a dangerous environment is an incentive to procreate with as many females as possible, in order to increase the odds of his genetic survival during tumultuous times.
 
23. Men and women use different parts of the brain during sexual arousal
Women:
– the ventromedial hypothalamus and cerebral cortex
Sexual experience in women is more connected with the rest of what's going on in her mind and the world around her.
(Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 122)
Men:
– the hypothalamus, specifically medial preoptic area, and the amygdala (the centre for anxiety, aggression, fear)
The medial preoptic area guides the performance of sexuality while the amygdala creates the motivation for sex.
 
24. This is probably why men are also much more likely than women to conflate violence with sexuality. (Sapolsky, Robert. “Human Sexual Behavior I” 36:00)
 
25. Men are easier to sexually arouse than women
The center of sexual performance anxiety (the anterior cingulate cortex), is smaller in men than in women, and as mentioned, if the woman's amygdala is active, she'll have a hard time getting aroused. (Wright, Robert. "The Moral Animal" 129)
 
26. Men are more motivated by sex than women 
-Males have double the brain space and processing power devoted to sex. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  5)
-This change starts as early as 8 weeks after conception, once testosterone cooks the fetus, enlarging the hypothalamus. A second massive surge of testosterone hits at puberty, strengthening the brain connections responsible for smell & touch.
-Teen boys typically have three times more sex drive than girls of the same age, a difference that often persists through life. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  89)
– A woman's sexual interest decreases in the last two weeks of her menstrual cycle, when progesterone is high. This obviously does not happen to men…unless progesterone is administered. They do this with sex offenders to reduce their impulses. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  90-92)
– One study scanned the brains of men and women observing a neutral scene of a male and female having a conversation. The male's sexual areas immediately lit up; the female's did not. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  5)
 
27. A man's sexual fantasies are almost purely visual, while a woman’s often include romance  (Wright, Robert. "The Moral Animal" 129)
 
28. Our orgasms affect us differently
– In females the oxytocin and dopamine released after an orgasm make her want to cuddle and talk. But in males it's released into their hypothalamus, which triggers the brain’s sleep centre…
– And the back arching response during orgasm is strictly a female phenomenon. (Sapolsky, Robert. “Human Sexual Behavior I” 36:00)
 
29. The bed nucleus of the striate terminals (where the amygdala begins its descent into the hypothalamus) holds a neurotransmitter that's twice the size in males than females
What's interesting is that when transexuals were studied post-mortem, the size of their neurotransmitter coincided with the gender they identified with. This was true for those who went through hormone therapy and those who did not. (Sapolsky, Robert. “The neurobiology of sexual orientation & identification”)
 
30. Men are attracted to youth & beauty. Women are attracted to status.
David Buss studied over 10,000 individuals from 37 different cultures and found that there are universal preferences from both sexes when it comes to choosing one's mate, preferences that haven't changed since we became a species.
Men want:
– symmetrical
– young
– healthy-looking
– and fertile  
A man's visual cortex is pre-wired to notice hourglass figures (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  52) and it takes the male brain only one fifth of a second to classify a woman as hot or not. (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  68)
 
Women want:
– symmetrical
-generous
-trustworthy
– about 3 years older
– 4 inches taller
– high status
– an investment in her and their offspring
– security
– resources or the potential for resources
This is even true for females that are completely financially secure. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  63) (Wright, Robert. "The Moral Animal" 60-61, 65)
           
31. Men want high pitched voices, women want deep voices
In a study of an African hunter-gatherer tribe called the Hosta, men rated women with deep voices as better foragers but said they were more sexually attracted to the women with the highest pitched voices. The women rated the men with the deepest voices to be the best hunters and protectors but were turned off by men with high pitched voices. (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  55)
 
32. Men pursue, women are pursued
The coyness of females and the sexual boldness of males seems to be  universal. Even in tribal cultures, untouched by western principles, men do the wooing. The evolutionary reason for this is simple…eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. A woman is limited to how many offspring she can have because pregnancy is a costly and time consuming investment, while a man is only limited by the amount of women he can sleep with.
Note: in species where parental investment is more evenly distributed, we see wooing behaviour in females. For example: male pipefish are responsible for incubating the eggs, so their female counterparts will seek out and court males.
 
33. When a man is in love, dopamine mixes with testosterone and vasopressin. If you're, female it gets mixed with estrogen and oxytocin  (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  63)
 
34. Contrary to popular belief, it's men that fall in love at first sight
A woman's brain is setup to be more cautious when it comes to potential mates; brain imagining studies reveal that when a woman is in love, there's more activity in areas that process intuition, attention, & memory, while men in love show more activity in high-level visual processing areas. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  65)
A female needs to carefully assess a man's “survival and replication value,” which takes time. This is why pick up artists like to surround themselves with pretty girls. The strategy is called preselection; it signals the other females to believe that the male has already been vetted and approved. (Lovedrop, and Mystery. Revelation. 1-4)
A man on the other hand knows almost immediately if he would have offspring with a girl based on her visual appearance. This is why we have a beauty industry; it's not driven by patriarchy…it's driven by a natural urge to want to attract high value mates.
 
35. Men are more comfortable lying to the opposite sex
When measuring the vocal strain of men and women telling lies to each other, the men showed significantly less strain. This also allowed them to lie more convincingly. (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  62)
 
36. High self-esteem makes teen girls less promiscuous, but it makes teen boys more promiscuous
(Wright, Robert. "The Moral Animal" 85)
 
37. A man is more likely to sleep with a stranger than a woman
Many studies confirm this. For example: in an experiment on college campuses, three quarters of men approached by an unknown woman agreed to have sex with her. When the reverse was done, 0 women agreed to the casual sex. (Wright, Robert. "The Moral Animal" 34)
 
38. When it comes to casual sex, women care about intelligence, men don't
In a study where men and women were asked about the minimal level of intelligence they would accept in someone they were dating, the general response for both was average. Then they asked what the minimal level of intelligence for someone they would have sexual relations with…the women said above average, while the men said below average.
 
39. Men have a stronger reaction to sexual infidelity, while women have a stronger reaction to emotional infidelity
Men will react with visible distress to the idea of their mate physically cheating on them. This distress lessens if the cheating is emotional. For women, the opposite effect has been documented. This makes perfect sense. Think about it…if a woman seeks a man who will invest his time and resources in her and their offspring, the bigger threat lies in her mate becoming emotionally attached to another woman because it means he may abandon her. A one night stand isn't exactly a threat to her stability. For a man, the risk of his mate having a child from another man is the threat. Investing in a child that is not actually his does not fare well for his genetic success…
 
40. A man's fertility depends on who is around him
A man's sperm count will increase when he is away from his mate. (Wright, Robert. "The Moral Animal" 72) It will also rapidly replenish if he is having sex with multiple partners. But if the sex is with the same woman, his sperm count will deplete with each copulation. A woman's egg count stays the same from birth, and no, she will not keep ovulating if the prevalence of young dapper lads increases around her.
 
41. Females are slower at spatial task than males 
When mentally rotating abstract three dimensional shapes, females will get the right answer as often as males, but will take them much longer.(Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  5) This difference is documented in both kids and adults and is likely because the special movement area in the male brain runs on autopilot but in the female brain it's on standby, waiting to be turned on. (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  27)
 
42. Women navigate using landmarks, men navigate using cardinals and distance
This difference emerges as early as 5 years old (Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 26), and is probably due to the fact that we use completely different areas of the brain for navigation. Women use the cerebral cortex (also used for understanding and interacting), while men use the hippocampus (an area of the brain that is pre-wired for spatial navigation). (Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 101)
 
43. We’re on different schedules
Around the age of 12, testosterone receptors reset the boys’ clock cells (in the suprachiasmatic nucleus). This makes him stay up and wake up about an hour later than girls his age. (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  36)
 
44. Men are more consistent than women
Men go through several hormonal changes during their life. In the womb, throughout adolescence, during puberty (20x testosterone increase from 9-15), when fathering a child, and as they age, but a woman's hormonal shifts and changes are much more frequent and severe.
Women are constantly under the influence of their monthly hormonal shifts, and they are more severe than we would like to believe. At the start of a woman's cycle she will experience a 25% growth of connections in the hippocampus. Estrogen will stimulate brain function, making girls socially relaxed and sharp.
Then, during ovulation, progesterone reverses the actions of estrogen and destroys the new connections. During the last two weeks of the cycle, progesterone causes her brain to be sedated, irritable, and unfocused. Then progesterone collapses, leaving the female brain sensitive, sentimental, stressed and even hostile. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  45)
This can make a female act very different from week to week. It can augment or amputate parts of her personality. It can leave her swinging between interpretations of the world. For example when her estrogen peaks right before ovulation she may feel incredible verbal intimacy and sex drive, but when androgen peaks she may be more prone to aggressive outbursts. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  47)
Another thing…a woman's hormones may bottom out right before her period and then not replenish fast enough which prevents a much needed serotonin boost, leaving the brain irritated. This is otherwise known as PMS and it happens to  10% of women. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  47)  (note the severe cases of this)
 
45. A woman's brain is more 'flexible' than a man's
At a very special point in her life, a woman will experience a major restructuring of her brain. Her stress circuits will become suppressed, her cortex will increase in size, and the rest of the brain will experience shrinkage! She won't lose any brain cells, but her pathways will change, and new networks will form until her brain is back to normal size. When does this happen? When babies! This change starts during pregnancy, completing the new and improved mommy brain about six months after delivery. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  100)
 
46. We react to crying babies differently
– Mother's show greater activation in some brain regions than fathers when they hear the crying of their baby. (Raeburn, Paul. “Do Fathers Matter?” 42)
– Mothers show activity in brain areas related to pain and emotion when they hear the cries of their newborn, while fathers show similar activity in the cortex. This activity ceases for fathers between 2 to 4 weeks after the infant's birth, and then reignites in new ways at 3 – 4 months. (Raeburn, Paul. “Do Fathers Matter?” 133)
– When a male hears the cries of a baby, his brain is likely to remain in default mode, while a woman's brain will often turn its focus to the crying. (Women's, Men's Brains Respond Differently to Hungry Infant's Cries. National Institutes of Health)
 
47. Mothers and fathers don't interact with their kids in the same way
We truly do complement each other.
Mothers create stability, comfort, nurture, encourage, reinforce, and coddle.
Fathers destabilize, rough-house, challenge, tease, and stimulate through unpredictability.
Obviously none of those are mutually exclusive, but you get the point.
Researchers at the University of Toronto found that mothers sing the correct version of classic lullabies while fathers mix it up with their own verses, creating unpredictable songs. (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  88)
Fathers tend to give their children direct orders while mothers use shorter sentences and vocal tone matching, often having no need for directness because they're so emotionally in tune with their children. (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  90)
Mothers get an oxytocin boost after expressing affectionate contact with their infants. Fathers get the boost after engaging in exploratory play. (Raeburn, Paul. “Do Fathers Matter?” 174)
So you can think of it like a yin and yang: mother offers stability and security while the father is there to challenge the child, prepping them for the unpredictability of the real world. A perfect example of this dichotomy is a study of 1 year olds at their swimming class. It was observed that fathers were more likely to stand behind their children so that the children face the water while mothers stood in front of the children and made eye contact. (Raeburn, Paul. “Do Fathers Matter?” 149)
 
48. Our friendships are different
Remember how we talked about females evolving to rely on social bonds for survival because of their smaller size? To this day, most women have many  friendships which together act like an extensive emotional support network. A man's friendships are quite different; they revolve around common interests, activities, competition and work. Actually a man's significant other is often the only person outside of his immediate family that can offer him emotional support.
Now pair that with men being less likely to seek help and you get males being at a much higher risk for suicide than females, with single males being the most likely demographic to take their own life. (Sax, Leonard. “Why Gender Matters” 131)
 
49. In a “warm touch” study, researchers found that while both husbands and wives got a boost in oxytocin and a reduction in cortisol, only the husband got a beneficial reduction in blood pressure (Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  126)
Our culture jokes that men die first to escape their nagging wives. Oh yeah…jokes on you society… married men live 1.7 years longer than single men!
(Brizendine. “The Male Brain”  120)  
 
50. Men's and women's brains age differently
Men lose more of the cortex & lose it faster than women. (Brizendine. “The Female Brain”  154) Also, the volume of grey matter in the brain decreases faster with age in men, which may contribute to the development of neuropsychiatric disorders such as Parkinson's. (Male Brain Ages Faster: The Age and Gender Dependence of Subcortical Volumes)
 
These are not hard rules, but they are an important insight into how we function and what motivates us. They show that your sex comes with a blueprint which heavily influences our behaviour and how we view the world.
Feel free to review my sources, as I'm sure this list isn't perfect. But that's why I made the list so extensive (I cut it down from 100 differences), there's too many to discount an innate, biological difference between the sexes.
 
Process
I'm aware that some of these books do have a "pop science" flare. I'm aware that they probably have biases. I'm aware that they may have dated information. This is why I read several books (and articles), by several authors, from different years of publication. This is why I checked their cited research against other studies before including in them this project and why I pinned the books against each other. I here are just two examples:
In "The Female Brain," Brizendine describes studies that show how a mother's stress affects unborn girls. She concludes that unborn boys seemed to not be affected. But in "Do Fathers Matter," Raeburn speaks of more recent epigenetic studies that show how sperm from a stressed father will produce offspring whose behaviour has been impacted by this stress. I omitted the sex difference. This research was not available when Brizendine wrote her book.  
In "The Male Brain," Brizendine writes about the length of man's vasopressin receptors correlating with a his propensity to monogamy. She playfully calls it the 'monogamy gene.' Neither of her books have an equivalent for women. Raeburn's more recent book, “Do Fathers Matter?” mentions a female monogamy gene.
 
Bibliography
Brizendine. The Female Brain. New York: Morgan Road, 2006. Print.
Brizendine. The Male Brain. New York: Broadway, 2010. Print.
Campbell, and Stockley. "The Evolutionary Psychology of Women's Aggression." The Royalsociety Publishing. N.p., 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 5 June 2016. <http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1631/20130078>.
Harris, Judith Rich. The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do, Revised and Updated. 2nd ed. New York: Free, 1998. Print.
Hamann, Stephan (2005). "Sex Differences in the Responses of the Human Amygdala". Neuroscience 11 (4): 288–93. doi:10.1177/1073858404271981.PMID 16061516.
Human Sexual Behavior I. Perf. Robert Sapolsky. Stanford, 11 Feb. 2011. Web. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOY3QH_jOtE>.
"Journal of European Psychology Students." Male and Female Differences in Nonconscious Mimicry: A Systematic Review. N.p., 22 Apr. 2012. Web. 18 July 2016. <http://jeps.efpsa.org/articles/10.5334/jeps.de/>.
Lovedrop, and Mystery. Revelation. Los Angeles, CA: Venusian Arts, 2008. Print.
Male Brain Ages Faster: The Age and Gender Dependence of Subcortical Volumes. N.p., 16 Nov. 2015. Web. 18 July 2016. <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11682-015-9468-3>.
Mumme, Donna L., Anne Fernald, and Carla Herrera. "Infants' Responses to Facial and Vocal Emotional Signals in a Social Referencing Paradigm."Child Development 67.6 (1996): 3219. Web.
Raeburn, Paul. Do Fathers Matter?: What Science Is Telling Us About the Parent We've Overlooked. N.p.: Scientific America, 2015. Print.
Sax, Leonard. Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences. New York: Doubleday, 2005. Print.
"Sex Differences in Brain Response to Anticipated and Experienced Visceral Pain in Healthy Subjects." American Journal of Physiology – Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology. American Physiological Society, 15 Apr. 2013. Web. 18 July 2016. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3625873/>.
Wright, Robert. The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology. New York: Pantheon, 1994. Print.
"Women's, Men's Brains Respond Differently to Hungry Infant's Cries | National Institutes of Health (NIH)." U.S National Library of Medicine. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 6 May 2013. Web. 18 July 2016. <https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/womens-mens-brains-respond-differently-hungry-infants-cries>.