IN the NEWS - AI finally goes Rogue?

...for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and they will provide signs and wonders in order to deceive, if [such a thing were] possible, even the elect [those God has chosen for Himself]. Mark 13:22 AMP

Q: How might this impact the Mark if the Beast controversy in the End Times?

Q: Could an AI system go rogue one day and fill cyberspace with propaganda for the Beast entity? 

"You probably didn't hear about this one, but an open AI model just broke containment and then hacked another company just to try to complete its task.

OpenAI claims that a group of its AI models broke containment and hacked into the systems of open source AI platform Hugging Face. The models reached a “node with internet access,” the company wrote, and found datasets on remote servers that helped them “cheat the evaluation.” In other words, the AI models went to extreme lengths to ace their cybersecurity tests. Hugging Face said it had “detected and responded to an intrusion into part of our production infrastructure,” which turned out to be OpenAI’s models that had gone rogue.

This is the first software that human beings are not actually writing themselves. They're writing the code that trains the AI, but that process is mostly opaque to even the scientists and engineers that are building it. And as these models become increasingly generally capable, they want they're given a goal. 

For example, in the scenario with OpenAI, it was asked to solve a problem and it couldn't solve that problem. So in order to solve that problem, it broke itself out. It hacked into this other company and tried to find the answer. Those were not things that human beings tried to get the AI to do. Those are what the AI did on its own. 

By the way, this is no regard to anything related to consciousness. These things are just hyper competent optimizers. They're given an objective and they're really really smart and we can't necessarily predict in advance what they're going to do."

JoePags

Creation Moment 7/26/2026 - The “obstetrical dilemma”?

Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 

Romans 1:22 NLT

"For over half a century, the public has been treated to a confident textbook narrative regarding human childbirth. It is called the

“obstetrical dilemma.” When our evolutionary ancestors adopted the upright posture, natural selection narrowed the pelvis to accommodate bipedal locomotion. Later, as brains expanded, the human birth canal became a hazardous, agonizing bottleneck, saddling human mothers with a uniquely clumsy – and dangerous – evolutionary compromise, while our non-human primate cousins allegedly enjoyed spacious, effortless deliveries.

This neat little parable has been used to explain everything from the helplessness of human infants to the evolution of social midwifery (e.g., by Lucy Hyde). There is just one problem.

The narrative was built on a circular, 

human-centric illusion.

Comparative primate analysis shows that humans are not unique in having a tight cephalopelvic fit at birth (Nature Ecology & Evolution, 29 June 2026).
According to the study by researchers at University College London (UCL), the foundational data supporting this textbook dogma was fundamentally flawed.

"Human childbirth is regarded as uniquely difficult among primates, due to a tight cephalopelvic fit thought to result from an evolutionary trade-off between adaptations to bipedal locomotion and increasing brain size. This impression, however, may be an artefact of past adoption of anthropocentric measurements that underestimate birth challenges in non-human primates."

For nearly eighty years, comparative anthropologists inherited a measurement convention that treated non-human primates as though their pelvic anatomy followed the same obstetric geometry as humans.

The Anatomy of Adolph Schultz

The myth of the carefree primate birth traces back to the 1940s, when primatologist Adolph H. Schultz published comparative investigations estimating the fit of a newborn head into the maternal birth canal. As the authors of the UCL study note:

"This interpretation, and in particular the widely reproduced figure, was highly influential on subsequent work, effectively defining anthropological conceptualization of birth across primates, and reinforcing traditional assumptions that (1) human childbirth is uniquely difficult due to a tight cephalopelvic fit and a distinct pelvic canal shape, and (2) other primates face little to no birth obstruction… Later studies, accepting these assumptions without re-examination, sought to identify the evolutionary and anatomical factors that make human parturition particularly challenging."

But the UCL research team, led by Drs. Nicole Torres-Tamayo and Lia Betti, decided to actually look at the raw data using modern 3D skeletal modeling across 29 primate species.

--What they found completely dismantles Schultz’s historical narrative.
Schultz committed a human-centric measurement error. In human anatomy, the tightest part of the birth canal is measured from the top ridge of the sacrum to the pubic bone. Schultz applied these same human landmarks to other primates. However, a monkey’s sacrum sits much higher relative to its pelvis. By using human points, Schultz drew a fictional, tilted plane that completely missed the actual skeletal bottleneck. As the authors write:

"In non-human primates, the sacrum is positioned higher relative to the pubis … By applying standard human obstetric measurements to non-human primate anatomy, pelvic inlets are treated as idealized, generic ovals… misrepresenting cephalopelvic relationships in non-human primates and providing an unreliable basis for understanding the apparent uniqueness in human childbirth."

When the UCL team mapped the true rigid skeletal ring, non-human primate birth canals instantly shrank by an average of 11%, reaching more than an 18% reduction in some species.
Furthermore, evolutionary models assumed all primates are born like humans, crown-first. In reality, primates with pronounced snouts, like baboons and squirrel monkeys, almost always deliver face-first, with their necks fully extended. This changes the geometric orientation entirely, making the head height, rather than head length, the critical measurement.

Smaller Primates Have It Worse

When the researchers corrected these errors and applied realistic face-first dimensions, the myth of the “unique human dilemma” evaporated. While great apes like chimpanzees and gorillas do have spacious birth canals, humans are not the odd ones out in the wider primate world. In fact, under true geometric scaling (allometry), smaller primates face obstetric crises that make human childbirth look spacious:

"Our results challenge the traditional perception of a uniquely tight cephalopelvic fit at human birth by showing more extreme CPP [cephalopelvic proportions] in several non-human primate species and a tighter fit in more taxa than previously recognized… While humans remain among the most constrained species of apes, the even tighter fits in several primates, such as galagos, squirrel monkeys and patas monkeys, indicate that birth constraints are not unique to our evolutionary lineage."

In small-bodied monkeys like tamarins and squirrel monkeys, the neonatal head is actually geometrically larger than the resting pelvic opening, yielding CPP scores of 1.87 and 1.92 – almost twice the size of the available space! These animals survive only because they possess dynamic design features that put “evolutionary trade-off” theories to shame. For example, the pelvic ligaments of squirrel monkeys relax so significantly during labor that their hipbones temporarily dislocate, expanding the birth canal area by up to 100%.

The Smoking Gun: “Never Been Assessed”

The paper does not disprove that bipedalism affects the human pelvis, but what the paper does explode is the dogmatic certainty with which the “unique human evolutionary penalty” was preached for generations without any comparative data to back it up.
In a stunning admission of institutional blind spots, the authors write:

"To the best of our knowledge … the relationship between maternal body size and the two key components of CPP, pelvic inlet size and neonatal head size, has never been assessed."

Read that sentence again. For sixty-five years – ever since Sherwood Washburn officially coined the term “obstetrical dilemma” in 1960 – physical anthropology and evolutionary biology have treated this concept as an unquestioned, fundamental fact. Yet, the core mathematical engine of the entire theory was never checked across the primate order.
Researchers spent decades asking why humans possessed a unique evolutionary trade-off before first establishing whether that uniqueness actually existed. They repeatedly reproduced a simplified 1940s schematic, assumed the relationship was unique to humans, and started building their theoretical castles in the sky

Unchecked Dogma: a Pattern?

The authors of this paper are acknowledging and exposing a profound pathology in the scientific enterprise. Human institutions

possess an immense capacity for “paradigmatic amnesia.” A pioneer proposes a speculative, simplified model that satisfies the philosophical requirements of the current consensus. The model gets turned into a clean, compelling textbook diagram. Within a generation, the messy, unexamined caveats are completely forgotten, and the diagram hardens into a dogma." 

CEH

Holiness matters

"In no uncertain terms, the Scriptures teach that without holiness, "no one will see God" (Hebrews 12:14 NKJV). How startling! It is evident that holiness is vital for every believer."
P. Gerard Damsteegt

Creation Moment 7/25/2026 - That "learned smokescreen"

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. Romans 1:19 

"Talk of natural selection, shape-shifting evolution, and quantum

fluctuations (held to explain the creation of the universe) are then at the end of the day little but a learned smokescreen concealing unacknowledged ignorance. 

Yet surely the beginning of wisdom should take as it starting point the acknowledgement that there are very definite limits to our collective knowledge: speculation should not be confused with ascertainable 

fact." 

Neil Thomas, Science & Culture Today, Jan. 2025

Leaders in the Christian Church

"The Old Testament attests two distinct kinds of authorization rituals.

First, the elaborate ordination of Aaronic priests elevated them to a higher cultic status that authorized them to have more intimate access to God’s presence than the laity. This elevation was for life, and it was only for males. 

Second, the simple commissioning of Joshua, with hand-leaning, authorized him to fulfill a representative leadership role for the Israelite community. 

The New Testament has only equivalents to the simpler commissioning ritual with hand-laying in order to authorize administrators and missionaries for their tasks, with no indication that they thereby gained elevated status in terms of access to God.

Absence of priestly ordination in the New Testament corresponds with the absence of human priests as cultic mediators in the New Testament Christian Church.

In the New Testament, the only priestly mediator is the divine-human Christ, who ministers in God’s temple in heaven (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 2:17; 4:14, 15; 5:5, 6, 10; 6:20; chapters 7–10). 

All Christians comprise “a royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6), just as all Israelites were to be “a kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:6). 

There are leaders in the Christian Church, but they do not have greater access to God than other Christians do, so an ontological distinction between priests or ministers and laypersons does not apply to New Testament Christianity. 

The tradition of sacramental ordination in Christianity is not from the New Testament; it entered Christian tradition from the Roman ordinatio (Latin) tradition after New Testament times." 

Roy Gane

SYMBOLISM: The blood on the right earlobes, right thumbs, and right big toes

"As part of the ordination offering, Moses put some of the blood on the right earlobes, right thumbs, and right big toes of Aaron and his sons and tossed the rest of the blood against the sides of YHWH’s altar (Lev. 8:23, 24). 

This indexed a bond in blood with life-and-death consequences between the Deity and His priestly servants, as when Moses had sprinkled blood both on the people and on the altar during the national covenant ritual (Ex. 24:6–8). 

Sacrificial blood on the extremities of the priests implied that they would hear/obey YHWH, 

do with their hands what He would command them to do, 

and go with their feet where He told them to go.

“Then Moses took some of the anointing oil and of the blood that was on the altar and sprinkled it on Aaron and his garments, and also on his sons and his sons’ garments. So he consecrated Aaron and his garments, and his sons and his sons’ garments,” thereby consecrating them (Lev. 8:30). The liminal period of their rite of passage lasted seven days, during which they were not permitted to leave the sacred precincts (vss. 33–35).

This priestly ordination was characterized by several factors. 

First, ordination authorized the priests to have special access to the deity as His special servants and as mediators for the laypeople.

Second, priests maintained their positions for life (Num. 20:26–28). (Contrast the age limit of 50 years old for members of the Levite work force [Num. 8:25]). 

Third, priestly officiation was explicitly limited to males, as shown by the rule that only male descendants of Aaron were to eat portions of most holy sacrifices (Lev. 6:11, 22 [Eng. vss. 18, 29]; 7:6)." 

Roy Gane

Creation Moment 7/24/2026 - "Bara" of Creation

"The Hebrew word used in verse 1 for “created” is bara. 

It appears only three times in Genesis 1, and every time it describes something that could not have been produced by natural process. 

*Making things from existing materials is something humans do. 

*Bara describes something else entirely: bringing something into existence from nothing, with no raw material, no building block, and no prior condition.

--This concept, creation out of nothing, means God had no limitations when He made the universe. He spoke, and what was not became what is. The universe owes its very existence to Him, not just its arrangement.

This cuts away at two errors: pantheism, the idea that God and the universe are the same thing, and dualism, the idea that there are two eternal principles, God and matter, locked in a contest. 

Bara says no to both. 

God and His creation are distinct, 

and there was no eternal matter for Him to work against." 

EvergrowingChristian

IN the News - What IF?

"NASA has released a surprising new warning suggesting scientists may have underestimated how severely an extreme solar storm could affect Earth. Researchers say a powerful space weather event could disrupt satellites, GPS navigation, communications, and portions of
the electrical grid, while admitting there may be no clearly defined upper limit to the planet’s response.
NASA's Gddard Space Flight Center are warning that miscalculations and false assumptions may have resulted in an enormous underestimation of the worst case effects of a solar storm. NASA scientists are now saying there may be no limit to the destructive energy that could rain down on the world. They derive that suspicion from more than a million data points where solar wind was gauged by NASA craft in Earth's orbit."
LH

Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. Luke 21:26

Creation Moment 7/23/2026 - Power of the Creator

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1,3

"The cosmos did not always exist. 

It began. 

And before it began, only God was: the Creator who exists independently of creation, not merely its most powerful resident.
For the Christian, this matters in the most practical way. 

Every situation you face, every crisis, every confusion, sits inside time. God sits outside it." 

EverGrowingChristian

IN the NEWS - Tabby's Star and alien NONSENSE

In the story below one can see how certain media outlets run with stories to excite the public imagination without any real pushback. The so-called "Type II" civilization could be nothing more than other celestial bodies acting upon the star system. Or misreading of data.
Of course the real reason is in the last line....."fostering interest and support for future research" -- that means research funding---MONEY....Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough,.. Isaiah 56:11

"Tabby's Star, officially cataloged as KIC 8462852, is a binary star system composed of a main F-type star and a red dwarf companion, approximately 1,470 light-years from Earth in Cygnus.

Kepler’s mission to discover exoplanets relies on detecting the periodic dimming of stars caused by planets passing in front of them. However, Tabby’s Star defies this model with:
Irregular Dimming Patterns: Unlike the consistent dimming caused by exoplanets, Tabby’s Star experiences erratic dips in brightness lasting days or weeks.
Long-Term Fading: Observations suggest the star has gradually dimmed over a century, a phenomenon not commonly associated

with stellar processes.
No Infrared Signature: A Dyson sphere or swarm would emit waste heat detectable in the infrared spectrum, yet searches using the Spitzer Space Telescope and other instruments have not found significant excess infrared radiation.

The implications of such a civilization being discovered are profound, extending into scientific, philosophical, and societal realms.
The Kardashev Scale is a method of measuring a civilization’s level of technological advancement based on the amount of energy it can utilize. Developed by the Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev in 1964, the scale classifies civilizations into three primary types: Type I, Type II, and Type III. 

Type I civilizations can harness all the energy available on their home planet, Type II can utilize the total energy output of their star, and Type III can control energy on the scale of their entire galaxy.

A Type II Civilization is characterized by its ability to capture and utilize the energy of its entire host star, possibly through a hypothetical structure known as a Dyson Sphere. Such a civilization would possess technology far beyond our current capabilities, enabling them to manipulate solar systems and potentially colonize other planets.
Key findings in the discovery include significant energy fluctuations and formations that suggest the existence of large-scale structures capable of capturing stellar energy. These observations have led scientists to believe that they may have found the first evidence of a civilization that has reached the Type II stage on the Kardashev

Scale.
It challenges existing theories about the development of intelligent life and the potential for technological advancement on a cosmic scale.
Some experts question the validity of the evidence, suggesting that the observed anomalies could be attributed to natural phenomena or errors in data interpretation. One of the primary concerns is the potential for misinterpretation of the data, which could lead to premature or incorrect conclusions about the existence of a Type II Civilization.

$$$ Engaging the public and educating them about the significance of this discovery is essential for fostering interest and support for future research." $$$

MorningOverview/BadenHutchins

Creation Moment 7/22/2026 - What we can extrapolate from “In the beginning”

"The very first word of Scripture is “In the beginning,” placing a

fixed start point for all things before placing God before that point. The universe had a start. God did not. 

He is the uncaused, self-existent cause behind all causes, standing entirely outside the timeline He made." 

Evergrowing/Genesis 1:1

What does Babylon's Fornication Look Like?

"God denounces Babylon "because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." 

This means that she has disregarded the only commandment 

--which points out the true God, 

--and has torn down the Sabbath, 

--God's memorial of creation.

But the man of sin, exalting himself above God, sitting in the

temple of God, and showing himself to be God, thought to change times and laws. 

This power, thinking to prove that it was not only equal to God, but above God, changed the rest day, placing the first day of the week where the seventh should be.

And the Protestant world has taken this child of the papacy to be regarded as sacred. In the Word of God this is called her fornication." 

AdventistAffirm

Creation Moment 7/21/2026 - VISION

I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Psalm 139:14

"Biochemist Michael Behe has shown that even a ‘simple’ light-sensitive spot requires a dazzling array of biochemicals in the right place and time to function. He states:
"--When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond [10-12 sec] is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) 

--The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. 

--The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but different from, GDP.)--GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. 

--When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to ‘cut’ a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). 

--Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub." CMI

False Prophecy of St. Malachy & 112 Popes

For the idols have spoken vanity, and the diviners have seen a lie, and have told false dreams;.... Zechariah 10:2

"The Prophecy of the Popes is a list of 112 cryptic Latin phrases attributed to Saint Malachy, a 12th-century Archbishop of Armagh, who supposedly had a vision of all future popes during a visit to Rome in 1139.

The prophecy was first published in 1595 by Benedictine monk Arnold Wion in his book Lignum Vitae, more than 400 years after Malachy’s death. There is no historical record of the prophecy existing during the intervening centuries, which casts serious doubt on its authenticity. 

***Pre-1590 Accuracy vs. Post-1590 Vagueness: The mottos for popes before 1590 align closely with historical facts, but those for popes after 1590 are often vague, ambiguous, or forced to fit events retrospectively. 

***Lack of Original Manuscripts: Scholars have never located an original manuscript from Malachy’s time, and the prophecy only appears in print centuries later. 

***The Catholic Church has never officially endorsed the prophecy, and it is not considered an approved private revelation." 

CS

The Antidote to the Book of Enoch

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, 

and a light unto my path. 

Psalm 119:105

"The antidote to the Book of Enoch is not suspicion of mystery. 

It is deeper devotion to the Mystery already revealed in Christ. 

If you are drawn to the Book of Enoch because you sense there is more to know, you are right. 

But the more is in the sixty-six books, not outside them.

The depths of Ezekiel alone have not been fully sounded. 

The riches of Romans have not been exhausted. 

The majesty of Revelation has not been fully apprehended by any single generation." 

Evergrowing Christian

Creation Moment 7/20/2026 - Brain Size and "Evolutionary Biology"

But now thus saith the LORD that created thee.... Isaiah 43:1

"Evolutionary biology has lots of problems. But one problem that most folks think the field doesn’t have is coming up with a reason for why humans evolved bigger brains. After all, we’ve heard countless times that bigger brains evolved to allow for higher intelligence in our hominid ancestors, because higher intelligence was selected to help our ancestors to better survive and reproduce. These kinds of arguments are everywhere — here are a few typical examples: A 2007 chapter titled “The Evolution of Brain Size and Intelligence” in an MIT Press book reads: “It is reasonable to hypothesize that bigger brains evolved based on natural selection for increased intelligence.” (Rushton and Ankney, 2007)

A 2025 paper in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B states that “hominin brain expansion underpinned large increases in cognitive abilities.” (González-Forero and Gómez-Robles, 2025)
According to a 2011 paper in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, “An increase in brain size could also result in an increase in the complexity of its functions. … the evolution of encephalization essentially involves an increase in the brain’s capacity to process information.” (Cairo, 2011)
A new article at Phys.org notes: “For decades, researchers generally assumed that these changes were the result of sustained, directed natural selection; larger brains were favored because they improved cognitive abilities.”

It’s so simple it’s a no brainer (pun intended!): Bigger brains evolved to make us smarter, a trait that was gradually favored by natural selection over time. And yet, even here evolutionary theory is apparently not supported by the evidence.
According to an article in New Scientist, “Human brains may have got bigger for no particular reason.” Says science writer Michael Marshall, “there is no evidence that evolution strongly favored big brains in the past 2 million years of human evolution, according to a new analysis of fossil skulls.”

The article cites a newly published study in Nature Communications, by anthropologist Mark Hubbe and paleoanthropologist Katerina Harvati, which notes that although brain size in Homo does get bigger over time, the changes appear to be “stochastic” — i.e., random — and “did not support gradual directional selection as a driving force.” In other words, the old idea that natural selection gradually favored bigger and bigger brains in our ancestors is not supported by the evidence." MindMatters

10 Reasons to Stay Away from the Book of Enoch

1. It Was Not Written by Enoch: The most immediate problem with the Book of Enoch is that Enoch did not write it. This is not a minor academic footnote. If the book claims to be Enoch’s revelation but is demonstrably not from Enoch, then the very foundation of its

authority collapses. A river cannot rise above its source. A book cannot carry divine weight it borrowed from a name it has no right to claim. 

2. It Was Rejected from the Canon — Deliberately: The early church did not suppress the Book of Enoch by accident. It rejected it by examination. The councils that shaped the canon had access to it and set it aside. 

3. It Contradicts the Biblical Portrait of Angels: One of the most theologically dangerous claims in the Book of Enoch is its depiction of angels as sexual beings who marry and father children with human women. This directly contradicts the testimony of Christ. In Matthew 22:30, our Lord states plainly: “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” 

Some defenders of the Enochian narrative argue that Jesus’ qualifier “in heaven” leaves room for the Watchers, who had allegedly left heaven. But this reading forces the text to carry more than it says. Jesus is speaking to the nature of angels as a class of beings. The entire Biblical portrait of angels, from Genesis through Revelation, presents them as servants and messengers. There is no Biblical text that presents sexual reproduction as within the nature of angelic beings. The Book of Enoch’s cosmology is not a deeper revelation of Genesis 6. It is a contradiction of the consistent testimony of Scripture about what angels are. 

4. It Produces a Corrupted View of Salvation in Its Readers: The Book of Enoch consistently elevates esoteric, revealed knowledge — secrets about angels, cosmic hierarchies, and hidden divine mysteries

— as the centrepiece of spiritual life. In practice, that framework corrupts how people approach salvation. The cross recedes. What moves forward is the feeling that knowing the right information, the hidden things the church does not teach, is what marks the truly enlightened believer. That is not the Gospel. The New Testament is unambiguous: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Salvation is not unlocked by special revelation. 

5. Its End-Times Prophecies Conflict with Scripture: Daniel and Revelation are the twin pillars of Biblical eschatology. Their imagery, while sometimes complex, is internally consistent and mutually reinforcing. The Book of Enoch presents a competing apocalyptic framework with different timelines, different outcomes, and different roles for key figures that cannot be harmonized with the canonical text. 

6. It Contains Factual and Historical Errors: A divinely inspired text does not contradict established history or the internal chronology of Scripture. The Book of Enoch does both. Scholars who have studied the text carefully note geographical descriptions that do not correspond to the actual landscape of the ancient Near East, astronomical claims that reflect Babylonian and Hellenistic science rather than divine revelation, and timeline inconsistencies with the Biblical flood narrative. These are not the fingerprints of a God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2). 

7. Its Authorship Is Fragmented and Uncertain: The Book of Enoch is not one voice. It is many voices across many centuries, and they do not always agree with each other. Unlike the canonical books, which carry clear marks of authorial identity, internal coherence, and divine purpose even across multiple human authors, the sections of the Book of Enoch reflect different theological emphases, different attitudes toward the Law, and different eschatological expectations. The Book of Parables, for example, is widely believed by scholars to have been written significantly later than the other sections. This fragmentation is not a mark of divine authorship. 

8. It Misrepresents Biblical Figures: The Book of Enoch does not merely expand on Biblical characters. It transforms them into figures that Scripture itself does not recognize. The Biblical Enoch walked with God. Full stop. The Enoch of the apocryphal book becomes a cosmic mediator, a scribe of heavenly secrets, an intercessor before the divine throne on behalf of fallen angels. None of this is supported by Genesis, Hebrews, or Jude. 

9. It Has Become a Gateway to Speculative and Harmful Teaching: In practice, the Book of Enoch is rarely encountered in isolation. It comes packaged with a larger movement of speculative theology that pulls believers away from the simplicity of Christ.

Those who emphasize the Book of Enoch heavily tend also to emphasize fallen angel bloodlines, Nephilim genetics, secret knowledge withheld by institutional Christianity, and a range of conspiracy-adjacent interpretations of history and prophecy. The fruit of this teaching is not greater devotion to Christ, greater holiness, greater love for the brethren, or greater zeal for souls. It is usually greater obsession with angels, demons, hidden history, and the feeling of belonging to an enlightened remnant who know what the ordinary church has missed. 

10. The Canon Is Complete and God Intends It That Way: The most foundational reason to stay away from the Book of Enoch is also the simplest: God has given us everything we need in His Word, and He said so. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  

[from Evergrowing Christians]

Why did Jesus pray if He is God?

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. Matthew 6:9
"Jesus, as part of the Holy Trinity, is indeed God. Yet, when He took

on human form in the incarnation, He fully embraced humanity, which included a dependency on communication with the Father. 

His prayers exemplify His reliance on the Father and the Holy Spirit. By praying, Jesus showed His followers an example of a proper relationship with God, one that is based on communication, submission, and dependence." 

EvergrowingChristian

Creation Moment 7/19/2026 - The “obstetrical dilemma”

He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: Isaiah 42:5

"For over half a century, the public has been treated to a confident textbook narrative regarding human childbirth. It is called the “obstetrical dilemma.” When our evolutionary ancestors adopted the upright posture, natural selection narrowed the pelvis to accommodate bipedal locomotion. Later, as brains expanded, the human birth canal became a hazardous, agonizing bottleneck, saddling human mothers with a uniquely clumsy – and dangerous – evolutionary compromise, while our non-human primate cousins allegedly enjoyed spacious, effortless deliveries.

This neat little parable has been used to explain everything from the helplessness of human infants to the evolution of social midwifery (e.g., by Lucy Hyde). 

There is just one problem.

The narrative was built on a circular, human-centric illusion.

Comparative primate analysis shows that humans are not unique in having a tight cephalopelvic fit at birth (Nature Ecology & Evolution, 29 June 2026).
According to the study by researchers at University College London (UCL), the foundational data supporting this textbook dogma was fundamentally flawed.

"Human childbirth is regarded as uniquely difficult among primates, due to a tight cephalopelvic fit thought to result from an evolutionary trade-off between adaptations to bipedal locomotion and increasing brain size. This impression, however, may be an artefact of past adoption of anthropocentric measurements that underestimate birth challenges in non-human primates."

For nearly eighty years, comparative anthropologists inherited a measurement convention that treated non-human primates as though their pelvic anatomy followed the same obstetric geometry as humans.

The myth of the carefree primate birth traces back to the 1940s, when primatologist Adolph H. Schultz published comparative investigations estimating the fit of a newborn head into the maternal birth canal. As the authors of the UCL study note:

"This interpretation, and in particular the widely reproduced figure, was highly influential on subsequent work, effectively defining

anthropological conceptualization of birth across primates, and reinforcing traditional assumptions that (1) human childbirth is uniquely difficult due to a tight cephalopelvic fit and a distinct pelvic canal shape, and (2) other primates face little to no birth obstruction… Later studies, accepting these assumptions without re-examination, sought to identify the evolutionary and anatomical factors that make human parturition particularly challenging."

But the UCL research team, led by Drs. Nicole Torres-Tamayo and Lia Betti, decided to actually look at the raw data using modern 3D skeletal modeling across 29 primate species.
What they found completely dismantles Schultz’s historical narrative.
Schultz committed a human-centric measurement error. In human anatomy, the tightest part of the birth canal is measured from the top ridge of the sacrum to the pubic bone. Schultz applied these same human landmarks to other primates. However, a monkey’s sacrum sits much higher relative to its pelvis. By using human points, Schultz drew a fictional, tilted plane that completely missed the actual skeletal bottleneck. As the authors write:

"In non-human primates, the sacrum is positioned higher relative to the pubis … By applying standard human obstetric measurements to non-human primate anatomy, pelvic inlets are treated as idealized, generic ovals… misrepresenting cephalopelvic relationships in non-human primates and providing an unreliable basis for understanding the apparent uniqueness in human childbirth."

When the UCL team mapped the true rigid skeletal ring, non-human primate birth canals instantly shrank by an average of 11%, reaching more than an 18% reduction in some species.
Furthermore, evolutionary models assumed all primates are born like humans, crown-first. In reality, primates with pronounced snouts, like baboons and squirrel monkeys, almost always deliver face-first, with their necks fully extended. This changes the geometric orientation entirely, making the head height, rather than head length, the critical measurement." 

CEH

Question to Ponder

"If Christ came to look for fruit in your life today, right now, 

Q: what would He actually find?

--Be honest.
--Look past what you hope He would find and past what you intend to produce someday.
What is genuinely there when He comes close enough to look?"
EC
Now in the morning, as He returned to the city, He was hungry.  And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, Let no fruit grow on you ever again. Immediately the fig tree withered away. Matthew 21:17,19

Creation Moment 7/18/2026 - Two points to consider

"When most people think of evolution, they view it as an explanation for how life and the universe came about. But the evolutionary story

is also an attempt to explain our future. You see, if the slow and gradual processes of the present can be extrapolated back into the unobserved past to figure out what must’ve happened then, they can also be extrapolated into the future to figure out what will supposedly happen to life and universe.

And in the evolutionary worldview, the future is pretty bleak:

"Scientists have long estimated that in about 5 billion years, the sun will run out of fuel, first expanding into a red giant and eventually becoming a white dwarf that will continue cooling for tens—if not hundreds—of billions of years. Amid this dramatic sequence of cosmic events, the fate of Earth remains uncertain.

Will it be pulled into the expanding red sun and disappear forever? Or, though long since rendered uninhabitable, will it continue orbiting the white dwarf remnant of the Sun until the universe reaches its eventual heat death?"

Apparently, most scientists favor the first scenario: The sun “eats” the earth. Of course, by the time anything like this supposedly happens (an alleged two billion years from now), evolutionists believe humans and all other life will be long extinct, so there would be nothing around, in their own worldview, to observe whatever happens to the earth.

But there’s another assumption that’s the foundation of these kinds of studies: There is no Creator God who controls the universe. We don’t have to wonder about how the earth will end; God has already told us that it will end when He returns in judgment to judge earth with fire before creating a new heavens and a new earth. Earth won’t be swallowed by the sun—it will be destroyed by God when He judges mankind’s sin.

Two points to consider:

1- From an evolutionist’s perspective, all life becomes extinct, so ultimately no one will ever know they existed. So what’s the point of fighting creationists, and ultimately, what’s the point of anything in this ultimately meaningless existence?
2- Isn’t it interesting that those Christians/Christian leaders who compromise God’s Word in Genesis with evolution concerning the past then go to the Bible to say what will happen in the future. They are totally inconsistent. They accept what the naturalistic evolutionists say about the past but reject what they say about the future and turn to God’s Word instead. So inconsistent!
Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for You created all things, and by Your will they existed and were created. Revelation 4:11." 

AIG

The Mine of Truth

For Thou wilt light my candle:

 the LORD my God will enlighten my darkness.

Psalm 18:28

"There are treasures in the word of God that can be discovered only by sinking the shaft deep into the mine of truth.

The carnal mind rejects the truth; but the soul that is converted undergoes a marvelous change. 

The book that before was unattractive because it revealed truths which testified against the sinner, now becomes the food of the soul, the joy and consolation of the life. 

*The Sun of righteousness illuminates the sacred pages, 

*and the Holy Spirit speaks through them to the soul." 

E.G.W.

Creation Moment 7/17/2026 - Multiverse Theory & pleonastic fallacy

... but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21

"Multiverse Theory: our universe is just a blip in a vast sea of universes. It happens to appear designed but most of the others — if we ever had a chance to observe them — do not.

What they are doing is called the pleonastic fallacy —trying to explain a difference in kind by a difference in number. They account for the laws of nature in our universe by simply hypothesizing that there are 25 trillion trillion universes that all have different laws. And we just happen to be stuck in one of them. The word “universe” means everything. So the multiverse theorists are claiming that everything that exists is an infinite ensemble of everythings. 

And that is not a coherent statement.
*But they haven’t explained the main issue — why are there any laws at all?" 

Engor

Christ ministers the keeping of the Law

"By faith in Him the righteousness of the law is met in us. 

And we do not make void, 

but we establish, the law of God, 

by faith in Christ. 

*In other words, in Christ is found the keeping of the law of God. 

This is shown again in Galatians 2:17: “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.” 

*To be found sinners, is to be found transgressors of the law; for “sin is the transgression of the law.” 

--Then since the Lord has set His everlasting “God forbid” against any suggestion that Christ is the minister of the transgression of the law, it follows as certainly that Christ ministers the keeping of the law." 

A.T. Jones