Basic HTML Version
teaches Sunday observance, because
al/ these churches can't be wrong,
and they derive their beliefs from the
Bible."
"If,"
she smiled sincerely- but to
me exasperatingly, "you can show
me where the Bible commands Sun–
day observance, 1'11 go back to it."
There was no dodging the chal–
lenge. My marriage depended upon
it! Coincidentally, a sister-in-law,
newly married and fresh out of col–
lege, hurled at me a second humiliat–
ing challenge.
" Herbert Armstrong," she ac–
cused contemptuously, "you a re just
plain
ignorant!
Everybody who has
any education
knows
human life has
come by evolution."
1 was proud.
1
had not neglected
study and education. 1 tbought 1 knew
the facts about evolution, and 1didn't
believe in it. But now 1 had to admit 1
had never pursued a thorough, in
depth research ofthequestion.
The dual challenge drove me into
determined, a lmost night-and-day
research. That intensive study con–
tinued for six months before 1 found
the
proven
answer. Yet the study to
this day has never ceased.
1 was not only angered by these
challenges- 1 was
determined
to
prove both my wife and sister-in-law
wrong. Both challenges focused on a
common starting point-the book of
Genesis in the Bible-although that
was only the beginning.
These challenges carne at a period
in life when
J
had ample time on my
hands. 1 plunged with intense con–
centration into the study.
But 1did not begin the research in
Genesis. First 1 delved thoroughly
into the works of Darwin, Lyell,
Haeckel, Huxley, Spencer, Vogt,
Chamberlin and Moore, and even
into the earlier works of Lamarck
and his theory of "use and disuse,"
which preceded Darwin's "survival
of the fittest" hypothesis.
lmmediately those wr itings ap–
peared convincing. They would have
to be, to have won virtual universal
acceptance in the world of higher
education. 1 readily understood how
the field of education had been
gripped in the clutch of the evolution–
ary concept.
Evolution, as 1 finally learned, is
The
PLAIN TRUTH February 1979
the atheists' attempted explanation
of the presence of a creation without
the preexistence of a Creator.
Tbis initial stage of my research
rudely shook my faith in the exis–
tence of God.
lt
brought me to the
realization that l had
assumed
the
reality of God, because from child–
hood l had heard- and therefore ac–
cepted-it. For a while my head was
literally swimming. Was all 1 had
ever believed mere myth and error,
after al!? 1 was awakened to the real–
ization
J
had never seen PROVEO tbe
reality of God. Now 1 was deter–
mined to know the TRUTH! My mind
was being cleaned out from ideas and
beliefs previously taken for granted.
Of alJ the writers on evolution,
Moore alone had culled out many
discrepancies in the theory, yet he,
too, went along with the doctrine
overall.
But now 1 had, first of all, to prove
or disprove the existence of God.
It
was no casual or superficial study.
J
continued in this research as if my
life depended upon it- as, in actual
fact, it did, as well as my marriage. 1
studied books .on both sides of the
question.
Suffice it to say here that 1 did
find irrefutable PROOF of the exis–
tence of God the Creator- and 1
found proof positive of the fallacy of
the evolutionary theory. I had the
satisfaction of winning the admission
of one thoroughly steeped in evolu–
tionary thought (she had spent years
in graduate work at the University of
Chicago and at Columbia) that
1
had
definitely chopped down the trunk of
the evolutionary tree; though, like
Dr. Moore, she had been so thor–
oughly brainwashed in evolutionary
theory she had to continue in it, even
though she had seen and acknowl–
edged PROOF of its falsity.
Also 1 had the enjoyment of being
able to cause my sister-in-law to "eat
those words" branding me as "igno–
rant." This, of course, was mere vani–
ty on my part, which 1 had not yet
eradicated.
1 had proved the reality of THE
GREAT MAJESTIC Goo! But my wife's
challenge was still tormenting my
mind. Already, in the evolutionary
research, 1 had studied Genesis. 1
knew each of the world's religions
had its own sacred wntmgs. Once
God's reality was proved, 1 had ex–
pected to pursue the study of com–
parative religion-to see if any such
sacred writings proved authoritative.
Through which of these did Goo
speak to mankind-if any?
Since 1 had to research the Sab–
bath question anyway, and had al–
ready delved into Genesis, 1 decided
to continue my study of the Bible–
intending to examine in depth the
writings of other religions after–
ward.
In my biblical study 1 early carne
across the passage in Romans 6:23:
"The wages of sin is death.... " 1
stopped, amazed. "Wages" is what
one is pa id for what one has done.
Here 1 was staring ata statement di–
ametrically opposite to al! the Sun–
day school teaching l had received
prior to age 18.
" Why," l exclaimed, "how can
that be? 1 was taught in church that
· the wages of sin is EVERLASTING
LJFE-in an eternally burning hell."
Another shock carne on reading
the last part of the same verse:
" ... but the gift of God is eterna!
life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
"But," 1 questioned in disillusion–
ment, " 1 thought 1 already had eter–
na! life-1 am, or I have, an immor–
tal soul."
1 researched the word "soul" by
means of a Bible concordance. Twice
1 found the words, "The soul that sin–
neth, it shall die" (Ezek. 18:4 and
Ezek. 18:20) .
Then 1 remembered 1 had read in
Genesis 2 how God said to the first
human, " But of the tree of the knowl–
edge of good and evil, thou shalt not
eat of it: for in the day that thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"
(verse 17).
In Genesis 2:7 1 read how "God
formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life; and man [dust–
matter] became a living soul." This
states plainly that a soul is physi–
cal- formed from matter. I found
that the English word "soul" is trans–
lated from the Hebrew
nephesh
and
that in Genesis 1, fowl , fish, and ani–
mals, all three, were
nephesh,
as
Moses was inspired to write.
(Continued on page 40)
3