Author Archives: randomraindrops

Consilience of Evidence in Geological Dating.

Posted on by

See also: https://randomraindrops.com/creation-museum-millions-of-years/ for why I see the problem differently.

Corey Taylor on Geological Dating

I saw this on a facebook group which I am *not* joining. He is talking about consilience of evidence.

Corey Taylor · ·

After years of discussing young earth creationism, Noah’s Flood, and evolution debates, I’ve come to an interesting conclusion:

Almost ALL of it ultimately rests on one thing being wrong: absolute dating.

If radiometric dating works, then the Earth is not 6,000 years old. Period.

Think about this logically. Radiometric dating isn’t some obscure tool used only by paleontologists digging up dinosaur bones. The biggest evidence of effective is that industries worth trillions of dollars rely on it. The oil and gas industry uses radiometric dating and related geological dating methods constantly to understand sediment layers, reconstruct ancient environments, map basins, and determine where resources are likely to be. Companies spend billions drilling wells. If these methods were wildly inaccurate, they’d be hemorrhaging money at a scale capitalism simply doesn’t tolerate. The reason companies keep using them is because they work. Money talks.

Now here’s where things get even harder to dismiss. We don’t just have ONE dating method. We have multiple radiometric methods using different isotopes with different decay rates: uranium-lead, potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, carbon dating (for recent stuff), and more. If these methods were built on terrible assumptions, they should constantly disagree. Instead, they often converge on the same ages. Even more importantly, they match entirely different dating methods that have nothing to do with radioactive decay at all: tree rings, ice cores across two continents, varves (annual sediment layers), coral growth patterns, and historical records. You can align known volcanic eruption ash layers with multiple dating methods to confirm effectiveness. There’s no logical way they would align coincidentally. They can’t all be off by exactly the same amounts.

And yes… before Mount St. Helens appears in the comments again. The common argument comes from using potassium-argon dating on very young rocks and obtaining old ages. Here’s the problem: potassium-argon dating generally should NOT be used on extremely young volcanic rocks because not enough radiogenic argon has had time to accumulate yet. Even tiny amounts of inherited argon trapped in magma before eruption can completely overwhelm the signal you’re trying to measure. Scientists have known this for decades. Using potassium-argon dating on fresh volcanic rock and then acting shocked when it gives nonsense results is like weighing yourself with a broken bathroom scale and declaring gravity false. All this demonstrates is that if you use a tool improperly, you get bad results.

My favorite example of proof of concept is Vesuvius. We know when the eruption happened because people literally wrote about it. Pompeii was buried in AD 79. When volcanic material from Vesuvius was radiometrically dated, we got ages consistent with reality. This isn’t deep time speculation. It’s a direct calibration against calendar dates. The question isn’t really “does radiometric dating have assumptions?” Every measurement system does. The question is: do those assumptions produce accurate results when tested against reality? Over and over again, the answer appears to be yes

Creation Museum: Millions of Years

Featured | Posted by

The Sneaky Origins of Millions of Years is Sneaky.

 

Robin Majorbanks had a comment about the below youtube video:

It’s a complete misconception that early earth-scientists conceived they were upsetting Biblical truth. In fact the point is that Christians, by and large, did *not* subscribe to the notion today of Young Earth Creationism — that is not a fundamental belief of the Church, at all.

YEC really began as 19th Century thought, making much of Ussher’s back-of-the-envelope calculations, and it was popularized by Seventh-Day Adventists through the 20th Century. It is not ancient Church thinking, it is man’s invention — in the sense of a new filtering of how to read text, and without much reference to how the Bible would have originally been understood, and without much authentic exegesis.

YEC is in fact a very product of ‘scientism’ — a perceived need to come up with science-sounding explanations to allow a personally-forced interpretation of Genesis. “The Genesis Flood” by theologian John C. Whitcomb and hydraulic engineer Henry M. Morris is a good example of the felt need for scientifically justifying a shallow non-seeker’s reading of Biblical truth, and it ends up in awful pseudo-science, that in no way exalts Biblical Creation.


I agree with him, but I think it is just a modernist form of concordism turned into a science-sounding explanation. But it is based on a theological presupposition. To get to that presupposition listen to the first part of the video.

What I see in the presentation is a pink elephant in the room: a theological presupposition:

Listening to the audio it seems to me he claims natural processes are not involved in geology. Instead geology is based on supernatural processes.

That is a 100% theological claim. And it rules out, or at least ignores the idea of God’s immanence, ie, God working through nature.

I say “rules out” because he is doing an exclusive-or contrast.

That is bad theology.

Please note: it is not just geology at issue. It is all the sciences.


There is no point debating science with YEC. The theological foundations are like shifting sand at their very root. The real debate is the YEC theological presupposition.

I was recently asked by YEC Chris Coatney if I believe God is supernatural. The answer is YES. But I also believe God is immanent. God is in nature and works through nature. So God is both. He is supernatural and he is immanent. God has multiple attributes. And Christianity has recognized this and taught this throughout it’s entire history. The YEC people ignore some of the attributes of God and focus on one attribute only. God’s supernatural attribute.

The YEC rule is this: God does not and can not work through nature. To do that God would have to be immanent.


Hugh Ross May 29 2026

Posted on by

Hugh Ross asks,



Social Media Question of the Week: Didn’t Adam’s sin and the sin of Noah’s contemporaries blanket/impact the entire Earth? Therefore, didn’t Adam’s sin alter Earth and all its inhabitants and must not Noah’s flood cover the entire Earth?

My Answer: After Adam sinned, “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it” (Genesis 3:17). What changed was the soil humans worked to grow their food. It became damaged because sinful humans were abusing it. Earth’s physics remained unchanged. The remainder of Earth’s surface was unchanged. Noah’s flood is an example of God surgically removing malignant reprobate sin (uncontrolled evil infecting everything in its vicinity). Note that when God judged Sodom and Gomorrah, he left the wicked Amorites to survive because “the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure” (Genesis 15:16). Therefore, Noah’s flood extended to all the land inhabited by humans and their animals, but no more. It was only the world of the ungodly that was wiped out (2 Peter 2:5).

Falling Apart Quietly

Posted on by

Seven ways men look stable while quietly falling apart.
From JR McGregor.

1. He functions, but he doesn’t feel alive Gets up. Works. Provides. Shows up.

Still feels numb most days. Like he’s running a life on autopilot that he never consciously chose.

2. He tells everyone he’s fine because explaining feels harder Not lying. Just tired.

If he starts talking, he doesn’t know where it will go. So he keeps it short. Keeps it light. Keeps it moving.

3. He stays busy so the silence can’t catch him Work. Gym. Projects. Fixing things that don’t matter.

As long as there’s noise, nothing has space to ask him the questions he’s avoiding.

4. He laughs a lot, but sleeps badly Easy with jokes. Easy with banter. Hard alone at night.

Mind racing. Chest tight. Thinking about everything he hasn’t said and everything he doesn’t understand about himself.

5. He’s reliable for everyone except himself Keeps promises to work. To family. To partners.

Breaks every promise he makes to his own body, his own needs, his own life. Then wonders why he feels invisible.

6. He hasn’t cried in years but feels heavy all the time Not dramatic sadness. Just a constant weight. Pressure in the chest. Short temper. Low patience.

Grief that never found a way out.

7. He has a quiet fear that this isn’t the life he’s meant to be living Not because it’s bad. Because it doesn’t feel like his.

Like he stepped into a role before he ever figured out who he actually was.

And here’s the part no one tells men.

You don’t fall apart loudly. You fall apart slowly.

By functioning. By coping. By surviving. By calling it adulthood.

If you’re reading this and felt uncomfortable instead of offended, DM me HEAL

That’s usually where a man finally admits he’s not broken… he’s just been carrying too much alone.

Some Introspection

Posted on by


My thoughts on purpose and place in the universe.

A friend received a bunch of messages or posts from me which had not been delivered. Until today. So she sent them back to me, telling me facebook had bunched them up and delivered them all together. Really? I didn’t remember them. Then slowly it came back to me, yes, I had written them. I told her I would write a raindrop because they are all on the same topic, and who can trust facebook? Better to blog.

I may have them copied in the wrong order here. I told her I must surely have been feeling introspective when I wrote them.

Two of these were marked 2 years old. I have put them at the top.


Two years ago it seems I wrote this to my friend:

At some point in time you realize you appreciate that God hangs in there and keeps annoying you by re-arranging you life. You start to look forward to it. It creates a smile. HEY HEY HEY, just get your hands off that vase! That MY vase!

Every born again Christian experiences this. Sometimes Jesus just dusts a shelf in a corner. Because you throw things at him! I figure most people do that. They are not comfortable with him. Because they are the captain of their ship and want to control control control.

Later, you might decide he is more welcome and he moves a piece of furniture.
This is a process.

I meet scholars and bible students and church goers who haven’t got a clue what I am talking about. They got religion. They don’t got Jesus as the Christ of their life though. They talk big. Its like tinkling chimes blowing against a window pane.

There’s two kinds of people in the universe. Those who have eternal life (being adopted children of God) and those who will spend the next several trillion years in oblivion (at best).

The first kind do not have it easy. It can be agonizing as the spirit of the new redeemed man wars with the old unyielding carnal nature.

The second kind have no internal struggle, just the old self centered egotistical sin nature that rules them.

A bit later:
Today someone told me “I am very different from you”.

She refused to recognize the internal struggle that Paul writes about. SHE IS THE CAPTAIN OF HER SHIP. Not Jesus.
All the religious talk was just talk.

I have heard that “I am very different from you” before. It means “I am obstinate and you are full of crap”. And that was to my question “Who do you serve? Is Christ in your life anywhere?” It was a denial of Christ. Just like Peter. Lets hope it doesn’t hold. But there is no meeting of minds past that point. There is no fellowship possible.




March 8 2026:
I daily ponder with growing enjoyment that Jesus moves into your life (your inner house) and re-arranges the furniture. I used to resist and resent this.



A couple of days ago: This is when all the above were delivered as a bunch. She had never seen the previous messages.

I am meeting some people that whatever they do, whatever it is, is liturgy. Service to God. I see it. Even the miscreant Christians have some of that. The unadopted not so much.
What about the undiscovered adopted?
Not meaning to sound Calvinist here. 😉 There are some “shall be redeemed in the future” people out there.
Maybe our purpose is to weed, water, fertilize, and serve God by serving them?
Thats not trivial. There is a cross to bear in that process.
Jesus is a power boat, twin 427 hemi engines, and I am here on skiis, white knuckled grip on the tow rope. Afraid to let go. Tempted. But I cant swim. The apostle Peter was a skiier. Same thing. . 😉







Taxon Cycles

Posted on by

Taxon cycles refer to a biogeographical theory of how species evolve through range expansions and contractions over time associated with adaptive shifts in the ecology and morphology of species. The taxon cycle concept was explicitly formulated by biologist E. O. Wilson in 1961[1] after he surveyed the distributions, habitats, behavior and morphology of ant species in the Melanesian archipelago.[2]

Stages of the taxon cycle

Wilson categorized species into evolutionary “stages”, which today are commonly described in the outline by Ricklefs & Cox (1972).[3] However, with the advent of molecular techniques to construct time-calibrated phylogenetic relationships between species, the taxon cycle concept was further developed to include well-defined temporal scales[4] and combined with concepts from ecological succession and speciation cycle theories.[5] Taxon cycles have mainly been described in island settings (archipelagos), where the distributions and movements of species are readily recognized,[6] but may also occur in continental biota.

  • Stage I: Young, rapidly expanding, undifferentiated, widely and continuously distributed species in the initial colonization stage inhabiting small island, coastal or disturbed (marginal) habitat. Such species are hypothesized to include very good dispersers, ephemeral species and ecological “supertramps“.
  • Stage II: Species that are generally widespread across many islands, but where geographical expansion has slowed, population differentiation has generated subspecies or incipient species, and local extinction on small islands may have created gaps in the distribution. This stage includes species that have maintained a relatively good dispersal ability such as “great speciators“.[7] Early-stage “species complexes” may consist of stage II species.
  • Stage III: Older, well-differentiated and well-defined species that have moved to habitats inland (and uphill) and where reduced dispersal ability and extinctions have fragmented the distribution to fewer and larger islands. These species may be niche specialists, but novel adaptations or accidental dispersal may restart the taxon cycle.
  • Stage IV: Old, relictual, endemic species in the “final” stage are restricted to island interiors (mountains) on a few, large islands. This stage includes sedentary high‐elevation specialists with limited dispersal abilities and small range sizes. These species are evolutionary distinctive, as closely related species (and subspecies) have gone extinct.


The ecology and evolution of the Melanesian ants that originally inspired Wilson’s hypothesis have since been shown to be consistent with the taxon cycle predictions using modern methods.[8] Ricklefs & Bermingham (2002)[6] estimated that taxon cycles take place over periods of 0.1-10 million years in different bird groups of the Lesser Antilles islands. Pepke et al. (2019)[5] used the difference in mean age of late- and early-stage species as a lower estimate (4.7 million years) of the tempo of taxon cycling in an Indo-Pacific bird family.

References

 Economo, Evan P.; Sarnat, Eli M. (July 2012). “Revisiting the Ants of Melanesia and the Taxon Cycle: Historical and Human-Mediated Invasions of a Tropical Archipelago”. The American Naturalist. 180 (1): E1 – E16. doi:10.1086/665996. ISSN 0003-0147. PMID 22673659. S2CID 9729804.

 Wilson, Edward O. (1961). “The Nature of the Taxon Cycle in the Melanesian Ant Fauna”. The American Naturalist. 95 (882): 169–193. doi:10.1086/282174. ISSN 0003-0147. JSTOR 2458389. S2CID 83701216.

 Wilson, Edward O. (1959). “Adaptive Shift and Dispersal in a Tropical Ant Fauna”. Evolution. 13 (1): 122–144. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1959.tb02996.x. ISSN 1558-5646. S2CID 87203686.

 Ricklefs, Robert E.; Cox, George W. (1972-03-01). “Taxon Cycles in the West Indian Avifauna”. The American Naturalist. 106 (948): 195–219. doi:10.1086/282762. ISSN 0003-0147. S2CID 84412686.

 Jønsson, Knud Andreas; Irestedt, Martin; Christidis, Les; Clegg, Sonya M.; Holt, Ben G.; Fjeldså, Jon (2014-02-22). “Evidence of taxon cycles in an Indo-Pacific passerine bird radiation (Aves: Pachycephala)”. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 281 (1777) 20131727. doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.1727. PMC 3896003. PMID 24403319.

 Pepke, Michael Le; Irestedt, Martin; Fjeldså, Jon; Rahbek, Carsten; Jønsson, Knud Andreas (2019). “Reconciling supertramps, great speciators and relict species with the taxon cycle stages of a large island radiation (Aves: Campephagidae)”. Journal of Biogeography. 46 (6): 1214–1225. doi:10.1111/jbi.13577. ISSN 1365-2699. S2CID 164517439.

 Ricklefs, Robert E.; Bermingham, Eldredge (2002). “The concept of the taxon cycle in biogeography”. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 11 (5): 353–361. doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2002.00300.x. ISSN 1466-8238.

 Pedersen, Michael Pepke; Irestedt, Martin; Joseph, Leo; Rahbek, Carsten; Jønsson, Knud Andreas (April 2018). “Phylogeography of a ‘great speciator’ (Aves: Edolisoma tenuirostre ) reveals complex dispersal and diversification dynamics across the Indo-Pacific”. Journal of Biogeography. 45 (4): 826–837. doi:10.1111/jbi.13182. hdl:11250/2593769. S2CID 46029743.

SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxon_cycle

Reasons I added the post: I am interested in the work of Edward O Wilson.

Currently blogging about Virtual LAN for HOMELAB.

Posted on by

December always sees service interruption on wordpress and I will be back soon.


WINDOWS STUPIDITY ONCE AGAIN STRIKES.

Turns out Windows 11 has a bug where certain websites are blocked because of an ethernet/wireless chip driver problem in the lastest update but only for Gigabyte 650 motherboards which use a certain RealTek chipset. ARGGGHHHH! My main desktop. All other devices can get packets back from wordpress sites but W11 cannot. This update happened in late November/Early December whle I was traveling for thanksgiving holiday.

Extrapolation and Poor Assumptions

Posted on by

I am forming some thoughts here based on discussion with Riley Barton and Jeff Reichman. I stole this first paragraph from Jeff Reichman. Jeff describes the situation very well.

[BEGIN]

Science, Assumptions, and the YEC Double Standard

Young Earth Creationists often argue that radiometric dating cannot be trusted because it rests on “unprovable assumptions.” At first glance, this sounds like a serious critique, but the reality is that all of science rests on assumptions. The difference is that these assumptions are tested, confirmed, and relied upon every day in ways that even YECs accept without question.

Every airplane that takes off depends on the assumption that the laws of aerodynamics apply universally and consistently. Every bridge that stands depends on the assumption that material strength behaves predictably under stress. Every car, phone, and GPS device depends on the assumption that electromagnetic laws, atomic behavior, and relativity are stable and reliable. These assumptions cannot be proved in a final metaphysical sense, but they are confirmed through repeated observation and practical success. Without them, modern technology would collapse.

And yet, occasionally those assumptions appear to be violated: a bridge collapses, a plane crashes, a car malfunctions. But even in the face of these failures, no one concludes that the underlying assumptions of physics or engineering are invalid. We recognize that accidents happen due to design flaws, human error, or unforeseen variables, not because the laws of aerodynamics or material strength suddenly ceased to exist. YECs themselves continue to fly, cross bridges, and ride in cars without hesitation, despite these occasional breakdowns. The inconsistency is outstanding: they accept the reliability of scientific assumptions in every area of daily life, but reject them only when those same assumptions support radiometric dating and an ancient earth.

Radiometric dating makes the same kind of assumptions as engineering and medicine: that decay rates are constant, that isotopes behave in predictable ways, and that contamination can be detected and accounted for. These assumptions are no different in kind from those underlying the technologies YECs rely on every day. If they dismiss radiometric dating because of its assumptions, they must also dismiss the airplanes they fly in, the bridges they drive across, and the phones they use daily. Since they do not, their critique collapses under its own weight.

The real issue is not whether science uses assumptions, it always does. The issue is whether we apply those assumptions consistently. YECs accept them when they support everyday life but reject them when they challenge their interpretation of Genesis. That double standard reveals that the objection is not scientific but theological. Science rests on assumptions, but those assumptions are the bedrock of every technology we trust. If we reject them selectively, we undermine not just radiometric dating but the very foundations of modern life.

[END]

A few days previously, on November 29th, I had mused the following.

Old earthers believe in

1) the doppler shift is real

2) the red shift is real

3) the universe is expanding

4) the laws of physics are constant over the life of the universe.

5) singularities exist and the universe may have been designed before the big bang (and maybe during?)

Young earthers believe all the above violates their definition of scripture and are wrong.

I wonder:
What does the evidence say?

Can we extrapolate truth from what we see, or is it all deception?

Today, on Dec 3, 2025, I am thinking the issue is EXTRAPOLATION. On a known set of data in current time where the data is bounded this subject is called INTERPOLATION. In other words, predicting a value y=f(x) where x is an independent but unmeasured value and we are looking to guess (or interpolate) a value for the dependent variable y.

If we are looking for values outside our observational purview, for example the distant past or the distant future this becomes EXTRAPOLATION. So what young earthers are saying is “we cannot validly extrapolate laws based on physics. But why not? Theology! That is the reason. They essentially say “theology trumps physics because we say it does.” This is not based on inductive logic. Science itself is based (at least in part) on inductive logic – making observations within the purview of humans. That has to do with epistemology, ie, our purview, which is an observable domain of knowledge.

Christianity is also based on our human purview, an observable domain of knowledge, because of eyewitness testimony provided by history. Please note history here is defined as records of events observed by humans. But ORIGINS is an extrapolation because no humans were present to observe the alleged events.

Science offers an extrapolation of origins known as the Big Bang based on the idea that we can assume physical constants are constant across all time. This is temporal invariance. This is an extrapolation of our purview which old-earthers accept.

Another such extrapolation is evolution. Young earthers reject both extrapolations.


Gift, Office, Titles, Part 5.

Posted on by

The Difference Between the Gift, the Office, and Titles. (Part 5)

By Kevin Baird

*This is a series of posts which might be of benefit for the first time reader to begin at the “Introduction” for continuity sake.

Obviously, for a prophet to be a prophet, there has to be some disposition to prophesy. That appears to be a simplistic statement, but apparently it needs to be stated. Titles abound in modern Christianity and many of those titles are self-conveyed. People declare themselves to be established in a certain office (Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor, Elder, Deacon, Minister, etc.) without any fruit of such establishment or endorsement from a local church body. I believe these offices exist, but how it is appropriated as a title might need further evaluation. The Bible certainly presents these offices as a reality, but tends to present them as job descriptions more than titles. Nowhere in Scripture does Paul refer to himself as “The Apostle Paul”, but rather, “Paul, an apostle”. A strong case can be made that these offices are descriptors more than titles.

That said, I don’t think titles to necessarily be bad, but I do think they can be used for silly and self-aggrandizing purposes. I also believe there is an appropriate respect one might bestow upon another as a display of honor. My son is my pastor and I have called him by his first name for years. I still do at family functions and get-togethers. However, I find it important to refer to him as “Pastor” when I am amongst the people of the church and especially the children. If children are required in school to refer to their teachers as “Mr. or Mrs.”, rather than their first names, I would hope our church kids would do no less for their Pastor. Now, no one is required to do that. I am not required to do that, but I choose to do that to demonstrate that he has embraced an important role in corporate life and in my life. I need to break my familiarity and recognize the demonstrable call God has placed on his life. It is simply being respectful. In much the same way I have called my physician, Doctor; or my overseer as Bishop. Sure, I know their first names, but I simply demonstrate my respect because “I am to give honor to whom honor is due” (Romans 13:7).

I am also willing to convey that respect and honor upon other spiritual offices as they are established and endorsed credibly. But here is where some important parsing needs to take place. Not all who say they are a prophet, really are a prophet. In much the same way, not all who say they are an Apostle, Evangelist, Pastor, or Teacher, may actually be one. Before we bestow titles, we may need to distinguish between gifts and offices.

Everyone can potentially prophesy (Numbers 11:29; Romans 12:6; I Corinthians 12:10, 14:1-5, 14:31), but not all are prophets (I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 4:11). Granted, it might look and operate the same by outward appearance, but apparently there are distinctions to be made. I would suggest the following for consideration:

  1. The “gift” of prophecy can be released to anyone at any time subject to the will of the Spirit. (See I Corinthians 12:11) The office of prophet does not appear to be subject to certain arbitrary releases of the Spirit, but instead can function prophetically out of the resident gift and calling. (See 2 Timothy 4:2) None of the offices of Ephesians 4:11 are subject to certain heightened times of God’s presence, but rather are a part of the resident, internal equipment imparted by the Lord through His calling to function “in season or out of season” as required. Therefore, prophets can move into arenas not normally conducive to the moving of God’s Spirit, yet have a word from the Lord. (Example: government, education, businesses, etc. See I Kings 22 or Jeremiah 1:5)
  2. The gift of prophecy has more of an encouragement, exhortative, and edification aspect to it when released to individuals or the church at large. The office of prophet has more of an assignment attached to it (I will discuss this in next post). The office prophet carries impartation, instruction, and potentially activation. (See Romans 1:11 and 2 Timothy 1:6)
  3. There may also be certain “levels” of leadership and anointing within the expression of prophets, in much the same way we see it with evangelists and pastors. There are many called “evangelists”, yet few with the scope and influence of a Billy Graham or Ray Comfort. Yet, no matter the scope, one can be a legitimately called and equipped evangelist. The same could be said of pastors. Some pastors oversee works of 10’s, 100’s, 1000’s or even 10,000’s, yet all are legitimately called pastors. I don’t think every apostle has to arise to the stature of Paul. Biblically there were apostles relatively unknown, so we know this to be true. The same could be said of prophets. There were scores, if not hundreds of biblical prophets which are obscure to us. Yet, they were legitimate prophets. So not every prophet need look like Elijah.
  4. This may be somewhat controversial, but I am convinced the gift of prophecy almost exclusively confirms what God has already put in the believer’s heart, but the office prophet carries a “creative” or maybe ineptly stated a “conceptual implanting” of God’s Will into a person’s imagination. Isaiah appears to acknowledge such a possibility when he writes:

“You have heard; See all this. And will you not declare it? I have made you hear new things from this time, Even hidden things, and you did not know them.
They are created now and not from the beginning; And before this day you have not heard them, Lest you should say, ‘Of course I knew them.’”

  • Isaiah 48:6-7 NKJV

Again, every word from the Lord which arrives this way to us is to be tested by the Scriptures. The reason simply put is that the Lord is able to speak to all His people and any potential decision made from a prophetic word is still subject to each individual’s consideration, faith, and responsibility. (Hebrews 4:2)

As I conclude this post, the prophetic ministry is recognized, not self-declared. No apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, or teacher should have to blow their own horn for recognition. It becomes self-evident by their fruit.

Hope that offers some clarity.

Until next time.