The Authority of the Bible

The church world has come to the point where they have to make a decision. To believe and accept God’s word as true and above all else or to accept  secular world’s ideas about the world and how it should be run.

Far too many people who claim to follow Christ compromise their beliefs, their stand, and their faith by listening to the unchurched world and its sinful thoughts. It is time now to make a choice and take a clear stand.

2 Timothy 3 gives good advice for what a believer is to do and it makes it absolutely clear that the unchurched world is deceived and deceiving thus the believer needs to start putting distance between themselves and the unbelieving world.

Part of that choice has to deal with the area of science and the Bible. Now I am uising the word science as a general category and it covers all research fields like, chemistry, biology, archaeology, geology, physics, astronomy and the many others.

The believer has to come to the point where they decide for themselves if science is the authority on all things human or the Bible is.  If you decide for science then you are saying that God lied, and sinned. Plus you are giving the secular world an opportunity to have a say about what took place when in the past and that nothing came from God, it came from animals. That decision also demotes humans and removes any hope people have about eternal life.

If you say the Bible, then you are reaffirming the hope that God has given us, that He is God and His word rules. Since God was at the beginning of all things, He would have a better idea of what He did, not the secular scientists of the world.

The believer must also decide where the Bible sits in the chain of command.  If it is subject to culture, science to other factors from the secular societies then you are saying that the Bible is not God’s word and it can be altered as society pleases.

If you decide to put it in its rightful spot above culture, above science, above those infoluential factors from the secular world then you are saying that God’s rules govern all areas of life and there is no cherry picking allowed.

Without the Bible as the supreme guide, we are letting subjectivity, existentialism, false ideas of freedom and so on rule civilization and that there is no real standard for men to follow. Survival of the fittest becomes more of a reality than men want and so does anarchy.

Confusion would play a large part in people’s lives as they would not know what is right or wrong or even moral as such standards would change depending upon whom is in power at the time. Soon people would give up on listening to those in power and just do as they please. It will not be a pleasant time for many.

But since the Bible is the authority, it rules over all, even science. Its commands and teachings apply to all walks  and aspects of life and gives a clear definition of right and wrong, morality and how people should conduct their live educational and work lives, and so on.

One of the biggest problems with those in science is that they seek to remove themselves from being governed by the Biblical texts in order to do what they want when they want. The result of this is very bad science, false teachings, and the creation of destructive forces which allow despots to destroy innocent people.

This is the result when people stop following God and His authoritative word. They listen to evil and do all sorts of heinous activities just so they can be top dog. The church cannot afford to listen to evil nor follow in its wake for if it does then it too will be destroyed.

The Bible provides all people with unchangeable, unsubjective, and pure rules to live by so that all will know what really is right, wrong, good, bad, moral and immoral. There is no question in anybody’s mind and it makes it far easier to judge lawbreakers because of it.

When men get the idea that they get to create no morals, no laws, new standards then adjudication becomes a lot more difficult and uneven, to the point of being unfair, dishonest, and unjust.

For the world to change, the church has to finally make their choice. If the choose the Bible then they need to let their light shine so that unbelieving men will know they are doing wrong and need to repent.

The church is the last hope for mankind for if they do not put God and the Bible above all and live by their rules then no one else will. Now is the time for the church to decide for God and put away all false teachings from its midst and stand with God.

The Bible is the authority, and contains the rules for all men, all fields of endeavor, all entertainment and living in general.  Make the right choice.

The Continuing Saga

Since the anti-evolutionary article was published e-mails came in with their opposition to the content. One letter turned into a week long discussion and another asked the author to clarify certain points.

That clarification was just completed and since it is very long only a link and a short blurb will be posted here:

“Recently I published an article in the local paper supporting the removal of evolution from the school curriculum. I received some mail by those who supported the evolutionary theory and one  particular e-mail contained some interesting questions and points worthy of responding to and as exampled by the above opening, his points  or group of similar points will title each new section.

As believers, we are to be the light unto the world. Jesus makes this very clear in Mat. 5:14 and as that light we cannot follow or spread the message of darkness. We must speak the truth if the people of the world are to receive the light.

What this means is that no matter what scientists say, no matter what science claims if it disagrees with the Bible we have to oppose, refute and not follow it. It is not the truth. At no time in the Bible does either God or Jesus say go and follow science. Nor does the Bible say to use science to discover our origins.

If they did, then, there would be no reason for them to include Genesis 1 & 2 in the Bible, nor would they need to include all other references to the various creative acts. Why? Simply because that would mean that they lied about God’s power, creativity, work accomplished in the beginning and the Bible would become a useless book not worthy of study or accepting. It would just be one big lie and a waste of time to read.”

Enjoy the rest of the paper……


Supernatural v. Historical Critical Method

On his blog, Dr. James Tabor has placed a couple articles dealing with the supernatural aspect of history. They can be found here: and here:

Now I am not a big fan of Dr. Tabor’s as he has done a lot of questionable things recently, including teaming up with S. Jacobovici on numerous projects, but he does draw attention to some points in those articles that need to be addressed.

I will quote from each article and address the thoughts in them right after each quote. The first quote is from the second link and it will be the only one from that particular article.

Most of us agree that “magical” thinking is not a credible casual factor in our universe

First off, God’s power is not ‘magical’ even though many unbelievers categorize it. Magic is an illusion, a trick but miracles are neither. Nor are creation, the ressurrection or the virgin birth and so on. Those biblical acts are a clear demonstration of God’s power and there is no illusion to them. We exist, people were and are healed and others saw Jesus ressurrected. There was and is no magic involved.

Second, supernatural beings do exist, whether the unbeliever encounters them or not.  In the western world it is more likely that they will not have an experience with an angel or evil spirits. But in third world countries, evil spirits are a very real entity and they do experience them every day.

The idea that such beings are magical have their roots in stories like Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings and other such tales whose characters have other worldly powers.  Just because the fictional characters do not exist doesn’t mean that the Biblical ones do not.

The Bible reveals to us their persona, abilities and duties and we must take such beings by faith if we have not had a personal encounter with them.  They are not magical creatures created from the fertile imaginations of the Biblical writers but real beings whom God has chosen to reveal their existence to us if for nothing else but to be on guard for when the evil ones attack and the good ones appear for fulfillment of their duties..

We are to be wary and aware not naive and dismissive.

Prof. Ronald Hendel has an interesting piece…challenging those who would question the value of historical critical study of the Biblical texts

Here we find one problem when dealing with the historical supernatural aspect of human existence. What value does the historical critical study have when it leaves out or cannot find historical data to study?

We know both historically and archaeology that information is from the past is quite limited. Most archaeological digs only cover about 5-10% of a given town or city and the remains dug up are probably far less than that.

Yes we have records of business transactions, governmental actions etc. BUT those do not cover all the discussions carried out on a particular business or governmental decision before and after it is made.

We only have a small snippet of the whole and we cannot say what was discussed or who was on which side of the debate. The historical critical study, then, is far too narrow in scope to be of much good in learning what really took place thousands of years ago.

It also requires physical evidence to do its study but what about the evidence that is physical but not retainable or preservable?  For example, the healing of thousands of people. It is physical evidence but once their time on earth has expired, the evidence is gone with them.

Even if we are lucky enough to discover and examine their bones, we may see evidence of their last disease or fatal inury but we will not find enough evidence of healed wounds or sickness to attribute such to supernatural healing.

The physical evidence of healing lies in the eye-witnesses who saw the person sick unwell and then saw them later completely whole. Or the ressurrection as another example. We have not only Jesus’ disciples and friends who saw His return to life but the Roman soldiers on guard at the tomb and his enemies who saw him as well.

Yet, what other physical evidence do we have? We do have the written word but those books must be taken on faith. We have empty tombs but which one was Jesus’? The physical evidence outside of the Gospels just does not exist thus the historical crtical study is trying to analyze an event in history lacking the very information it needs to draw a conclusion. Such study becomes useless except to tell the unbeliever what they want to hear.

This means that the historical critical method is drawing conclusions from insufficient data, not to mention the bias of unbelief, making their work too incomplete to accept.  It does not help when the unbelieving scholar rejects the Bible as a ancient and historical document.

That act further reduces the amount of information the historian is using to come to their conclusions. Regardless of what the scholar, archaeologist, historian say, the Bible is an ancient document and it is a historical one as well. 

Its accounts do contain an actual history, not only the origins of man, but of a nation of people now known as Israelites.The Bible cannot be shunted aside and ignored when dealing with historical study  simply because too much evidence supports its words.

It is quite easy to confuse the roles of the academic historical study of religions as contrasted to Christian faith or theology

The seperation of faith from historical critical study is where the secular world makes its mistake. It infers that those of faith cannot do critical study at all and one must be able to seperate their faith from their study. That is far from the truth.

Critical thinking, whether historical or scientific, is not a monopoly of nor is it sole property of the realm of the secular world.  The believer can use critical thinking and study and include their faith in the mix because faith has a lot more information to use and many more guidelines in spotting the truth/error in historical works.

The believer does not have to agree with unbelieving scholars to do critical study or thinking. They do not have to shove their faith aside and eliminate information to produce good historical analysis. They can and should use their faith to aid them in their work in order to avoid being led astray by limited data and misinformation.

The believer is to follow the Holy Spirit to the truth not the unbelieving world into error thus they do not apply historical critical study in the same manner as the unbeliever. They follow God’s way and produce the truth so the world has the answers it seeks.

Faith is very much a part of historical critical study and thinking and the believer cannot afford to leave it out of their work.

Such personal testimony of faith would surely not make me a “true scholar,” in fact it would be quite the opposite

Being a true scholar is not the goal of the believer.  Their goal is to find the truth, accept it and then share it with the rest of the world. Achieving acceptance of the academic world is also not a goal of the believer; achieving acceptance and praise from God is, thus the believer must do their academic work according to God’s rules not the secular academic world.

Being honest in one’s work, handling the evidence properly and correcly coming to the right conclusions are the lynch pins in any believer’s work, even if it means that their work is in opposition with their denominations party line {but is inline with biblical teaching}.

There is no room for doing shoddy work and there is no place for secular rules in a believer’s work. God’ way guides their work as we need answers not further discussion. You can only discuss so much then some conclusion needs to be drawn and if it isn’t the truth then the work has gone to waste.

Affirming a belief that Jesus had no human father or that he rose bodily up to heaven in the clouds following his death, would take one totally out of the realm of what can be investigated historically

I would disagree with this because the Bible and its words must be taken into account as they are a part of history and so are supernatural acts. Just because the physcial evidence for the supernatural act is not preservable for thousands of years does not mean such acts did not take place.

The same can be said for many historical acts, where only 1 ancient book records it. It is almost impossible to historically investigate because even physical evidence that can be preserved is destroyed through a variety of means.

What this means is that those who wish to seperate faith & the supernatural from history do so because they do not want God part of their work, their idea of history or involved in human life. They create these false boundaries to cut off investigton so that they get the information and conclusions they desire.

The believer cannot follow such thinking. We investigate and present the truth in a honest manner so that the reality is not covered up by the enemies of the Bible or Jesus. We see this happening in archeology all the time as some archaeologists have created a lower chronology just to remove David and Solomon from Isreal’s history or demote them  so that the Biblical record can be called into question or dismissed as a product of human production.

The latter is desirable for most secularists as making the Bible human means they can ignore and dismiss its words. Removing the divine allows the secularist to promote themselves as the superior species, who has the authority to dictate what did or did not happen in the past or how life should be lived.

The divine and the supernatural cannot be eliminated from historical critical study for that means what is studied is not the correct history and the truth gets lost. The believer must do work God’s way in order for people to remember that they are not the superior being who is in charge of all things and that history includes God’s involvement supernaturally in man’s history and present life.

A Rebuttal Has Been Posted

This is a follow-up to the previous post Evolution is not true as the Korea Times has posted a rebuttal to the article I linked to in that post. You can read it here:

“I applaud the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) recent decision to remove evolution from Korean textbooks. Finally a government is standing up against the lie called evolution. A recent article was published attacking that decision and as usual it contained the typical evolutionist misconceptions. This article will look at those misconceptions.

First, the author of that piece wrote, “The theory of evolution is the lynchpin of scientific study …” Yes, but that doesn’t make the theory true or correct. It just means that a majority of like-minded scientists have discarded the truth for their own ideas. “

Evolution is NOT True

Recently, the Korean government decided to remove evolution from the public school textbooks. One westerner believer in that theory did not like that decision and posted his comments here:

A rebuttal has been submitted and you can find that here:

{Simply scroll down till you find the post starting with the words: “The following is an article submitted to a local paper after an evolutionist wrote and published an attack on the MOE for removing evolution from the educational textbooks.”}

Unfortunately, the 700 word limit for submissions doesn’t allow for a more fuller and better defense of the anti-evolutionary position. Many facts had to be left out and those facts will follow—–

Another problem facing the evolutionist is that they cannot verify one claimed historical change they say took place millions of years ago.  They try to use modern experiments as evidence for the validity of their theory but that does not work because they cannot show that the specimens used actually were produced via the evolutionary idea.

The evolutionist is merely taking a fully genetical species and adding whatever their little hearts desire, using non-original conditions, to create mutations or changes to the original species and then saying viola!! evolution is true.

Basically, the so-called evolutionary experiments are simply magic tricks designed to fool their audience–unsuspecting children.  When evolutionists actually produce the original conditions, the original one celled life form then step back and let the two do their work THEN they can claim evolution is true. As it stands, they haven’t provided one piece of evidence for their theory.

Another weakness is their use of ‘observation’.  The question needs to be asked–what are they observing? Is it the claimed historical transitions or is it just some modern experiment using fully developed genetic material and extrapolating those reactions to their theory?

They are not observing evolution in action for they are not doing evolution at all. The idea of using ‘observation’ is not smart. Observation is very limited and unless the purpose of the observed act is made known, the observed act is vulnerable and open to any eisegetical conclusion thought of by the observer.

In other words, the original purpose of the observed act is lost , replaced by the reaction created by the imagination of the observer.  Observation alone cannot decipher the purpose of the act and it needs th eheklp of explanation of those involved to clearly understand what took place and why. Sadly for the evolutionist, their experiments cannot talk to them and provide the missing information.

What that means is that observation is not a valid scientific tool because it does not eliminate non-factual,non-scientific, etc., information from entering into the experiment. In other words, what ever the observer decides is what took place in the observed act and that is not the right way to do things.

Then there is the problem of time. Evolutionists have claimed that lots of time is needed to see the process in action, thus they experiment upon those species that have short life spans and can mutate rapidly. They claim to have seen evolution at work over generations but there are many problems with this limited experimentation.

One, the evolutionist has no idea how long the fruit fly has been in existence which means that they really can’t track an evolutionary developement of that species to show that they are in sync with the actual supposed process and upgrading the species to a better life form.

Two, The evolutionist has no historical evidence to show that the fruit fly actually evolved from a lesser form. There is no evidence for their claims. Suyrely, some ancient scientist would have spotted this transition since many generations of changes would take place within one ancient scientist’s lifetime. There are no such observations thus all the modern evolutionary scientist is doing is showin gthe effects of Adam’s sin on God’s created material.

Time works against the evolutionist as they may see 1 change in a species but given the timeline, they would have no idea if that change really affected the species or not. They only see one step, not steps 5, 6, 7 or 8. They cannot see the whole picture and can only assume they are right.

Then another weakness of the evolutionary theory comes in its inability to be specific. Decades ago, the evolutionary scientist was very specific on how the process progressed but after years of being refuted and shown that their theory just does not work, they have adapted and become very general.

They now claim that ‘change’ is evolution. Sadly that is too broad and too unspecific to be remotely true or even scientific. There is no hope of verifying 1 change let alone th ebillions that have supposedly taken place over the years. It is jjst the evolutionists’ cowardly retreat from the truth in hopes of maintaining their belief in their fake alternative.

Another factor against the evolutionary process is genetics. If one has read even the introductory material on the field of genetics it would be easy to see why the evolutionary theory does not work. That one celled original species would have to contain all the genetical information for all species that have lived on this earth for the theory to be remotely possible.

But as genetics has shown molecules have to be just right and all present and accounted for for the species to live. That is just part of the problem for evolutionists. The microscopic world of genes and DNA is too complex for it to develope randomly. That is just genes, what about hair, bloood, reproduction how did they develope without aid?

Genetics works against the evolutionary theory; not only in the positive aspects of life but also in the negative ones as well. In the evolutionary theory there is no room for disease to exist, for death to exist, for hunger and thirst to exist. There is just no purpose or reason why these aspects of life exist if evolution were true.

The evolutionary scientist cannot fnd their orign or why they would have an origin at all. There is nothing in the theory that would bring imperfection into the world. If the theory of evolution were correct not only would we still have the original conditions present we would also have the original one celled life form that started it all, along with all the other transitional species, and on it goes. Death, sickness and other negatives just should not exist in this life.

Yet it doesn’t stop there. The theory  and its supporters just cannot provide the answers for the origination of crime, desires, morality, thought and so on. They just do not have the source for such things nor can they find it.

Their theory that these things developed in animals first then passed to humans is ridiculous and a move of desperation to avoid the truth. That truth is found in the book of Genesis which gives us th esource for all things we see in existence today. Not only does it provide the answers, they make sense as well. We have the reasons why hunger, thirst, sickness, death and so on, all exist. We have the purpose and reason for the act of origins, we have it all with God and His word BUT we have nothing with the theory of evolution.

Evolutionists explanations just do not make sense nor are they really answers. They are merely conjectures, assumptions, leaps to conclusions and wishful thinking but nothing solid to hang one’s hat on.

Evolution doesn’t provide anything to the world except lies. The MOE was correct in removing it from their textbooks because we do not lie to children  and Jesus gave a stern warning about turning a child’s belief away from Him. He said it was better for a man to kill themselves instead of turning the belief of children away from Him.

I know many a secular professor enjoys abolishing the belief of young unaware christians who dare take their classes because they think there is no God to punish them. They are wrong and they won’t make it to heaven.