When God Spoke Greek

That is the title of Timothy Michael law’s new book on the Septuagint


This post is not about the book as I have not read it and do not know when or if I will get around to reading it. Instead this post is about two things. First, one has to deal with the obvious as that title is a bit misleading about God and his language capabilities.

God still speaks Greek today. In fact he speaks and thoroughly knows every language and dialect that is in existence or has ever existed and he speaks them simultaneously. This can be a mind-blowing fact if one limits God.

The Bible tells us that nothing is impossible for God thus knowing all languages and using them at the same time is not difficult or impossible for him. To be God he would have to have that ability as his followers are not limited to the English-speaking world nor are sinners in search of repentance.

Second, many archaeologists and scholars love to point out that Jesus and his disciples probably didn’t speak Hebrew but spoke the lingua franca of the time.  That is a very misguided statement to make and it is a misrepresentation of how a lingua franca is learned and used.

As a teacher of the modern lingua franca, English, I know for a fact that the native tongue of the people learning it is not forgotten, set aside, replaced, ignored and so on. The lingua franca is learned as a SECOND language not a primary one.

Part of the national identity of people are their native languages and no one in their right minds sacrifices part of their identity and replaces it with the language of another people. Jesus and the disciples spoke Hebrew, possibly Greek and Latin.

We do not know exactly what their language achievements were but it is safe to say they did not give up their native tongue and replaced it with Greek, Aramaic or whatever foreign language was the lingua franca of their time. Rest assured, they did speak Hebrew.

I will go as far as to say that Jesus knew all languages during his time on earth and still does. He wouldn’t be able to comfort or help many people if he was limited to only the language of his earthly years. it also wouldn’t be very compassionate if people were forced to learn a second or third language just to be able to communicate with him.

Don’t be confused by those supposed experts who make claims that Jesus and the disciples were illiterate in their own native tongue. They just do not understand how a lingua franca works.

Pet Peeves 2

At least that is the number I think is correct. I do not re-read my old posts so I lose track of which number I am up to. I am taking a sabbatical from my discussion forum


as after about 7 years of so I haven’t taken a break from posting there. It isn’t a successful site which is okay, I console myself with the fact that those who do come by and read only still get the content and message left for them.

In light of that move I wanted to do something different today on this website. A little variety helps. Some of what is offered here will be pet peeves and some will just be personal observations based upon my faith and perspective. I am not a perfect human being and people may not agree with my conclusions or personal viewpoints that will be expressed here but that is okay.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 took time to say that certain words were his personal opinion and not God’s which tells us that we are allowed to have some personal ideas about things as long as they are not sinful or violate God’s rules. So I do the same here.

#1. People who feel the need to mourn in public media

I was exposed to this phenomenon for the first time about 20 years ago. There was a multiple slaying that stunned the people in one city and one of the two daily newspapers published a page long cryfest by one of the friends of the victims on page 2. It may have started on the front page but I do not remember.

Now this may make it seem like I am a cold-hearted person but in reality I am not. I just hold to the view that newspapers are for news not for expressing personal grief. it is jut out-of-place as the view of the victims held by the mourner may not be shared by everyone else.

There is a difference between Walter Cronkite being overcome by emotion at the reporting of the death of President Kennedy and the personal mourning of victims of a tragedy. The former was reporting the news in which the reporter couldn’t contain his shock and grief while the latter was not reporting any news but dishing out one’s personal feelings.

Public media is not the place to share one’s sadness. Sharing one’s grief is best served privately among friends and family who can actually comfort the person in mourning.

#2. Those people who feel the need to share personal events on the internet

I get it that people are happy and want to share their joy with everyone but guess what? For some, it is like being invited over to a friend’s house and being subjected to badly filmed home movies.

When I go to a professional weblog or website I do not expect to find personal details spread across their pages. I have no interest in those events when I am looking for professional opinions, theories on important subjects.

Being a very private person I do not get this need that some people have in that they have to share every personal event with complete strangers over the internet on their webpages.

I do get it that these good personal events are big milestones in people’s lives but you are not the first person to experience these moments of joy and you won’t be the last.

If your wife gave birth, a simple statement about being a father is sufficient, I do not need to be inundated with 60+ photos (slight exaggeration) of the same baby doing nothing but sleeping.

Not everyone enjoys being subjected to personal triumphs or accomplishments. Sometimes, those events can spark some envy and jealousy so believers should take care and learn discernment on how and to whom they should share such joy.

The word ‘tact’ comes to mind. That is a lost art these days as so many people have this misguided thought that others want to know about every little detail of your personal life.

#3. People who pretend to like those people & what they do in # 1 & 2

They are out there and to me it is dishonest. I am of the opinion that those who do the pretending do so to gain some advantage over others and hope they make themselves look good by feigning support for such actions.

When they leave the presence of those who share information found in #1 & 2, they then let their real opinions show. That is a big turn off to me. You may not like my point of view in the first two points but at least I am honest about those actions.

I am not judging or condemning those people I am just expressing my feelings on those actions. They are free to do such things but it would be nice if they learnt some wisdom and applied it to their daily lives. The same goes for those who say one thing to the person’s face and another thing behind their backs. We used to call the latter ‘two-faced’, I think the word that is used more now is ‘hypocrite’.

They are people you can never trust and trust is far more important than blind support.

#4. Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and other social media

I do not have an account with any of them, though I may have signed up once at Facebook years ago before it got so popular and only because someone invited me. I have never used the account, do not remember the username or password and so on. I signed up  for one purpose but forgot all about it.

What gets me is that people post private things on these social media outlets then turn around and complain that their privacy is violated by unwelcomed parties. If you do not want the world to know about something DON”T PUT IT ON THE INTERNET, especially on websites that allow all types of weirdos and perverts, hackers etc., to participate.

What also bothers me is when certain teachers post criticism of their students that is hurtful and insulting. These teachers get all self-righteous about how they kept it private etc., yet used certain words to ensure that the curious student would find out exactly what was said.

These teachers know full well that students are not computer illiterate and have the ability or know someone with the ability to circumvent security codes. The mock self-righteousness loses its credibility because we all know the teacher wanted the students to find out in a manner where the teacher can claim innocence.

I was never excited or tempted by these social media outlets because I realized that e-mail did the exact same thing as those popular sites did except for one thing—it could keep private information private. The only people reading or seeing what is contained in the e-mail is the recipient and the only way it could become public is if the sender or recipient made a mistake or purposefully spilled the beans.

If you want to keep things private, stay away from the internet because once the news gets out, it is out for all to see.

What the popularity of these sites tells us is that there is a growing need for attention that just isn’t being met by one’s close circle of friends and family. That is cause for concern as when someone goes to the internet to meet their needs, they never know who they will get attention from and they may be putting themselves in danger.

#5. People who need to show everything they have to everyone around them

I am not talking about those people who share  photos and information found in the above points but I am talking about modesty. Yes barley clad women are great to look at but I wouldn’t want to date or marry one who dressed in that manner. Sorry guys, being sexy to me doesn’t include the girl exposing herself so that all men do not have to use their imagination.

I prefer a girl who covers up, not in the Islamic sense of the word but in the biblical sense of the term. One who doesn’t follow the influences and teaching of secular culture, where fashion designers consider indecent exposure sexy.

Now this idea of modesty is not limited to women. Sorry men and boys but I really do not think it is appropriate for males to be attending school or walking down the public street with your pants belted at the knees.

No one wants to see your underwear or crack and it is not ‘cool’  to dress like that. Real men dress correctly as they are to have a good reputation amongst the leaders of their city and dressing like your arms are unable to pull your pants up is not providing you with the reputation you should have.

Does this mean men should always wear suit and ties? No but they should look to the bible to guide them in how they should dress. Not only to make their wives and girlfriends proud but also to bring a good reputation to Christ and the Church.

#6. Educators who think it is cool to dress like slobs

I have seen this more often than I have wanted. For some reason someone got the idea that it is ‘cool’ or professional’ for a professor to dress like they just came back from 6 months of living at the local rescue mission

Sorry but such clothing doesn’t enhance your education or presentation it just distracts from it. I have complained to BAS over the years concerning the way some of their professional lecturers have dressed when giving their lectures. Good money, and BAS is not cheap, is spent to listen to these men and women and one would think they would respect their audience enough to dress in a manner that is behooving of their position and topic.

A big turnoff of the lecturer and his information comes when he arrives dressed in a t-shirt with no coat. Then as you try to listen to what he or she is trying to say, the lecturer moves their arm to emphasize a point and you get a full view of this giant pit stain.

It is disgusting and not what you paid for. At least wear a sports coat to cover such indiscretion, though one lecture does wear a sport coat with a terrible looking t-shirt and coupled with his unshaven face, and  he looks like he just came off a bender at skid row.

Educators should respect their audience enough to dress appropriately. Being respectful doesn’t always mean being comfortable and being ‘cool’ is not the criteria when you are teaching. Being truthful is. The truth is not harmed by dressing like one respects themselves as well as their listeners.


I think that is enough for today. The real point is, not just that I needed a change of pace for one day, that Christians should look to the Bible and Jesus to guide them in their actions.

It is not wrong touse Facebook,MySpace or Twitter etc., but your response to other people’s reactions to your offerings may be sinful and the believer needs to be aware of that fact and replace their sinful actions with biblical ones.

It is not wrong to grieve or share good news but a believer should be discerning on the time and place they share such emotions. Not everyone wants to read about it especially when the media used is inappropriate and for some other purpose.

The same can be said about how one dresses. Alternative dressing became a big fad in the early 60s and 70s simply because it was an action to draw a certain response from the older generation or to make ‘a statement’.

People can make a statement by being modest and tactfully clothed. The idea of being ‘sexy’ at all times is a bit out of control. I got tired of the concept when I watched a 4 minute yahoo internet show and the host made the comment about looking ‘sexy’ when giving birth.

That comment took the cake as I do not care who you are, if you are worried about looking sexy when you are trying to push a baby out then you have a very deep problem. Looking sexy is the least of a person’s worries at any time.

When it comes to education teaching is a profession and teachers should dress like professionals because undermining your purpose is not a cool thing or even a good thing. The students in this country have to wear uniforms so when I switched to public school teaching many years ago, I looked at my students and decided that I should wear a sport coat, nice pants and a good shirt at the very least.

Respecting one’s audience goes a long ways in educating them. This thought can be carried over to the publically publishing one’s personal thoughts about their students. If you want to undermine your authority in the classroom and you want to have your students stop listening and respecting you then by all means publish your rants about your students in a media you know they search and read.

Students are not dumb when it comes to recognizing how adults truly feel about them. The teacher’s attitude toward their students and how they handle their student’s behavior plays a large role in the student’s education.

What I do is that every class I give my students a new chance to show me they can be good students. I do not hold their past actions against them because then I get upset and get distracted from my purpose for being in the classroom.

Treating students correctly and honestly,without being two-faced, goes a long ways in the classroom. I do not bad mouth my students to anyone at any time and I would never put bad comments about them on the internet where they will be publicly humiliated and betrayed.

Believers need to set the biblical example, not look to the secular world for guidance on their behavior.

Straight Talk

About homosexuality.  It has become the ‘in’ thing to do these days. One is not with it unless they support the homosexual community and help it achieve its desires. In fact, some people, San Antonio, are going as far as saying humans can’t hold public office if they have even spoken against homosexuals or minorities.

This support for homosexuality is getting absurd and out of control. Business owners can’t even exercise their own religious beliefs and turn down job opportunities because the homosexual community has turned into bullies and become very intolerant towards those who disagree with their preference.

There are some things I would like to address here. First off, terminology. There are many words used these days, and have been used for decades, to refer to those people who have chosen the alternative sexual practice. Two such words, fag and faggot have no relation to that sexual act at all. Their archaic and more accurate meanings are small stick or cigarette.

Another misused word is the term ‘gay’. Its real meaning is ‘to be happy’ and the term ‘the gay nineties’ did not refer to a decade where homosexuality was celebrated but instead referred to the 1890s where people were experiencing very good times. The hurt and tragedy of the Civil War were fading and the First World War was not even a blip on the radar. it was a good time.

Yet, of all the gays I know and have read about not one is really happy. Many lament that if homosexuality were actually a choice, why would they choose that lifestyle? This brings me to the second point–choice.

As stated above, many homosexuals whine and cry about how they had no choice in becoming homosexual yet for years I have heard about people who ‘explored’ their sexuality and being encouraged to do so.

What this exploration does is open the door for evil to come in and influence the process and decision-making. Now most homosexuals and other people do not believe in evil or that the devil actually exists thus they do not even consider this fact in their analysis of their choice of lifestyles or sexual preference.

It is very difficult to come to honest conclusions when half the data is left out of the process. Evil does influence people to make the wrong choice. Ignoring that fact means that the homosexual is not doing enough in their exploration to combat choosing the homosexual lifestyle.

How can they? They do not believe that evil exists and plays a role in their decision-making so they make no honest effort to get to the source of their sexual predicament and solve the problem before it gets out of hand. there is nothing of God in the homosexual lifestyle thus we know that evil is having a hand in the faulty decision-making of those who struggle with their sexual identity

Third, there is a passage of scripture that is ignored by the homosexual community in their argument that they couldn’t choose their sexual preference.:

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [r]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [s]indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Roms. 1 NASB)

God makes it clear that it is a choice and a very willful one at that.  The choice for some comes very early in life while for others it comes later on as they struggle with the evil influences surrounding their existence. The ignoring of evil is not good and disallows the person to fight properly and correctly against the real cause for their bad decision-making.

Now I am not advocating the late Flip Wilson’s idea of who is responsible for doing bad things. He said, ‘the devil made me do it’. The devil can’t make your choices for you and he didn’t make you do it, you decided to go along with him just like Eve went along with him in the garden.

Notice he couldn’t force Eve to take the forbidden fruit nor make the choice for her, she had to choose and so it is with homosexuality. The devil will tempt, deceive and pressure and so on to get people to choose to do evil, then turn around and convince them he did nothing at because he doesn’t really exist.

He isn’t called the father of lies for nothing. His best trick is convincing people he doesn’t exist, his next best trick is to get people to blame God for their own actions and choices. Evil is part of the homosexual process and choice.

Fourth, their is a second passage of scripture that most homosexuals ignore in their arguments against their sexual preference being a choice. In that statement, Why would we choose homosexuality as a lifestyle…” is a telling element–denial.

The homosexual refuses to accept one very important factor that is involved with their lifestyle:

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts (Roms. 1 NASB)

We do not know how severe this giving over is, God does not tell us all the details.  I am not sure if once given over, if those condemned can repent or not. This is one reason why I am not an ardent supporter of gay conversion therapy. I only know of one incident where it has taken place, I do not even know if the conversion stuck or not.

God does not say that those given over to their abnormal lusts can repent and change. we know that all sins but one are forgivable but one so there is a possibility for the homosexual to change their lifestyle BUT…there are too many unknowable mitigating factors involved in the whole situation.

Most homosexuals can’t change because they do not want to give up their sexual preference, they like their sin. This is why there are so many unrepentant sinners in the world today–men love darkness rather than light– and the homosexual is no different.

They also can’t change because God has locked them in to that sexual preference forever. The homosexual has refused and rejected God’s way thus God has rejected them and refused to allow them to change.

God is the last word on everything.  After all it is his creation, his kingdom, his plan of salvation and his home, so it is his rules not man’s that counts. many homosexuals are condemned to be homosexual for the rest of their lives and that is not going to change no matter how many governments legitimize their choice or allow them special rights.

In conclusion, for the believer God’s condemnation of the homosexual does not grant us permission to condemn them and deny them aid when they need it. We are still to do as Jesus taught for he did not exclude the homosexual when he taught how to treat others.

BUT we do not support their sin, their lifestyle nor call it good. The homosexual lifestyle  isn’t good and there is nothing of God in it thus we do not legitimize it in any form. Nor do we attack those who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle.

The believer is restricted to doing things God’s way not their own and they need to exchange their personal views for Christ’s.

Is The Original New Testament Lost?

This is a question posed by Bart Ehrman in a 30 minute video posted over at the debunking christianity website


Dr. Ehrman’s argument depends upon 2 main things: 1. that God i snot part of the replication process and 2. God is incapable of guiding his followers to replicate his word correctly.

People like Dr. Ehrman need to remove God from the process because if they didn’t their arguments would not work. The complete copying process has to be of human effort only in order to falsely attack the NT with their unsubstantiated accusations.

Also, they need God removed from any part of the NT in order to feel good about ignoring what God and Jesus said in its pages. They want John 3:16 there because they want to go to heaven but they want to get to heaven their own way not God’s. The rest of the NT can be removed in order to be able to live life as they want, to do justice as they see fit and to be inclusive where God is exclusive.

Later in the video, Dr. Ehrman talks about how Paul wrote his letters and goes as far as saying that he dictated to a scribe the words he wanted written down. Dr. Ehrman uses this unsubstantiated claim to make the accusation that the scribe made mistakes even while writing down Paul’s words as he was listening to them.

He goes, the scribe made mistakes because he couldn’t hear a word, or somebody coughed (how does Dr. Ehrman know there were more than 2 people in the room at the time?) and other distractions. Yet Dr. Ehrman seems to forget the seriousness of the transmission and the ability of the scribe to interrupt Paul and say, “I’m sorry but I didn’t hear that last word.” It seems that Dr. Ehrman has the scribe as a mute or a total incompetent who can’t even verify that he copied the words down correctly.

Dr. Ehrman also assumes that Paul had no quality control in place to double-check what the scribe wrote down. Could not Paul read what the scribe wrote to make sure his words were copied accurately? According to Dr. Ehrman, Paul had no such ability even though he was highly educated by the top rabbis of the time.

The arguments against the NT made by Dr. Ehrman and others like him are just absurd. The only evidence they present are those manuscripts which may contain errors in them but just because some manuscripts may contain errors doesn’t mean they all do.

Dr. Ehrman makes a big point about  our not having the original autographs of the NT writers, so we can’t be sure what the biblical authors wrote down or what Jesus said. But this argument works against him as well as he does not have the originals to compare the other manuscripts with thus he cannot verify what is an error and what is not.

In other words, his error filled argument is moot because he can’t prove where the true errors are, if there are any. He is in need of the originals to make his argument work. Dr. Ehrman’s, and other people like him, attacks are merely evil’s way of trying to undermine the confidence of the believer in God’s word.

If the believer doubts God’s word then evil can work its destructive strategies and lure Christians away from belief in God. To find God’s word I hold to three English translations–the 1984 NIV, The KJV and the NASB– but I do not favor any recent modern translations because of the prevailing attitude in the world today, especially in those translating circles. That last part is a topic for another time.

Don’t listen to people like Dr. Ehrman as they are not believers and do not have the truth about God’s word. Doesn’t matter if they are scholars or not, Jesus did not say to follow scholars, he said to follow the Holy Spirit to the truth even when it comes to translations and ancient manuscripts.

We do have the original NT as God has promised to preserve his word. We need to have faith and trust the Holy Spirit to lead us to the correct translations.

A Common Theme

This post will continue looking at the gems found in Hans Kung’s book, The Beginning of All Things. This work really isn’t out of date as it was published in 2007 and in the time between then and now nothing has been published to alter these gems.

If there had been everybody would have known about the discoveries. The recent discovery of the supposed God Particle doesn’t change any of these gems that I am about to quote. In fact, it has not been verified as the God Particle and I highly doubt it ever will be.

The quotes will be recorded here in the order they appear in Dr. Kung’s book

#1. There is still no explanation of what caused this concentration of matter into galaxies (pg. 11)

This is a very difficult question for the Big Bang theorists to answer. The Big Bang used to be described as an explosion, now it is given a more generic term, catastrophe, in order to allow some leeway for scientists to conjure up some theory to explain the order we see in the universe.

It would be too obvious to state that explosions do not bring about order and control. We all know that explosions, and by extension catastrophes, bring about disorder and chaos and that it takes someone with great cognitive powers and organizational skills to return the aftermath back to some sense of order and control.

Dr. Kung states on pg. 13 that “This whole event was determined by gravity.” well the problem with that idea is that gravity does not display any cognitive powers or organizational skills. If it did have those abilities then why are comets, asteroids and meteors flying freely through the universe causing panic and some destruction?

The last word I have on gravity is that scientists haven’t figured it out yet. They still can’t understand how gravity can hold something in place yet allow movement by those objects being held in place.

The kicker is, no matter what theory scientists decide upon as their answer to the formation of the universe, they will never be able to verify those ideas. The universe and galaxies already exist and no one has seen one formation of either  so they can’t say that this process is continuing. Nor can they answer the question, why did it happen only once?

We say once, because the Bible says God created once so if the scientists are correct, why is the Big Bang held to only an equal occurrence as the Biblical record? If science is correct, we should be able to see many of these catastrophes taking place or find record of them. So far, any evidence points to only one event and that evidence doesn’t point to any catastrophe.

#2. Energy cannot be produced from nothing (55)

Many unbelievers ask the question, where did God come from? The actual question should be, where did the materials the secular scientists claim were in existence at the time of the great catastrophe (Big Bang) come from?

If that material always existed, then why is it so hard for unbelievers to conceive of an always existing God? Doesn’t take much to change from always existing inanimate objects to an animate and always living God but most do not want to or even try to make the change in thinking.

Just prior to that quote and in the same paragraph and page, Dr. Kung mentions the ‘centuries-long vain efforts of scientists to construct a ‘perpetuum mobile’, a machine constantly in motion without the introduction of energy.”

The problem is even if such a machine were invented it would only support the words quoted above. That machine came from a force of energy and given energy by something that already existed. The scientists used energy and gave the machine energy and they existed before the machine and use reason and logic to construct such a machine.

To falsify the quote and prove it wrong, secular scientists would have to scour the universe until they found such a machine already in existence. All the secular scientists have done is shown that their supposed material for their great catastrophe had to be created by some intelligent, rational, logical being. It could not always exist nor just come into existence out of nothing. The secular scientists would not be able to prove or provide evidence to the contrary.

In other words, they are making a strong case for God and his creative act.

#3.No information generating process has so far been discovered (pg. 72)

The whole crux of the theory of evolution depends upon the discovery of such a mechanism. Their whole theory is about information generating yet the evolutionist cannot point to anything that does as they claim. Even Richard Dawkins has failed to point to this mechanism which is pretty good evidence that the processes of evolution and natural selection do not exist and never had a hand in life development.

If the theory of evolution were true, this would most likely be the easiest and most simplest discovery of all. There would be no mystery to it for it would have to be in existence for the process of evolution to work and it should be right at the core of all living species’ genetic construction.

Yet, they find nothing. They find nothing because the origin and development of life did not take place as they claim and preach. One would think that after almost 200 years of modern scientific searching and research they would have found this mechanism but they haven’t.

Talk about beating a dead horse. Most people would have given up after the first 50 years of fruitless searching. In fact, most people would have given up long ago because their failure to replicate one claimed historical  transition at any stage of the supposed transition.

It is easy to take fully developed species and combine them with fully developed chemicals, etc., and then claim evolution is true but it is another matter to actually replicate a claimed transition from scratch. When evolutionists do the latter, then they will have evidence for their theory but as it stands, they do not have any evidence for they are merely cheating.

#4. The Bible and science agree on at least one thing: at the beginning of the history of our planet there was no life. (pg. 129)

Dr. Kung is wrong here as the Bible and science do not agree on this point. Now if he said human life the statement would be correct; but he didn’t. He simply said life and science doesn’t believe any life form existed prior to the beginning of the history of the planet and the Bible says there were many–angels, demons, satan, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, cherubs and so on

Life did exist prior to the beginning of the history of this planet and the universe whether people choose to accept and believe this fact is another story.

#5. (A) We do not know for certain how life first arose from the inanimate. (B) We do not know for certain what precise events introduced biogenesis. (C) But we do know one thing: however this transition to life is explained in detail, it rests on biochemical regularities and thus on self-organization of matter, the molecule. (pg. 137)

I put the capital letters in the quote for clarity. (A)- Yes we do know how life first arose. It wasn’t from an inanimate object or molecule but from God’s creative act. It is up to the people to believe and accept this fact or disbelieve and reject it. That is the simple choice man has. Since Dr. Kung used the word ‘inanimate’ we know that secular scientists are looking for answers in the wrong places.

Why? Simply because the true sense of the  theory of evolution has no on or off switch. It should be replicating its feat over and over as there is nothing worldly that could stop it from repeating itself.

Yet, like the Big Bang theory, the theory of evolution is trying to explain what already exists in an alternative form from the biblical record. Why would the process of evolution be limited to only one direct attempt at development?

There was only one creation thus there can only be one direction for the theory of evolution. If evolution were true it would not have any limitations on how to develop life. Evolutionists use the similarity of genetics to claim that there was a common ancestor but the ignore the fact that almost all species have to live in the same environment thus similarity is required.

Genetic similarity does not provide evidence for a common ancestor and the evolutionary scientist cannot verify that a common ancestor actually lived let alone transitioned as they claimed. They do not have it and it is still not replicating its original work thus there is no evidence for the evolutionary process.

Genetic similarity provides evidence that God created as he said. Since almost all species had to live in the same environment, they needed similar genetics and organs to live their lives. We see God’s planning and rational and logical thinking in genetic similarity.

(B)- Yes we do know what introduced biogenesis–God and his power. God knew that a form of reproduction was necessary to maintain and continue life on this planet thus he created sex. Almost all species participate in this act in order to maintain life on earth but in true evolutionary thought, sex would not be needed as the process would continue to use a common ancestor to transition into other life forms.

There is no reason for the process of evolution  to stop replicating via transition and go to the sex act to reproduce but evolutionists say it did because they have to explain the existence of sex and reproduction.

Evolutionists are going about this backwards and since they can’t accept God’s explanation, they are left with a huge problem to solve and a big void to fill. They will not be able to verify one thing they claim but that doesn’t stop them from producing irrational and illogical theories to provide some plausibility and credibility to their alternative ideas.

(C)-“self-organization”. That is like saying a car has to self-organize its construction long before it is a car and long before it knows what a car is. Where does this ability to ‘self-organize’ come from? At what stage does the transitioning molecules obtain this ability?

It is a poor, irrational and illogical explanation that produces far more questions than it can answer. I have yet to see anything, partially constructed self-organize and take over its development so why would life forms be any different?

In other words, we do not see this ability anywhere in history or in any scientific experiment. The molecules and bacteria scientists use are all fully developed so they cannot pinpoint to any part of the process that produces this process nor can they guarantee that the life form will actually live long enough to reach that stage of development.

It just doesn’t work. But that is the story of the theory of evolution. No matter how hard the evolutionary scientist works and explains, they can’t prove their theory is true let alone works.

The quotes provide the common theme for the alternatives of the biblical record and it starts with ‘we haven’t found…’ because life did not originate as the evolutionist claims. They won’t find anything because it doesn’t exist in the form they want it to exist. They have to stretch and alter what God did to make their theory sound good but when one closely examines the theory, they will find that it won’t work as claimed.

It won’t work because God designed everything to work together in a certain way and veering from that design means instant death. Evolution doesn’t develop life, it destroys it.

A Simple History Lesson

I won’t be posting tomorrow so I thought of doing an extra one today. It is a simple article on the history of the Union Jack. Now to many people that may seem like trivial information but to some, it is highly important. For believers, knowing the right information and how to use it properly may lead to opening the door in an unbeliever’s heart and having them sincerely listen to the gospel message. Ignorance is not a Christian trait.

Planting the seed is as important as nurturing and harvesting; for if believers do not plant then there is no seed to nurture or eventually harvest. We do not use knowledge with an ulterior motive, we use it honestly so that the process and possible salvation decision can be honest as well.

Planting seeds takes skill and the aid of the Holy Spirit. Too often believers who strike up friendships with unbelievers are seen as gunfighters who are only looking for another notch on their Bibles and do not care about the person they are trying to win for Christ. Try caring first, for evangelism should be done God’s way not man’s.

I will post the entire article here save for the images. I have been sick all week and do not have the patience to fiddle with image inclusion so it will be text only. I did not edit nor added any words so the credit for the information goes to the author of the work. I will place the link at the top so you can see the images. The story behind the Union Jack is quite interesting and one I do not remember being told.

Of course there may be differing stories that may contradict the details given here but I do not care. This story was interesting enough to start learning about the history of the Union Jack.



The Union Jack is a transnational flag full of historical significance. It represents the union of different countries and the growth of a family of nations whose influence extends far beyond the British Isles. This far-reaching influence is still seen today in the incorporation of the Union Jack in other national flags such as that of Australia. The British flag is called the “Union Jack”, an expression that needs to be explained.

The Union Jack is a fine expression of unity as well as diversity. The British flag incorporates the national symbols of three distinct countries, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In fact its name “Union Jack” emphasises the very nature of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a union of nations. The flag is also known by another name, this too, emphasising the idea of union: the “Union flag”, perhaps a less common term but a little more precise. The countries comprising the British Isles are not inward-looking or isolated states with an insular mentality; together they constitute a powerful union that has spanned centuries. Recent devolution that gave Scotland its own Parliament and Wales its own Assembly has also emphasised the importance of individual national identities within the union without affecting the essential unity of Great Britain. On the contrary, it has strengthened it. Recognition of, and respect for national identities are an essential ingredients for effective union. The Union Jack symbolises all this: respect for individuality within a closely knit community.

The “Union Jack” or “Union Flag” is a composite design made up of three different national symbols:

The cross represented in each flag is named after the patron saint of each country: St. George, patron saint of England, St. Andrew, patron saint of Scotland and St. Patrick, patron saint of Ireland.

The image below renders the idea of the union of the three flags forming one unified, transnational Flag.

No mention has been made of the Welsh flag. The Welsh dragon was not incorporated into the Union Flag because Wales had already been united to England when the first version of the Union Flag was designed in 1606. It is, however, in common use:

The first step taken in the creation of the flag of Great Britain was on 12th April 1606. When King James VI of Scotland became king of England (King James I) it was decided that the union of the two realms under one king should be represented symbolically by a new flag. Originally It consisted in the red cross of England superimposed on the white cross of Scotland on the blue background of the Scottish flag as in this illustration:

Thus we have the first flag of the union called, in fact, the “Union Flag”.

What was meant to be a symbol of unity actually became a symbol of international controversy. The English resented the fact that the white background of their cross had disappeared and that the new flag had the blue Scottish background. On the other hand the Scottish resented the fact that the English red cross was superimposed on the Scottish white cross!! The old adage says you cannot please everyone but this first version of the Union Flag seemed to please no-one!!

Apparently there was an unofficial “Scottish version” that attempted to rectify the sense of injustice that the Scottish felt at this innovatory flag. A distinct reference was made to this version when the King visited Dumfries in 1618. Here is what it looked like:

The controversy was destined to last!! There is conflict in the best of families!!

However, the flag was usually restricted to use at sea until the two kingdoms of Scotland and England were united in 1707. It was most probably from this use at sea that it got the name “Jack” (“Union Jack“). It was usually flown at the bow end of the ship, from the jack staff.

An attempt was made to modify the flag under Oliver Cromwell. A harp was placed in the centre, representing Ireland. However, the original design was restored along with the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.

The flag continued to be used in its original form until Jan. 1, 1801. At that time, with the union of Ireland and Great Britain, it became necessary to represent Ireland in the Union Flag and so the cross of St. Patrick was include thus creating the flag as we now have it. When the southern part of Ireland gained its independence in 1921 and became the Irish Free State no alteration was made to the Union Jack.

The name “Union Jack” became official when it was approved in Parliament in 1908. It was stated that “the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag”.


Enjoy. Now I could have just put the link in and left it at that but it was more fun to do it this way.

Knowledge And Faith

I like reading Hans Kung. His books have many little gems that provide food for thought. One example comes from his book, The Beginning of All Things, and he is quoting I. Kant:

In the preface to the second edition of his Critique of Pure Reason, which he published in 1781 when he was already fifty-seven years old, Kant wrote: “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.(pg. 46)

Kant’s declaration is founded upon several assumptions but I will address only two: 1. That all knowledge is good knowledge. In other words, there is no such thing as true and false knowledge, it is all the same. But we know that since lies exist, all knowledge is not the same and false information must be excised from ones memory in order to make room for truth.

Those that hold to false knowledge or information, data, etc., do not have room to consider or contain what is true. In fact, most holders of false knowledge cast off any true knowledge or information because it conflicts with what they want to believe and accept.

All knowledge is not good knowledge because it allows for doubt to function and ruin a person’s life. Doubting someone means that you are rejecting some knowledge. This means that the idea of all knowledge is good knowledge is false and that some information is worse than others. It all depends upon the person and how they view the knowledge they receive.

2. That faith is sans any knowledge. In other words, to have faith one must be completely void of any knowledge of anything. Kant in his statement is saying that faith is different from knowledge and that the two cannot co-exist.

But he misses the point of faith and how it works. Faith uses knowledge, it does not replace it. To have faith in someone or something we must know something about them, their character, their integrity and so on.

We do not usually blindly trust anyone but use our knowledge of the person to determine if we should trust or have faith in them or not. For example, we know that God does not lie, that knowledge of God helps our faith in him and his words. if we felt that God did or does lie then our confidence and faith in him would diminish and we would not be able to trust one thing he says.

But since we know a lot about God, that he keeps his promises, he does not lie, and so on, our faith in him grows stronger. It grows to the point where we can trust his words  even though there is no physical evidence to support them.

In contrast, we know that evolutionary and other scientists lie, change their stories and theories constantly and so on thus our faith in their words weakens. We can’t trust what they say because tomorrow they may say something different (the example of how scientists views the health qualities of the simple egg is evidence of this).

Faith depends upon knowledge. Yes we can use faith without knowledge but our experiences with using faith brings us knowledge and teaches what we should or should not do. You really can’t have faith without knowledge.

For a more human example, one can know nothing about a car but can go and buy and use one. We have faith that the car dealer’s words were accurate about the vehicle so we drive it off the lot. Then the more we use it, by faith because we are turning the key and putting it into gear not knowing if it will work or not, we learn more and more about the car.

That knowledge learned by using faith with operating a car helps us to have more confidence in the vehicle each time we use it. We learn a lot about the car as we use it more and more and we learn when something may be going wrong with it.

In contrast, a person who studies about cars and knows everything about them has knowledge of vehicles but no faith in them because though he has studied vehicles, he has been afraid to use one. He has no knowledge of how they work because he refuses to use faith to start one and put his knowledge to the test.

Faith enhances knowledge not replaces it. The true knowledge learned by the proper use of faith will replace the error filled knowledge held prior to using faith. Because we have knowledge of God and we know him, we can replace the error-filled knowledge that secular science provides with the truth with God’s words. We do this because we know by faith that God does not lie and that his word is true. We have to use faith to get to the truth.

Evolutionary science fails because it cannot provide confidence in its knowledge. What I mean by this is that evolutionary scientists have knowledge of mutations and chemical reactions but they cannot take the next step and show how their theory is true.

There is not one scientific experiment that produces the original conditions that existed when life was supposed to have begun on earth and there are no scientific experiment demonstrating one historical claim made by evolutionists. There is not one confirmation of any transition evolutionists claim to have taken place at any point in history. Not one verification. All scientific experiments used to support evolutionary transition are done by conjecture and extrapolation not actual verification or fact.

Why is this so? Because evolutionary scientists chase false knowledge and do not use faith to help them find the truth. You can’t get to the truth without using faith and being honest. The Bible tells us that ‘by grace are ye saved through faith…’

You can’t even get salvation without using faith. Faith is always a part of the equation even when it comes to obtaining knowledge. One has to have faith in order to believe that the information they are receiving is accurate. Sure one can do tests to make sure but one has to have faith that those tests will produce accurate knowledge and verification.

Reason can’t work without faith either. One must have faith in their own cognitive abilities to be able to have confidence in their reasoning.

I end this with a link to many Bible verses on knowledge. Read them in context to get their full meaning and see what God says about faith and knowledge-There are 7 pages of scriptures to peruse.