RSS

Monthly Archives: September 2013

I.D. & Observation

I do not normally read the comments section of the website Debunking Christianity as that section is usually filled with unbelievers saying all sorts of untrue things about the Bible. It gets depressing to read the results of spiritual blindness.

But today was different as I prayed that I had nothing to say. well God led to me another website that was posted in the comment section. I know nothing about the writer, his beliefs etc., but i put his website in my favorites to explore later. Right now I want to address those words in the title.

I am not commenting upon what the author wrote but using the two words in the title that were in his post as launching pads to address a couple or three problems. You can read the whole post at the following link:  http://christthetao.blogspot.kr/2013/09/did-michael-behe-admit-that-astrology.html

#1. I.D.

Of course, everyone should know that I.D. in this context refers to Intelligent Design and I have had many problems with that group of people because though they want a designer, they are not picky about which one he is or what method he used.

My first problem with the I.D. position is the fact that they use the word ‘designer’ instead of God.  This alteration now makes the source for existence quite murky as it could be God who fits the vacant slot or it could be an alien. I.D. supporters are not picky about who did it.

This position is in direct contrast to God’s as we read in the very first verse of the very first book of the Bible these words: “In the beginning God…” (Gen. 1:1 NIV 1984). Notice that God doesn’t waste his or anyone’s time and comes right out and says he created all things.  This verse sets the tone for the whole Bible-God is responsible and he is behind everything.

There is no mystery, no guesswork, no doubt. God is the designer (to use I.D.’s word) no one else.

The second problem I have with I.D. supporters is that they are not picky about the methodology their designer used to create everything. Some of them are open to theistic evolution, while others can opt for a progressive creationist stance. While still others can insert their theories as to how  all things came into existence.

I.D. is kind of like a melting pot for alternative Christianized theories. This thinking is a problem because it allows for confusion to enter in and cause rifts among any believers in the organization. I.D. is not doing anyone any favors by allowing alternative methods to be considered.

God,on the other hand, left no opportunity for confusion to enter into his communication to his creation. Verses 3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24 all start the same way and use the exact same words: ‘and God said…’

There is no doubt about the methodology God used. he spoke and it was. Hebrews 11:3 supports this point and Genesis 1: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command…(NIV 1984).

The third problem I have with the I.D. organization is that they are trying to fit a supernatural act into a secular science mold and it will not work. God did not create via the secular science methodology thus it is useless to try to fit what God did into an unholy framework in order for secular people to accept it.

Believers are not to dance to the tune of the secular scientist. No, they are to find the truth, accept it then proclaim that truth to all. we do not alter the truth to make it appealable to those who do not believe.

You will notice that God does not alter what he did to make it more acceptable to unbelievers. He just stated the truth and let his creation make up their own minds. We are not responsible for people rejecting the truth but we are responsible for how we present it. This means that we do not compromise God’s words nor alter it in hopes of getting someone to salvation.

To compromise or alter the truth is not being honest nor is it representing God correctly. We stand with the truth because that is what God did. We say what we believe and be honest about it. If nothing else, we will get respect from unbelievers for preaching what we actually believe. Being honest about our beliefs is what wins the day.

So since God said HE created all things, we do not mask that revelation with words that cloud the issue or confuse our listeners. We remain clear so that our listeners understand perfectly what we believe and who created all things.

#2. Observation

That post also talks about observation but here is the key to understanding how that works. If a person observes a man and a woman exiting a motel room, they have observed only a part of what actually took place. They do not have the full story or the truth about that couple.

That observation is very limited and the observer has many options (I despise the word interpretation as it is misleading in its scope) to choose from to describe what might be the correct context for that exit.

No one observed the whole situation from start to finish thus the observer is at a loss to explain what actually took place. They do not know, so they guess.  The problem with guessing is that they could guess wrong and since there is only 1 truth, the chances of the observer guessing wrong is high.

This is the way it is with evolutionists. They claim to observe evolution in action as they conduct their experiments. BUT they are not witnessing the whole scenario, they only witness a part of it and are left with a guess.

Of course, evolutionists will bring in other tools to shore up their guess like ‘predictions’ but predictions did not observe the whole situation either so those do not know the whole story. Predictions are easy to manipulate and the evolutionist doesn’t stop at just one. They keep making them until they get it right but I digress.

The evolutionist does not know from their limited observation who really is the source for the results of their experiment. They didn’t witness the situation taking place, they are missing key pieces of information, namely the truth.

In origins and life development there is only one truth and the chances of the evolutionist guessing wrong are extremely high because they have other influences manipulating their observation. One of those influences is unbelief. They will not choose the truth because they do not believe it and they want an alternative to the truth not the truth itself.

There are many problems for the evolutionist to overcome in getting their theory verified and one of those problems is their self-designed time frame. It is impossible for the evolutionist to see the whole situation unfold and observe what really took place.

They haven’t lived long enough to do so and they won’t live long enough. That alone dispels their theory-it can’t be observed throughout the whole process to see if it supports the evolutionary viewpoint.

The second problem the evolutionary scientist has is that, unlike the couple in the example,their test subjects cannot confess and tell the whole story of what happened during the unobserved period of time. Evolution will always remain a guess as there is nothing available to verify one thing the evolutionist claims. Nothing to substantiate their work.

Observation is not  a key element in knowing about origins because it wasn’t done when observers were around to verify what took place. Observation is too limited and used wrongly can cause a lot of problems for innocent people. The leaps to conclusions or assumptions used to describe an unknown part of the situation are not based upon the truth but fictional ideas thought of by the observer.

Observation can be very misleading and when one uses it they should be careful because a lot of damage could be done that can’t be undone.

 
Comments Off on I.D. & Observation

Posted by on September 30, 2013 in creation, science

 

2Things

#1. A Word of Encouragement-

I had planned on taking my late dog’s ashes on a final trip to his 2 favorite places and those were in a town 2 hours from here. I went back and forth on this but finally made the decision to do the trip even though it was going to be very hard on me. Today was the day to do this because this would have been my dog’s and mine 16th anniversary. It was not an easy day to do anything.

Plus, I am not one to waste a trip so I planned on getting an oil change since my mechanic is in that town and do other errands. The visits to the 2 places would not take too long so I would have a lot of time on my hands once we got finished.

It was a good thing I did decide to have my oil changed as my mechanic found some problems with other parts of my car. he i snot one to run up a bill and the ones he found were vital. My back brakes were shot along with one brake piston, then he found a leak in my engine cooling system and my timing belts plus water pump were shot.

If I had not planned this trip I would have put off the oil change and who knows what would have taken place if I had.  God does watch out for you and he uses interesting guardian angels to guide you along the way.

So be encouraged when you go through hard times, God has not forgotten about you and he still watches over you. Like the song goes–His eye IS on the sparrow.

#2. Quantum Physics-

I have been reading the book ‘How TO Teach Physics To Your Dog’ by Chad Orzel and I have been able to get through the introduction and the first two chapters. I may not finish the book because I am coming to 3 conclusions about Quantum physics and physicists.

First, I think Quantum physicists are not playing with a full deck

Second, I think Q. Physics and physicists are not playing with reality

Third, I believe that Quantum physics is just a scientific game of make-believe and they are making everything up as they go.

That is the message I am getting as I read this book. Though, this is not the first book on physics I have read, this is the first one to lead me to those conclusions. Here are a couple  of quotes that have help light the way to those ideas.

#1. Planck’s trick was to imagine that all objects contained fictitious ‘oscillators’ that emit light only at certain frequencies… (pg. 21)

This quote actually represents the whole chapter as the first chapter talks about how each object, humans and animals included, have a wavelength. The chapter was talking about how particles of sound could go around trees by splitting in half and dogs could not.

Two things come from the thinking found in this chapter. First, reducing every object including living beings to wavelengths means reducing animate objects to inanimate stratus and that just won’t work.

Of course a sound wavelength can go around both sides of a tree at the same time, its existence doesn’t depend upon remaining a  whole unit and it is designed to split up when meeting obstacles. Dogs, and other living beings on the other hand, cannot split to go around both sides of a tree because they will die if they do.

This seems t0 be the key piece that is missing from the argument found in chapter one of this book and many other quantum themed arguments. The idea of life is removed from the equation thus the quantum physicist is not dealing with reality nor life. They are trying to compare inanimate objects, designed to split, with animate objects designed to remain together.

This is a clear case of comparing apples to tables. It is no wonder the quantum physicists have problems and cannot make their theories work, they are working with the wrong data. Their removal of life and death means they are not dealing with how things are designed or how things actually work.

Which then leads me to the second quote

#2. Quantum theory allows you to calculate only probabilities, not absolutes. (pg. 61)

To tell you the truth, I do not need quantum physics to calculate probabilities. I can do that on my own using my head and God-given intelligence. It turns out that I made it through the third chapter and that is where this quote comes from.

We do not need quantum physics to calculate the probability of an asteroid hitting the earth. That situation produces probability from fact. It will hit the earth, it will miss the earth or it will partially hit the earth. Just measuring the trajectory alone will provide enough probabilities to last a quantum physicist a lifetime.

But it is quotes like this and the following one that lead me to think that quantum physics is a waste of time:

If, by some miracle, you really could keep track of  every butterfly in the world, then you would be able to predict the weather with certainty… (pg. 62)

The problem with that idea is that every move all butterflies make is not motivated by the changes in the weather. So even if we could track all the butterflies in the world we would still not be sure if their movement was motivated by hunger, a predator, or whatever.

But this is not the only comments made by the author that lead me to think that Quantum Physics. The three chapters are full of comments that expose quantum physics is a sham. Here is another:

Quantum probabilities don’t work that way. When we have a two-part wavefunction…,it doesn’t mean the object is in one of two states, it means that the object is in both states at the same time. (pg. 64)

This shows that Quantum physics is not dealing with reality for a solid object cannot be in two places at once no matter how hard a quantum physicist imagines it to be so. This is the problem with secular science. it wants to change the rules so that the secular scientist doesn’t have to deal with the reality that God placed us within.

Another quote as an example:

Quantum theory allows you to calculate only probabilities, not absolutes. (pg. 61)

If quantum theory can only provide options and nothing real then what good is it? As I said earlier, we can do that for ourselves without a scientist weighing in with his opinion. We can see with our eyes what is taking place and can calculate what is going to take place without a lot of mathematical equations.

Unless the quantum physicist is including facts no one knows about that are influencing the action under observation but from what I have read, many of those influential factors do not exist except in the minds of quantum physicists.

We have the problem of the black holes. No one has ever seen one and they use indirect evidence to claim one exists but that indirect evidence may not be indicating that a black hole exists. The conclusion of the existence of a black hole is more eisegesis than exegesis. It based upon interpretation not fact.

This is the problem we have with secular science. Fact is removed and replaced by the wishful thinking of the secular scientist doing the experiment. Once God’s created reality is removed then anything is possible and that anything is based upon unreality and fantasy.

Quantum physicists aren’t really interacting with the real world but with a world they wish was real. This is seen in the idea that there is a hard and fast boundary between the microscopic and macroscopic worlds, (The Copenhagen Interpretation pg. 76ff), but that is not possible because God only made one.

It is just that some objects are smaller than others. The rules God implemented for the larger objects apply to the smaller ones as well.

Anyways, I think I am over-extending myself and I am tired. The key is, from what I have read, quantum physics is dealing with unreal objects as if they were real. Their conclusions then apply to a fantasy universe and not the one we actually live in.

***I am sure I will regret writing some of this as I do not think I explained my point very well. Suffice it to say that quantum physics is not studying the real world.

 
Comments Off on 2Things

Posted by on September 28, 2013 in science

 

Heresy

There is an issue I have been thinking about since I wrote the Much To Talk About 11 post.  It is a serious issue for the church for this issue probably helps lead many young people away from the faith.

In today’s modern world we have many cults and false religions that are easily identified as heresy and far from the truth but there is a more subtle and very dangerous form of heresy. This form of heresy is disguised as scholarship, academics and the supporters of this way of thinking call themselves scholars and academics and coupling those words with the word ‘Christian’.

It is deceptive as these people get their misleading and false teaching in through the church door through this dishonest method. They claim to be Christian yet do not believe what the Bible says and seek to alter God’s word through their ‘academic’ studies while disobeying God by following unbelievers and their thinking.

What got me thinking about heresy was the MTTA 11 post when it focused on Mr. Enns and his point of view. As I thought about it, God started connecting the dots for me and I began to see that what we used to call heresy and dismissed, we now call scholarship and allow it to be heard and considered.

No matter what form it comes in, heresy is heresy and next I will place a few quotes defining that word  plus the word ‘heretic’. Hopefully it will become clear to you that these men who call themselves scholars and academics are not bringing the truth but are bringing real heresy into the church  and destroying the truth.

#1.  HER´ESY, n. [Gr. αιρεσις, from αιρεω, to take, to hold; L. hœresis; Fr. heresie.]
1. A fundamental error in religion, or an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion. But in countries where there is an established church, an opinion is deemed heresy, when it differs from that of the church. The Scriptures being the standard of faith, any opinion that is repugnant to its doctrines, is heresy; but as men differ in the interpretation of Scripture, an opinion deemed heretical by one body of christians, may be deemed orthodox by another. In Scripture and primitive usage, heresy meant merely sect, party, or the doctrines of a sect, as we now use denomination or persuasion, implying no reproach.
2. Heresy, in law, is an offense against christianity, consisting in a denial of some of its essential doctrines, publicly avowed and obstinately maintained.      Blackstone.
3. An untenable or unsound opinion or doctrine in politics.      Swift.
HER´ETIC̵, n. [Gr. αιρετικος; It. eretico; Fr. heretique.]
1. A person under any religion, but particularly the christian, who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy. In strictness, among christians, a person who holds and avows religious opinions contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice.
2. Any one who maintains erroneous opinions.

Webster, N. (2006). Noah Webster’s first edition of An American dictionary of the English language. Anaheim, CA: Foundation for American Christian Education.

#2.

her·e·sy

noun \ˈher-ə-sē, ˈhe-rə-\

: a belief or opinion that does not agree with the official belief or opinion of a particular religion

1
a :  adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b :  denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c :  an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2
a :  dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b :  an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

her·e·tic

noun \ˈher-ə-ˌtik, ˈhe-rə-\

: someone who believes or teaches something that goes against accepted or official beliefs

1

:  a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially :  a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
2

:  one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine :

 

Scholars and academics who try to change the word of God into something different, or who try to make it say something different from what God has already written are heretics. They go by numerous names–Progressive Christians or Progressive Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, Bible scholar, Academic, Archaeologists, Anthropologists and so on.

For the latter four, this does not mean that all Bible scholars, archaeologists, anthropologists and Christian academics are heretics and teaching heresy. No, there are many fine true Christians in those fields who stand with God and His word.

The key to telling the difference is in their point of view. If it doesn’t agree with God, or it sides with the secular world then you know they are either not of God or are being led away from the truth.

Heresy may not be the ‘in’ or PC word but it is very clear in its meaning so that no confusion can be found when it is applied to those who teach alternatives to the Biblical record. Heresy is wrong and believers need to be careful in their research in order that they do not get mislead and fall into evil’s trap.

Does this mean we cannot analyze different points of view? No, it just means we need to be able to discern the difference between truth and heresy and not let the boundaries between them get blurred. Nor are we to cross the boundary from truth to heresy.

In the ever-increasing subtlety of the academic and scholarly world the believer must be on their guard and use the Bible to defend themselves against false teaching. Heresy is false teaching and it comes from those who still claim to be Christian.

Such people need to be removed from any position of preaching or teaching in the church or its schools (at any level of academia). They are not helping the church but destroying it and ruining its congregations. If you have read through this website, you will see that two schools have done just that and they should be applauded for taking such action.

Sadly, too many heretics remain within the church walls and the academic classroom. The reasons for it are many and friendship with these false teachers is a big cause for not pruning these spiritually dangerous people from the  flock.

Don’t be deceived. Use the guidelines in the Bible to help you discern who is a true Christian academic and who is not. Be ready, and this is not easy, to find some of your friends or popular teachers on the heretic list. Then see what you can do to restore them to the faith.

 

 
Comments Off on Heresy

Posted by on September 26, 2013 in academics, archaeology, history, Justice, politics, science, theology

 

An Addendum To 11

There are a couple more things to add to the previous post and its list.

First, a public service announcement for your pets. I think it  was last year when a group of atheists started making some noise about the rapture and the care of the pets left behind. Even though it is an idea from those who do not believe, it is worth thinking about.

I wonder if believers have made plans for their pets  for when they are caught up to meet Christ when he returns?  The care of one’s pets  is part of the Christian life and biblical principles apply to the believer’s attitude towards their animal friends.

Think about it. Leaving pets behind to go hungry and thirsty is not a good testimony. Christians need to cover all the bases of their lives and pets should not be an after thought.

Then, second, carrying the idea of how biblical principles apply in one’s life forward. Over the years I have had discussions with other believers who think that the Bible is limited in its application.

They felt that businesses and corporations were excluded from the teachings of Christ and could behave according to the principles of secular business ideas. They are very wrong. Biblical principles apply to all facets of life–sports, business, shopping, politics and everything else we participate in.

Biblical principles are not restricted in their application. God is God all areas of life and his word  is not turned off when one wants to do as they please or to please a coach or a boss. God is the one believers please first.

 
Comments Off on An Addendum To 11

Posted by on September 26, 2013 in General Life, theology

 

Much To Talk About-11

I am going to focus more on some news articles but I am not sure how long the links will remain active. So just in case, I will make sure I put the article title in the lead so that you can search for them if the links fail.

#1. Was Ancient Earth Anything Like Jupiter’s Super Volcano moon Lo? http://news.yahoo.com/ancient-earth-jupiters-super-volcanic-moon-io-171010146.html

Anybody wondering what Earth was like 4 billion years ago should cast an eye toward Jupiter’s hypervolcanic moon Io, a new study suggests.

There are several issues that can come from this study but comparing the Earth to a moon is not one of them. First off, this article tells us that science has no answers for anyone because they do not know what the Earth looked like in the past.

The reason for this is that secular scientists have rejected any truth and have decided to create their own idea of what Earth’s history was. we know from the Bible that the Earth was not volcanic but covered in water

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was [a]formless and void, and darkness was over the [b]surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was [c]moving over the [d]surface of the waters. (Genesis 1 NASB)

There was no volcanic activity present because volcanoes were not created at that time. When researchers study historical events, the main problem to their research is the topic of ‘dating’. Unless there is a fixed calendar and a sign saying, originated in year ___ there is no way to date any ancient event, including volcanic activity.

When scientists date something from the ancient past it is pure guesswork based upon unprovable assumptions and no real fact is involved. That is why we can dismiss the Three Age system without worry. There are too many factors involved which will alter the date of a destruction or some other event.

Kathleen Kenyon said that Jericho was unoccupied at the time of the Hebrew exodus but she based that upon the absence of some pottery she felt had to be in Jericho for the city to be occupied at that time. Bryant Wood did some better research and actually found that missing pottery (http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/01/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx)

Even if the Earth had ancient volcanic activity it would be utterly impossible for modern researchers to find any evidence of it. One, there has been too much volcanic activity throughout history to distinguish when one eruption took place over another. Two, we have trouble finding evidence from 1,000 years ago let alone 4 Billion.

The article on Earth’s history is just pure speculation with no hope of being verified and it is a waste of time.

#2. The Large Hadron Super-Colliderhttp://home.web.cern.ch/about/accelerators/large-hadron-collider

What makes this experiment a waste of time and valuable resources is the premise behind it. The ‘about’ page has the purpose for this expensive toy for scientists

http://home.web.cern.ch/about

At CERN…physicists and engineers are probing the fundamental structure of the universe…

There is a major problem with this purpose. According to Big Bang theorists, the universe did not come into existence via a collision of particles. In fact all supposed matter was locked up in a box so small there would be little room to move about let alone gather enough momentum to collide together and create a catastrophe.

Also, nothing in any theory has the universe being constructed from particles crashing together at the speed of light. Nor any of the planets or solar systems, that ‘creation’ is attributed to gravity not accidents.

So far we have no evidence of gravity propelling two objects together at the speed of light. Gravity isn’t that sophisticated nor that powerful. Another error in the CERN project is that they use an ‘ultra-high vacuum’ ( http://home.web.cern.ch/about/accelerators/large-hadron-collider ) and not gravity to conduct their work.

Secular scientists have not mastered gravity thus they cannot bend it to their will but they have been able to duplicate an atmosphere that is a vacuum so they use that instead. This is all done while not knowing the original conditions surrounding the origin of the universe or matter.

It is also done knowing that smashing particles together and watching them explode is not duplicating even their most popular theory of the origin of the universe. What CERN is really doing is showing the secular scientist that explosions do  not create order but actually make a worse mess but these people are a little too blind to realize this.

The CERN experiment is a complete contradiction to their own ideas yet they use it to champion their alternative theories. We know how the universe was created but even if the Big Bang theory was correct, the CERN project would not provide any answers for scientists.

It is not replicating the supposed origin of the universe. The secularists are looking in the wrong places for their answers.

#3. Peter Enns– Is God restricted By What The Bible Says? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/09/is-god-restricted-by-what-the-bible-says/

Showing the Bible to be human and accepting the extent to which it is human does not in and of itself constitute a shift from belief to unbelief as Yarbrough would have us believe. The shift could also be one that moves from faith to faith, i.e., from a faith in scripture as the ground for our salvation to one that trusts in God as surety for our faith.

The quote is Mr. Enn’s conclusion and it is a dangerous one to make. Not only doe sit destroy hope and salvation but it supports cherry picking. Mr. Enns is advocating the idea that God is restricted to only those passages he likes but the ones he doesn’t like God is free to be whatever.

Mr. Enns, in a nutshell, is just introducing cult thinking into the true christian congregation. Every cult leader claims to be a special envoy of God with ‘special revelation’ that alters what the biblical text actually says.

This is exactly the direction Mr. Enns is going with his thinking. He is saying that the Bible we have is not God’s word but a human book subject to new revelations and that is just wrong.

Another way forward—a more fruitful way, I might add—would be to remain genuinely open to Smith’s evidence suggesting that Yahweh was updated by post-exilic priest-scribes while remaining confident that this research does not attribute to God false speech.

This comment by Mr. Enns is evidence for that point. He is saying that God didn’t lie but he didn’t say everything that is in the Bible. He is implying that it would take an expert to find God’s true words but what he isn’t saying is –where are God’s guidelines to find those true words spoken by God?

You will notice that people like Mr. Enns are great at saying God didn’t say certain things yet fail to produce God’s true words that guide everyone to what he really said. Those guidelines are given by people like Mr. Enns. The new guidelines we are to use do not come from God but subjectively from human authors.

In other words, they are accusing the Bible of being a human book yet produce human ideas to find God’s words. They are not bringing God back to the center of the Bible but doing what they accuse the Biblical authors of doing–making God’s words human.

If the biblical writers were wrong, then where is the book that contains all of God’s word unedited? Then if there is such a book, why is it only contained in the realm of the scholar? This is pure cult thinking and Mr. Enns has become a cult leader not a servant of God.

He is telling people to ignore the Bible and follow his way and that is cult mentality not gospel thinking. I am not going to go off on a study of the word ‘restricted’ as Mr. Enns should have defined it long before he began his post in order for his readers to have a clear view of what he meant by its use.

Such an omission means Mr. Enns has something to hide and that is another trademark of a cult. They like to keep their true views secret so they can snare the unwary. My point on that word is this;

How is God restricted by the Bible?  He does not lie thus we know every word of the Bible is true and not of human origin.

#4. Scotteriology- Narcissistic Pastor Ruins Wedding- http://scotteriology.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/narcissistic-pastor-ruins-wedding/

Unfortunately, there are too many people that try to turn any event that is supposed to focus on someone else into an event where the focus switches to them.

I find that headline to be misleading as the Pastor did not turn the attention to himself  but then Mr. Bailey seems to fail to grasp what the word ‘narcissist’ means. I hesitate to go to Mr. Bailey’s website lately simply because I do not like it when some people mock others.

Those that mock are saying something about themselves and that is they are greater, more superior, more perfect than the people or person they are mocking. Their actions remind me of the verse about removing the beam out of one’s eye before removing the toothpick out of another person’s eye.

Mr. Bailey should know that verse, after all he attended one of the top Christian (at one time) universities in Canada. Yet, somehow he feels that scripture doesn’t apply to him and that he is free to bring ‘shame’ upon others for their misdeeds.  He really should take a hard look at himself before he attacks others.

He rejects Jesus and salvation thus he has nothing better to offer those he considers to be offenders of the Christian faith. He really doesn’t have a leg to stand upon, as over the length of time I have been reading his website, he has done or said nothing to show that he has a better grip on Christianity than those he mocks.

In fact, I do not think he believes anything so he really shouldn’t say anything about anyone else. He has a large log to remove before he can comment upon the actions of others.

Instead of acting superior, Jesus said to humble oneself, to take the lower seat at a dinner and so on. We are not here to mock others even if we think we have mastered the Christian faith.

 
Comments Off on Much To Talk About-11

Posted by on September 25, 2013 in academics, science, theology

 

1,000 years

There are many people who use this term to support their idea that the 6 day creation was actually thousands of years, if not millions of years, long. They cannot accept the fact that God took 6 24 hour days to create everything and there are reasons for that rejection.

But this article is not about those reasons. It is about how people translate the two passages that talk about 1,000 years and a day. The first thing that people need to remember is that those who know ancient languages can say almost anything they want when it comes to what the original language words mean in English or some other language.

They will find support for their point of view any way they can even if it means distorting what scripture says. The key question to ask them is: are their translations of the biblical passage of God or not? This is very important for the believer; for too often they blindly accept the word of an ‘expert’ simply because they claim to be a Christian.

Then they get confused because another ‘expert’ says something different about the meanings of the same original language words. The believer must look beyond the surface of original language knowledge and look to see if God is with the person making the translation.

If the translation says something different from the Bible then you know that the translator is not following God and his or her translation is their own ideas and not from God.

I am going to quote both passages first then point out a couple of key English words that do not allow for these verses to be used to support a thousand-year day.

For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it passes by,
[d]Or as a watch in the night (Ps. 90:4 NASB)

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. (2 Peter 3:8)

Notice the bold words. Those words are not words of equality. In other words those passages are NOT saying that a thousand years equals one day nor do they say that one day equals a thousands years.

They are making a simple comparison to illustrate to the biblical readers that time does not exist for God. God invented time for humans, he is not governed by it nor does he mark passing days. He has no need of a calendar.

These verses do not apply to Genesis one or any creation passage. They are not referring to any part of God’s creative act but simply informing people that time is of no meaning to God. Months, weeks, days and years are all the same to him.

 
Comments Off on 1,000 years

Posted by on September 24, 2013 in academics, creation

 

Science Is Not The Authority

#1.  Joel Watts has posted a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson over at his website. There is nothing much to read over there except for the quote, which I will re-quote here, but I will post the link anyways

http://unsettledchristianity.com/2013/09/quote-of-the-day-tyson-on-truth/

if you want to assert a truth, first make sure it’s not just an opinion that you desperately want to be true.

That quote actually works both ways and Tyson and other evolutionists violate it on a daily basis. They cannot verify one claim made about evolution yet they assert their theory as a truth when it is really only an opinion for an alternative to the truth.

Every evolutionist will tell you that a Christian truth is merely an assertion or an opinion even though they cannot find one minute detail that makes the Christian truth untrue. They simply do not want to believe God, his word or humble themselves to be servants of God.

They want their own ideas so they have to dismiss, without consideration, those truths from the Bible. Science is not an authority on origins nor on God’s word. it is a fallible, corrupt, etc., field of research run by fallible and corrupt, etc.,  human beings. It has no permission to judge God or his word, nor do the humans who participate in this field and it was not bestowed with any authority status over God and his word. Nor were humans.

The accusation that Christian truths are mere assertions or opinions is unfounded and done more out of wishful thinking on the part of the unbeliever than out of fact. The unbelief of those who reject God and his word blind their eyes so that they cannot see the truth or brings fear to them so that they will not change their minds and follow God’s truth when they discover that the Bible is correct.

#2. Peter Enns has gotten desperate as he now posts a 12 point attack on someone who is declaring his stand with God.  I do not have time to go through all the points to demonstrate his desperation but I will address a few.

It is a comment he makes in his conclusion that demonstrates the deception put on him has taken hold and has a strong grasp of Mr. Enns. I will get to that at the end.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/09/defending-a-literal-reading-of-genesis-an-elderly-pastors-hill-to-die-on/

This is a posture of anti-intellectualism.

This quote comes from his point #3 and I can’t get the whole point here as it screws up my website quote system. But this is the  strategy of most evolutionary thinkers. They think that opposing their views means the opposition is opposing intellectualism. it is not. it is opposing false teachings.

There is nothing in the Bible that says intellectualism is wrong but how one uses their intellect will be right or it will be wrong. If one uses their intellect to pursue and advocate lies then they are wrong, not their intellectual ability but how they used it.

Those believers who oppose evolutionary thinking are opposing the lies that come from the wrong use of the evolutionists’ use of their intellect not the intellect itself. The Christian faith needs Christian intellectuals who will see through the arguments of these false teachers and expose those lies for what they really are-false teaching.

The doctrine of creation is simply declared a “fundamental of the faith

This is Mr. Enns’ point 4 in his attack and he should be careful as Jesus himself said, if you will not believe Moses how will you believe me? (John 5). Jesus spoke of creation not evolution and you will notice that he nor his disciples every once correct Moses’ writings in Genesis.

If Moses were incorrect why would Jesus and his disciples maintain a lie? In fact, why would God allow for the people of Israel to believe Genesis as Moses wrote it for thousands of years and have his holy prophets continue that belief if Moses got it wrong?

God and Jesus do not lie so why would they allow Moses to lie on their behalf? Lying is a sin and allowing Moses to lie would mean that both God and Jesus advocated that their people sin and that is ridiculous.

Of course creation is a ‘fundamental of the faith’ because it is true.

Evolution destroys Christianity because the entire Christian faith hangs on a literal reading of Genesis 1-3.

No, evolution doesn’t destroy Christianity because evolution is built upon a lie and unverifiable claims. The Christian faith doesn’t hang on a ‘literal reading of Genesis 1-3’ because Christianity is built upon the truth which includes Genesis 1-3.

Evolutionists cannot even verify the supposed original conditions that were present when their idea of life took root, nor can they pinpoint their original common ancestor that supposedly started it all.

Then if they claim they have, they have no way to verify that claim. What people do not understand is that evolutionist can pick any one-celled creature and claim it is the original common ancestor. No one would be the wiser because some ‘expert’ said it was so.

Their problem is that there is no way for them to observe that one-celled creature ‘evolving’ into other species. It is an unreplicable and unobservable claim that requires more faith than belief in God and Genesis does.

To each his own. I, however, am genuinely saddened at the thought of anyone feeling that this is the stand to take as the light of one’s life begins to dim.

Here is his comment in his concluding remarks that shows everyone that his being deceived is very thorough. Why would anyone be sad when a man of God, who served as a pastor for 60 years takes a stand with the God he served?

Of course taking this stand is important for any believer because 1. it is the truth; and 2. one who represents their God as having the truth must stand with his words or they are not representing their God and making their work and the Bible, along with God,  all a lie.

Who would want to follow a God that they knew was nothing but a lie? Only ultra-fanatics. Why is Mr. Enns sad? He should be cheerful that people still make that stand with God yet he has been so thoroughly deceived that this is anathema ( something intensely disliked or loathed) to him and only evil hates it when people stand with God.

The Bible is the truth and the final authority on all aspects of life, including origins. Science is not and science is being used on a daily basis to lead people away from God. Evil tries to deceive believers into thinking that they can follow God while calling him a liar and his word a lie. He does this by using ‘exerts’, scientific fields of research and enough double-talk to confuse the unwary and weak believer.

There is no permission given by God or Jesus to take scientific declarations or theories, or conclusions over their word and Christians need to wake up and realize this fact. Secular science is wrong and is used as a tool to deceive.

 

 
Comments Off on Science Is Not The Authority

Posted by on September 22, 2013 in creation, science

 
 
%d bloggers like this: