Much To Talk About-16

There is a lot to talk about this week, much more than usual, McGrath has a post linking different sites that have issues needing addressing, McClellan has 2 different recent articles that need attention and a host of others.

#1. Daniel McClellan:

The Ipuwer Papyrus has been talked about, discussed ad nauseam for a long time now. it is actually hard to pinpoint when it was actually written. If one is to believe secular scholars, then the papyrus was written well before the Exodus took place.

But then unbelieving scholars do not want to be seen authenticating evidence for the Biblical Exodus. If they are, they will lose their reputations, standing and academic rewards they treasure. They would also have to eat a lot of crow.

Believing scholars should not side with nor accept the unbelieving scholar’s dating or theories mainly because the latter has no evidence to support their ideas. There is nothing to indicate that the Ipuwer Papyrus is part of their selected genre nor do the unbelieving scholars produce any evidence for a previous event that would inspire that author.

They also cannot provide any credible evidence for their early dating. Much like I. Finkelstein, they just declare it so and stick with that. Now I can’t say it does speak of the ten plagues but that would be an event that would inspire the author to write as he did.

I am inclined to side with Jacobovici  on this point only–that the Ipuwer papyrus COULD BE speaking on the plagues. I can’t be sure, no one can but I do not see it being written earlier than that.

One of the problems with most unbelieving scholars is that they want to see the evidence for biblical events be very literal and use the exact words the KJV Bible uses 3,000 years or more after the fact. They are very unrealistic in their demands for biblical evidence.

If you want to read up on the Ipuwer Papyrus, here is a link to the topic:;_ylt=AnxG8H68wfn0odwJdvg4ZN2bvZx4?p=Ipuwer+Papyrus&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-900

#2. Daniel McClellan:

The short answer is ‘no’ but many people do actually think that Mormons are Christian. i do not know if the former president Jimmy Carter still holds to his views on the subject but he stated as much in this 2007 interview

Newsweek: Do you think a Mormon is a Christian?
Carter: Yes, I do. I have a cousin who is a Mormon and she married one of the Marriott family. I don’t know anyone who’s more devout in their faith than she and her family. I admire them very much.

The Bible has different ideas:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel [d]contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be [e]accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel [f]contrary to what you received, he is to be [g]accursed! (Gal. 1 NASB)

The mentioning of angels covers the Mormon angel Moroni. He brought a different gospel supposedly to Joseph Smith, who ran with it and used this idea to con so many people and others seeing how easy it was to deceive, continued his deceptive work.

The Mormons claim to follow the Bible but if you examine their religious writings , you will see that the latter contradict biblical teaching constantly.  Their teaching of being married after earthly life contradicts Jesus’ teaching of non-marriage in heaven. Their teaching that Mormons will become gods of their own planets contradict God’s teaching in Revelation.

Their claim that Jesus and Satan are spiritual brothers is false and has no biblical basis (see Mormon doctrine p. 163) And there are other contradictions with biblical teaching in the Mormon beliefs. 

No, Mormonism is not Christian no matter how hard the Mormons try to present themselves as a legitimate faith. They are not Christians just because a former president or religious leaders say that they are. The final word on the subject is God and he does not endorse the Mormon beliefs for it did not come from him but evil.

Mormonism is a cult even though they may include some biblical teachings in their daily lives. You need some truth in the con to snare the unwary.  Mormons do a good job of deceiving its members and the general public.

#3. rogueclassicism:

{This and the few following points originate from McGrath’s site but I will try to link to the original author each time for clarity}

Claim is made by someone who is not a specialist (i.e. with a degree) in the discipline

This is point #1 on the author’s ‘skept-o-meter’ and it is very misleading. It implies that one has to have academic degrees in a given subject before they are allowed to address a topic or issue.

This is a secular criteria and not one a believer should follow. Yes we do need to study, as the examples of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann only tell us that ignorance is not a christian virtue. We do need to study and research different issues not only to find the truth but to at least be in the ballpark when discussing the topic with unbelievers.

We need to know what the other side is going to say and we need to be able to counter their arguments with the truth intelligently. This does not mean that every believer has to go get university degrees to discuss issues as that would be unrealistic and impossible but it does mean that one should read more than their denominational position on the matter.

Believers also need to be filled with God’s wisdom in order to know how to present what they know to the unbeliever. We just do not open our mouths and let the words fly out–God is not going to do all the work, we at least need to know what to say and when to say it.

That criteria above is meant by unbelievers to limit who can say what and keep biblical and other topics in the realm of the ‘elite’. Before you speak, educate yourself on the topic asking God for help so you do not look foolish when questioned by those unbelievers who do know the issue thoroughly.

Claim has not appeared in a scholarly journal nor is ‘in press’

This is another false criteria. The truth doe snot need to be published in scholarly journals or peer review media. That demand is a form of censorship meant to hide the truth not expose it. Christians need to present the truth intelligently, with love, wisdom and understanding and there is no command to publish in scholarly works.

#4 Michael Sheiser:

The non-christian world is going to call any evidence or theory supporting the Bible or biblical events ‘paleo-babble’. They think the cross and biblical events are foolish nonsense thus what can believers expect from the unbelieving crowd. We are not going to get applause from those who do not want the Bible to be shown as true.

We will also get such accusations from those who compromise and accept secular teaching on different biblical accounts.

I just don’t think the Bible was ever intended to teach us science.

The problem with this thinking is that the author presumes that origins came the way secular scientists claim. What he ignores is that the Bible is not teaching us science when it relates God’s creative act. The Bible is teaching us about God, his supernatural power and our real origins. There is a big difference between the two.

The Bible also doesn’t claim to be teaching ‘modern science’. It does tell us that it is revealing God to us. Anyone who claims that the Bible is teaching bad science doesn’t understand the Bible or its purpose but are trying to distract believers from the truth while at the same time hiding from it.

#5. Bryan Bibb:

My point is that a careful, respectful, and faithful reading of Genesis will examine the creation texts as literature rather than as scientific description.

This thinking goes along with the previous post but with a minor difference. The Bible is not literature as unbelievers or compromisers would define the word. The Bible is a revelation of fact and truth and though many people are swayed by scientific arguments and thought, that fact doesn’t change.

Those who adopt secular teachings of origins over God’s word are swapping the truth for the error. They are repenting from true teaching and embracing false teaching and that is the wrong direction to go in. They are being deceived not the believers of the biblical text.

What Mr. Bibb writes is typical of those who want to remove the truth from the Bible and insert their own false alternatives. They think that they can’t ‘do science’ if they accept Gen. 1 as it is written. But they are not ‘doing science’ by accepting evolutionary thinking. They are doing science fiction. Evolution is not science it is a desperate attempt to fill the void left by rejecting the truth of Genesis 1.

#6 Eye on ICR:

When people criticize those who believe God’s word, they often do not read the passages in question thoroughly enough. The passages on the flood do not mention snapping turtles yet were turtles not on the ark?

When the word ‘all’ is used that means ‘all’ but in this case the Bible limits the type of animals that were on the ark:

you shall bring two of every kind into the ark,

Not a pair of every animal but the representatives of the groupings that God made at creation. Science has yet to figure out what a ‘kind’ is which tells us their limitations and undermines their credibility concerning origins.

If the dinosaurs were not on the ark, their direct ancestors were and by ancestors I mean a pair of animals that will spawn future dinosaurs. Just like all species of dogs were not on the ark but the pair of ancestors which allowed for the breeding of future dogs were there.

Is it important to know if dinosaurs were on the ark or not? No. It is important to realize that when God made the animals, he included dinosaurs in the whole group and that they lived at the same time as  Adam and his descendants lived.

There is more to this topic but time does not permit top continue the discussion.

#7. John Shore:

When a person doesn’t agree with God’s rules and declarations of what is or isn’t sin, they come up with all sorts of convoluted arguments that make no sense and has nothing to do with refuting scripture.

As proof that God condemns homosexuality, anti-gay Christians commonly point to the laws prohibiting homosexuality found in Leviticus.

Actually, it isn’t just Lev. that condemns homosexuality. Paul in the NT does so as well and that recording tells the world that God hasn’t changed his mind about the homosexual preference.

So there is Jesus directing us to understand that if breaking a Biblical “law” does not violate the Great Commandment, then that law should no longer be considered a moral law.

This is a prime example of what I mean by convoluted argument. The author of that piece ignores parts of what ‘love’ is to justify his acceptance of a condemned sexual practice. he forgets that love sets rules, condemns different activities and also punishes those who disobey its rules.

The author in his haste to justify homosexuality is actually appealing to the very thing that condemns it. Read the 2 passages the author quotes just before that point. Love isn’t total freedom where one gets to do as they please–that is actually anarchy and anarchy is not love but destruction.

The author wants love but he doesn’t want to do what loves wants. He wants to do his own thing and that isn’t love. Jesus said, if you love me keep my commandments. Notice Jesus didn’t say, ‘if you love me do as you want.” But the latter is what homosexuals and their supporters want. They reject the former because they are not allowed to do as they please.



One thought on “Much To Talk About-16

  1. “When a person doesn’t agree with God’s rules and declarations of what is or isn’t sin, they come up with all sorts of convoluted arguments that make no sense and has nothing to do with refuting scripture.

    As proof that God condemns homosexuality, anti-gay Christians commonly point to the laws prohibiting homosexuality found in Leviticus.

    Actually, it isn’t just Lev. that condemns homosexuality. Paul in the NT does so as well and that recording tells the world that God hasn’t changed his mind about the homosexual preference.”

    Actually, this shows me that PEOPLE did not change their mind in between.

    I gave a strong theological argument here:

Comments are closed.