RSS

Much To Talk About- 29

29 Jan

Since I have the day off, I thought it wise to deal with more issues being raised by those who do not believe the Bible. I had trouble putting a title to this one as I wanted to use questions for people to think about but I do not think I would be able to be consistent and carry the questions throughout.

There will be questions with no answers because you need to think about these issues and see for yourself how far the unbelieving world goes in violating their own rules to avoid the truth.

#1. Pottery Inscription: http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/keith-whitelam-on-the-jerusalem-ostracon/

Even though this is linked to a West article, it is not about West. It is about the words Keith Whitelam used and were quoted by West.

It is one more example of the way in which biblical archaeology tries to incorporate even the smallest of finds into its network of interpretations in order to establish ‘facts on the ground’.

I believe it was last year that I asked Chris Rollston the question, ‘When does a Hebrew inscription mean a Hebrew Inscription?’ It was asked after reading his article turning a Hebrew Inscription into a writing from another language.

So now I get to rephrase it and ask Mr. Whitelam, when is biblical evidence biblical evidence? If biblical evidence is not evidence for biblical people or events then why is anyone trying to dig in the Holy Land?

Basically, that quote is an example of hypocrisy and a double standard in action. Unbelieving scholars and archaeologist do the exact same thing as Galil does for their theories and evidence against the biblical record yet they think it is okay for them to do it but not for Bible believers.

Now I may not go as far as Galil did and say it proves King Solomon existed, because one, I already know that he did and two, there is no real way to connect that inscription to Solomon. I do agree with Galil that it does prove a level of literacy in the ancient world and if the translation is correct it does tell us that the ancients were able to determine the difference in qualities of wine, among other products.

Of course, I am only going on what I have read in that linked post and would need more information before going any further. The other part that demonstrates the same hypocrisy and double standard on the part of unbelievers is found in the following words:

the claims that have made for the significance of this find, even by the standards of the extravagant claims of biblical archaeology, are a string of mind boggling assumptions

Obviously he hasn’t read many unbelieving archaeologists’ works or theories, not to mention evolutionary ideas.

#2. The Christian Response?: http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/from-the-total-depravity-file-the-case-of-larry-brinkin/

What a despicable person.  His sentence is insufficient.  Indeed, it is far too inadequate.

Though I agree the man did very wrong and sinful acts I can’t bring myself to be as judgmental and condemning as West does. Whenever children are involved in a crime, whether as victim or violator, people lose all sense of justice, fairness, mercy and they forget the other biblical teachings that guide us in these matters.

Where is the call to prayer for this man? Where are the people working to get him to repent of his sins? Where are the calls to forgive and to remove the beams from out own eyes before we cast judgment?  Last I looked, child pornography was not the unforgivable sin yet many people act like it was. Last I looked, none of us are perfect and sinless, though we may not commit such crimes, our sin disqualifies us from being judge jury and executioner of others.

We need to approach all sins and crimes biblically, bring justice for if Christians do not do it, who will? And if justice is perverted in one case then no one has justice. Yes we need to protect the innocent but we do not sin in the process.

#3. Ancient Aliens: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paula-froelich/proof-of-ancient-aliens-i_b_4682168.html?utm_hp_ref=arts&ir=Arts

One of the most amazing, inspiring museums a lot of people will (sadly) never get to visit is the National Museum Of Iraq in Baghdad.

It has collections that include art and artifacts from ancient Sumerian, Babylonian, Akkadian, Assyrian and Chaldean civilizations – collections that put the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Louvre to shame. And, despite being looted in 2003, it also has the Nimrud gold collection–which features gold jewelry and figures of precious stone that date to the 9th century BCE–and the collection of stone carvings and cuneiform tablets from Uruk that date back to 3500 and 3000 BCE.

Basically, there’s some old, ancient shizz in there. And amongst the old, ancient art are some jars with some really weird, unexplained figures on them…Because, If this ain’t proof of aliens, I don’t know what is.

Two things: First, this article is evidence to support the argument that unqualified people should not interpret ancient artifacts; Second, She doesn’t know what proof is for ancient aliens. For all we know the potter may have been a bad artist or just having a bad day or yet, the clay just wouldn’t work the way it should have.

There are many more legitimate reasons for the face on that pot than leaping immediately to ancient aliens. For all we know, modern art made its debut 3,000 years ago. Or it is just a fad. Better still, maybe Picasso wasn’t an innovator after all.

One thing we do know is that art is a very subjective and creative field which has a host of reasons why figures are depicted in the manner that they are. We can’t limit an ancient artist’s intent to one modern wing-nut theory just because it is a popular idea today.

#4. Worldview: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/01/clean-up-after-your-worldview.html

Cookies and worldviews crumble. That yours does so is nothing to be embarrassed about.

Really, does this mean that McGrath thinks his will not crumble and be the last ‘worldview’ standing?  Actually, I have come to detest the word ‘worldview.’ I do not even know what it really means or how it is applied.

I have an idea that the word is being used to mean that there is no such thing as a right or wrong belief, but it is hard to say. People have so many distorted definitions of words to choose from in order to present their alternative ideas.

It is a nice hiding place for those wishing to avoid the truth, though. I can hear it now–“well, that is your worldview, mine is different.” One thing I know is that the word is not new and have heard it in some movie or television show or documentary from the 50s or 60s approx.

To let you know, Christianity isn’t a world view. It is a personal belief that has implications for the whole world. It sheds the light on false religious beliefs and worldviews so people can see their error and know what is the truth.

Don’t get caught up in modern jargon because you might end up confused and lose sight of your purpose as a believer in Jesus.

#5. The Bible and Science: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/01/father-george-coyne-on-the-bible-and-science.html

I really wish McGrath would stop putting quotes inside images because I do this either early in the morning or late at night and it is easy to make a mistake when quoting manually.

The Christian Scriptures were written between 3600 and 1400 years before the development of modern science. How in the world could there be any science in the Bible? There cannot be. The Bible is not teaching science.

Modern scientific evolutionary is the best explanation we have of the origin of the universe and all life…

Really? SO why is the man working as a representative of God then? Obviously, he is wrong on the best explanation for origins and he needs to resign from representing God to the world. He is now representing secular science and telling people God is wrong.

Who would want to believe in a God that is proven wrong by sinful, deceived, fallible unbelieving mortal man? Who would want to represent such a god?

The best explanation for origins is Genesis 1 because it is the truth.

#6. Parenting: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/01/a-new-commandment.html

We recently talked here about the suggestion that the ten commandments were a missed opportunity to mention other important things. And so I thought this proposed new commandment was worth sharing.

The author of that new ‘command’ seems to forget that God did tell parents how to raise their children

Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.Prov. 22:6

God has given parents some latitude to raise their children but he does not give permission for others to force their ways upon parents. Parents are being told here they have freedom in child rearing, after all free choice applies to parenting just as it does to origins and religious beliefs.

What God is not doing is giving permission to train children to sin or be evil and there are many other passages of scripture guiding parents on what to do when it comes to parenting. The author of that quote does not have that authority nor does he or she get to say what is or isn’t thinking.

Just because some people do not accept or agree with the Bible doesn’t mean that those who do are not thinking or being told hat to think. Of course, you realize that evolutionists are violating that quoted precept by gaining a monopoly upon the science classroom and forcing their evolutionary ways upon vulnerable students.

#7. Clean/Unclean: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/01/something-in-the-flood-story-isnt-kosher.html

One that was drawn to my attention recently is the mention of kosher or clean animals in the flood story in Genesis. Genesis 7:2 is the first reference to clean animals, and it is made without explanation. The author and readers take it for granted to such an extent that they don’t even notice that a detail is being introduced into the story that required explanation – for Noah, if not for them.

If we didn’t know that notions of clean and unclean food predate the flood story in its present form, we might consider the Book of Leviticus to be what in television is known as “retconning” – something introduced later in a series to address an earlier discrepancy or puzzle.

But that still wouldn’t solve the problem. Noah didn’t have access to that book.

And so presumably at some point someone will need to introduce a time travel plot twist to finally explain how Noah could know what animals were kosher.

This is an example of finding some minute point to distort and build into a mountain in an act of desperation to justify one’s rejection of the biblical record. Just because God doesn’t record knowing being told about clean and unclean animals doesn’t mean Noah didn’t know about God’s rules on eating.

We do know that Noah was a righteous man but how was he righteous if he did not know God’s rules? We have no record of God providing laws previous to Moses YET the world was punished for sinning with a global flood. How could God do that if the people were not apprised of God’s rules somewhere in the past?

Then how could God judge and punish Cain for murder if Cain was not aware of God’s rules about taking a life or that murder was actually wrong? Contrary to evolutionary thinking, the animals didn’t tell them, nor did we inherit a sense of morality from the animal kingdom.

The only rule we know that God gave to Adam and Eve was:

16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [n]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” (Genesis 2 NASB)

Then later after the fall we read

25 Adam [o]had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him [p]Seth, for, she said, “God [q]has appointed me another [r]offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him.” 26 To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call [s]upon the name of the Lord.

If they called upon the name of the Lord, God must have instructed them at some point as to right and wrong including dietary habits. God does not have to mention every little thing he did in order for it to have taken place. Sometimes we do get to use our common sense and see what is important to include in scripture and what is not important.

Mosaic law was not copied from Hammurabi or any other ancient law code. It is the latter than copied from God because God had laid down the rules from the beginning.

#8. Cheering Against God: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/01/bill-nye-vs-ken-ham-giving-credibility-to-nonsense-or-walking-into-an-apologetic-war-machine/

Bill Nye will be debating Ken Ham in a week’s time–inexplicably, on Ham’s home turf, where he controls the terms and the crowd.

Nye is either going to get destroyed by Ken Ham or at least grow extremely frustrated with Ham’s tactics.

I hope I’m wrong, but I’m not (unless I am, but we’ll need to wait and see).

Of course, Peter Enns doesn’t see it that way as he puts this debate on a human level and he is not the only person to have this attitude. There is a thread over at Formerly Fundie that does the same thing

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/creationist-ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-the-science-guy-why-im-forced-to-root-against-creationism/#comment-1222181505

Now no one thinks that Ken Ham is God but he is representing God’s word and on God’s side thus in effect, cheering against Ham is equal to cheering against God. Why? Because people are choosing to root for a lie over the truth.

The question is Why would people who claim to be Christian root for a deceived, sinful, fallible unbelieving mortal man over the Most High God who is holy, sinless, undeceived,infallible and immortal?

It does not make sense especially when they make false accusations against God’s representative

Ham can’t and won’t give one square inch on his science because if he does his finely tuned worldview will crumble to the ground–a worldview that includes deeply held (and erroneous) views of God and the Bible.

There is that word ‘worldview’ again and it means absolutely nothing here except to make creation human instead of divine. Notice that Enns does not elaborate on those erroneous held views of God and the Bible. He can’t because he holds them himself.  Plus Ham can’t change his science because it is being built upon the foundation of truth not the lies of secular science.

The truth doesn’t change this is why we do not see Genesis 1 being altered by God over the centuries. The only thing that changes are lies and eventually, the person holding to lies has to change to the truth, . Many people love secular science because it changes, well that should tell them that secular science doesn’t have the answer and needs to keep changing when proven to be supporting lies.

What makes that view wrong is that many people die without hearing the truth. Secular science robs them of that benefit.

Ham is not capable of true debate, and his views are not worth debating to begin with.

So much for open-mindedness and objectivity on the part of those who do not believe God. The unbeliever demands that the believer be open-minded and objective when listening to the secular viewpoint but the unbeliever rarely returns the favor.

I do not always agree with Ken Ham on his views or actions and he does and says things that may not be the smartest thing to do or say. Sometimes I challenge his views as I do not see some of them as biblical but that disagreement does not make Ken Ham wrong nor does it invalidate a young Earth creation. It also doesn’t mean that evolutionists are correct. Evolutionists of any variety are not correct at all.

All it means is that Ken Ham doesn’t have all the answers yet. I don’t have all the answers yet that is why there are so many of us out there proclaiming the truth, we need each other to make sure we do not get too prideful and fall. When there is disagreement that does not mean that there is a schism in the faith, it just means we may not have the correct answer as God ha snot revealed it yet.

One thing is for sure, when creationists disagree that does not open the door for OEC or evolutionary ideas. It means we look to God for the answer not secular science or deceived people.

Rooting against God is not a smart thing to do. It makes the person rooting for evil  an enemy of God. That is not a good position to be in whether one claims to be a Christian or not.

So pray for Ken Ham and the debate. Ask God to make sure Ham speaks the truth and that that truth will reach many an unbelieving ear, changing them to believing ones.

Advertisements
 
Comments Off on Much To Talk About- 29

Posted by on January 29, 2014 in academics, archaeology, Bible, creation, General Life, Justice, science, theology

 

Comments are closed.

 
%d bloggers like this: