RSS

Monthly Archives: December 2014

A Big Thank You

to all those who have read the posts placed on this website

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 9,800 times in 2014. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 4 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

The busiest day of the year was September 12th with 196 views. The most popular post that day was The Myth Of Persecution- 4.

If you liked what I wrote please pass the word to others.  If you didn’t feel free to comment and let me know your opinion.

 
Comments Off on A Big Thank You

Posted by on December 31, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Superlative Sunday 2

To continue harvesting from Rachel held Evans website, I go to the following link:

#1. A Good Womanhttp://rachelheldevans.com/blog/3-things-you-might-not-know-about-proverbs-31

That’s because, too often, we focus on the Proverbs 31 Woman’s  roles as a way of reducing womanhood to marriage, motherhood, and domesticity, when really, this passage is about character that transcends both gender and circumstance. 

The real question is, why are women so afraid to be this type of woman who truly cares about her family and goes the extra distance to ensure their well-being? She is wrong of course and doesn’t present any compelling reason why women should be against marriage, motherhood and domesticity? Her arguments sound like she wants to be a man and is uncomfortable with being a woman.

Her 3 reasons are off course as well.

Proverbs 31 is a poemAs a poem, Proverbs 31 should not be interpreted prescriptively as a job description for all women. Its purpose is to celebrate wisdom-in-action, not to instruct women everywhere to get married, have children, and take up the loom. 

We also need to ask , why do people who are unwilling to obey scripture always trying to change the nature of the passage and attempt to get it to say what it does not say?  No it is a description of what is a good woman who is selfless and not demanding of others. Women need role models so why do they reject this one? Is it because it reminds them that they are not in charge and that their duties are different from their husbands?

Is it because women are looking for the easy life, to be waited on hand and foot or is it because they think they are entitled to being worshiped by their husbands without their doing anything to deserve such adulation? It is hard to say because most complaining women do not provide us with their real reasons in their arguments against this passage. They opt to join the chorus spouting the argument in the quote above which has its origins in sinful feminism and anti-biblical teaching.

The “Target Audience” of Proverbs 31 is Men…As I did more research, I learned that indeed the only instructive language in the poem is directed at the poem’s intended male audience: “Praise her for all her hands have done.

Then she is not looking hard enough or reading very well. The target audience is for both men and women and women you do not want the target audience to be men only for what male would not want a woman like that? We would be demanding that all women ascribe to those instructions because a woman like that takes so much stress and frustrations from our shoulders and makes our home life like paradise.

This point in the quote is just a result of the typical cherry picking that goes on with those who want their own way and not God’s. They will dismiss God’s descriptions for a good women in hopes that he will not notice their refusal to be such a person and bless them anyways. What these women miss is, the command that says all women must act in this manner.

There is none. The passage provides women with a goal, a target to shoot for and no words are anywhere in scripture that tells a woman that they must be this way or else. So why do they get their knickers tied into a knot over this passage? Probably because the man they love wants them to be a good woman and they want something else for their lives.

Proverbs 31 Celebrates Valor…Ahava repeated a finding I’d discovered in my research, that the first line of the Proverbs 31 poem—“a virtuous woman who can find?”—is best translated, “a woman of valor who can find?”

I checked the definitive OT commentary, Keil & Delitzsch on that verse and no, the quote is wrong. Here is one thing that they say about those words in Proverbs 31:10

The poet thereby means to say that such a wife is a more precious possession than all
earthly things which are precious, and that he who finds such an one has to
speak of his rare fortune.

It has nothing to do with valor as their words earlier state:

In the connection chayil ‘eeshet and the like, the idea of
bodily vigour is spiritualized to that of capacity, ability, and is generalized;
in virtus the corresponding transition from manliness, and in the originally
Romanic “Bravheit,” valour to ability, is completed

But then what are we to expect from people who are unwillingly to be a good woman. They will find excuses to change what the text says in order to fit their selfish desires. Since God has not directly and overtly said women are to be this way women have a choice to strive for this goal or not. They should not be making a federal case out of it or use it to aid their disobedience of God.

Women need to learn how to discern correctly and see what is good teaching and what is false before flying off the handle in rebellion. A wise woman would do so. A lot of the descriptions in that passage are also found in many different verses throughout the Bible which do instruct both men and women believers on how to treat others, so their dismissal of this chapter means they do not want to obey God when he sets down further, similar instructions on how to act in his kingdom.

#2. What is the Bible?– http://robbellcom.tumblr.com/post/66107373947/what-is-the-bible

I will just answer that question here as most of what was written just didn’t make sense. The Bible is the Word of God revealed to men via human authors who were inspired and led by the HS. The Bible contains real history, instruction and direction for all those who want to be a follower of God, along with providing an ultimate standard for right and wrong, morality for all people to learn so that they know what they are to do and what laws they are violating.

It is a book that both provides peace and conflict at the same time. It will either unite people together or divide them as humans tend to reject many of its words because they think they know better than the Holy Creator of all things. It is a book that is copied by false religions in hopes of making their lies more attractive to unsuspecting people, thereby trapping them into a life of sin and leads them to destruction.

It is not a human sourced book, nor a part of a religious or political conspiracy meant to enslave people, especially women nor make them second class or inferior. Without it we would not know how to please God or obey him. Sadly, many people do not want that structure so they either dismiss it, create their own way or alter the text to fit their ideas for life and the church. They are deceived people.

I think that, in a nutshell, that answers Mr. Bell’s question. I am sure others will have some more points to add to the ones I have placed here as my words were not exhaustive but presenting an overview of God’s word.

if we didn’t have the Bible then we and the church would be a rudderless ship incapable of steering it to eternal life.

#3.  Discernment http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/bible-clear

But these quotes should serve as a humbling reminder that rhetorical claims to the Bible’s clarity on a subject do not automatically make it so. One need not discount the inspiration and authority of Scripture to hold one’s interpretations of Scripture with an open hand. 

The Bible is very clear about what it teaches, the question is, are the receivers of God’s word reading and applying it correctly? People will use the Bible to justify their pursuit of their own selfish desires. Junia is doing it, Rachel Held Evans and other women like her, are doing it, so are unbelievers and so on.

What they all lack is true discernment of God’s word and realization that there is an evil force out there attempting to and successfully deceiving readers of the Bible. Until people get this into their heads they are going to misunderstand what others are doing and misapply their actions and categorizing their actions under the heading of Christian when they are sinful.

Another thing these people and the church needs to realize is that there is NO biblical teaching telling anyone to interpret scriptures, especially in a manner that justifies sinful acts. There is biblical teaching to follow the HS to the truth which prevents us from bringing in existential type ideology into the church thereby confusing its members. Interpretation leads to existential ideology and confusion which tells you that that act is not of God but of the evil force so many pretend believers forget exists and is active in the world today. Existentialism is defined this way:

a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existentialism)

The Bible has a very clear determination of right and wrong, good and evil so everyone who reads it is without excuse.

But I find it both frightening and humbling to note that, often, the way we make the distinction between those who loved Scripture and those who used Scripture is hindsight. 

But there is a vast difference in her use of the word ‘loved’ here and reality. Anyone can love scripture but that doesn’t mean they accept it or obey it. There is a popular or well-known minimalist in the scholarly world named Phillip Davies who in a lecture for the Biblical Archaeology Society in the late ’90s declared that he would not have studied the Bible for 50 years if he did not love it.

The thing is, he does not believe, accept or even follow most of it. A minimalist rejects most of the OT and declares that it never happened. Loving scripture has little to do with obedience to God’s word. Jesus said, ‘if you love me keep my commandments.’ Notice he did not say ‘if you love me, love my scriptures.’ Love is correct action not just thinking good thoughts about the Bible’s contents.

And obedience means following the HS to the truth NOT going for the best interpretation. Yes we have problem people in the church today and throughout church history but that is because they did not obey Jesus but sought their own interpretations which in turn has created a lot of problems for all church members.

The Bible is clear, how we act on that clarity depends upon our attitudes and desires. Sadly, too many do not want biblical clarity but their own ideas thus they reside firmly in the personal interpretation area of life and refuse to come out and see the truth. They do not want to give up their perceived freedoms for something they think makes them inferior or limited.What they do not know is that their perceived freedoms are leading them to destruction and the ignored limitations lead them to life eternal.

 
Comments Off on Superlative Sunday 2

Posted by on December 31, 2014 in academics, Bible, church, faith, family, General Life, leadership, theology

 

Misguided Thinking

I have been sitting on this article for a while now thinking about it and wondering how I should proceed. To be truthful I do not want to hurt her or her faith but in reality she has some very misguided thoughts concerning homosexuality and the church. I will grant her that some pastors and church members are not biblically on target with their views but their correction just takes time, patience and the truth.

#1. May I make two requests? Love me, but remember that you cannot be more merciful than God. It isn’t mercy to affirm same-sex acts as good. Don’t compromise truth; help me to live in harmony with it.

I like this part of her article  and she does define her idea of love later on which I also do not have a problem with but her second paragraph makes me wonder if she was truly homosexual or just experimenting with it to see where her interests lie.

#2. I wish you knew that just because I didn’t choose this orientation, it doesn’t follow that I was “born this way” or that “God created me gay.” While genetics influences these traits, there is not a fixed predetermination.

Most of the complete point is good but it is here that I have a problem. Genetics plays no role in sexual preference no matter how hard the homosexual community and secular scientists try to make it so. The genetic make-up of our bodies has to do with the care of our physical form and does not influence our thinking, desires or pursuits of activities.

Sexual preference remains outside the realm of science and its desire to make people not responsible for their decision-making. How we think, feel and act are totally separate from our genes designed duties and we are responsible for what we think, do and say.

#3. I wish you knew a better way to help me honor my body by living in accord with the Creator’s design. I was born this way: female. God did create me a woman. Please don’t fall into the gnostic dualism that divides my spiritual life from the life I now live in my body. Christ became incarnate; my very body is now part of His body, the temple of the Holy Spirit

I am really not sure what she means by this point though it contains some misguided points of view. I know of no Christian pastor who would invoke a ‘gnostic dualism’ to teach about the body and our use of them. I wish she would provide scripture to support her idea that her body is now part of Christ’s body to see where she gets that thought for without it we cannot see if she is in line with biblical teaching or being fed a lot of false teaching.

#4. I wish you knew that you aren’t helping me follow Jesus either by demanding that my attractions change or by not allowing them to change. No one can promise me that my attractions will change. Jesus certainly didn’t. But don’t deny me that possibility either. (Especially if I’m an adolescent!) Both secular science and human experience attest to sexual fluidity and the potential for change.

No people shouldn’t demand that others change BUT that doesn’t mean that Jesus didn’t promise that your attractions will change when in fact Paul taught us that the redemptive work of Christ turns people into new creatures and old things have passed away (2 Cor. 5:17). So yes, you are promised that your attractions will change because being born again means you no longer want or desire sinful things and same-sex attraction is part of the old creature thus that attraction will go away and your attractions have changed.

Please do not appeal to secular science to make your point. that field of research is deceived and blind thus it cannot attest to spiritual work. Homosexuals need to learn what the Bible actually teaches before proclaiming what they want others to think about them. Sexual desire is corrupted by Adam’s fall just like everything else and we must remember that to move toward homosexual tendencies means we are listening to deceptive teaching and temptation to sin against God.

We need to learn and teach the truth about same-sex attraction so we know how to deal with it biblically.

#5. I wish you knew a better way to define “change.” Over many years, my experience of same-sex attraction went from being a continual fire to an occasional flicker. A man who still experiences same-sex attraction but is happily married to a woman, where he saw no possibility of a heterosexual relationship before, has indeed changed.

This idea depends upon the author’s definition of change. Does she mean just a change of attitude or a real born again change where the person is turned into a new creature and is made new? We do have a better way to define change, it is called repenting from one’s sins and casting them off as the Bible says. Or it is a simple refusing to bow to sinful temptation and resisting the devil. The Bible says ‘resist the devil and he will flee from you.’ So sometimes it sis not change that is needed but real spiritual warfare where one refuses to back down to evil.

#6. I wish you knew that I should be credited with the same moral agency and responsibility as everyone else in the Christian community. If unmarried heterosexuals are called to celibacy and are presumed in Christ to have the power to live out His commands, then so should I be. To treat me according to a different standard is to lower my dignity before God. I too am called to be holy.

The problem here is, how is she speaking? Is she speaking as a heterosexual married woman or as a single homosexual  one? It isn’t clear but if she is still identifying as a homosexual then she has not changed and she denies the redemptive work of Christ. There is just no such thing as a homosexual christian.

#7. I wish you knew that God teaches more about homosexual conduct than “Don’t.” He does teach that, but the truth about the body, sex, and the design and telos of creation reveals so much more.

As the pastors of my youth used to say– chapter and verse please. the author of that piece needs to present these scriptures in context and how they apply to homosexuality above and beyond the words, it is an abomination.The NT does not contradict the OT and what was sin in the Old is still sin in the new so that author needs to come up with some real scripture to back her point up or it is worthless.

#8. I wish you knew that it honors neither God, nor me, to apologize for His plan or design. I appreciate empathy for the pain my misdirected longings may cause, but God is not arbitrarily withholding something good from me. He is showing me what leads to life and human flourishing and is keeping me from that which will harm me. “Let love be without dissimulation.” Love me and tell me the truth.

The question is, does she really want the truth?  Although I agree with some of what she says here, she really hasn’t presented anything concrete to go on as she fails to really define where her sexuality stands. Is she a homosexual married to an opposite sex mate or is she a new creature who was redeemed by Christ from the chains of sin and now lives as a new creature with her homosexuality something that is now forever gone from her life?

The title of her article suggests the former which means she is still a homosexual who is trying to be different without the aid of Christ. It tells us that she hasn’t been truly redeemed but still possesses the old creature with the old desires and attractions, which means she still has a lot of work to do before she is free from her sinful past.

There is nothing in that article which demonstrates her new freedom in Christ. It seems that she still wants to be known and treated as if she remained a homosexual. This is the misguided thinking that so many people do have. They do not fully understand the teachings of Christianity and they simply adopt a new identity because they said a few words in a prayer at the prompting of a believer and told they have received salvation.

They do not grasp the complexity of what the Christian faith entails and how Christ actually works.There is a complete change.

The answer to this misguided thinking is for the church to slow down and teach its people correctly so that they understand the faith fully and know what they are talking about when they approach others to win them to the lord. Jesus didn’t send his disciples out on their own until they were well versed in his teachings and understood what they were proclaiming.

Jesus didn’t want a weak, unknowing group of people as his followers who did not know what they were doing when it was their turn to teach others about his faith.It was in Luke 10 that we read about Jesus sending his disciples out on their own, probably a full year or two after he called them to be his disciples. They were taught, knowledgeable, and prepared beforehand not the opposite.

We need to get rid of misguided thinking and make sure all members of the church know and understand the teachings of the faith.

 
Comments Off on Misguided Thinking

Posted by on December 31, 2014 in Bible, education, faith, General Life, homosexuality, leadership

 

Superlative Sunday

Rachel Held Evans has posted another edition of her weekly series and in turn it provides me with volumes of material to discuss. Today there will be only two of her year’s best that will be addressed here.

#1. Gender Equality– Again?http://juniaproject.com/about-2/

We are a volunteer community of women and men advocating for the inclusion of women in leadership in the Christian church and for mutuality in marriage. We believe that when interpreted correctly, the Bible teaches that both men and women are called to serve at all levels of the Church, and that leadership should be based primarily on gifting and not on gender

This is from their about page and when I read this and perused their website i decided to send them a question. I asked, by what verifiable authority do they have the right to change God’s word to fit their selfish and sinful desires?  I am awaiting an answer but am not sure if they will respond or not, as they like so many others who want to alter the biblical text, they have no spiritual authority from God to change his word.

All they have is their own personal preference and their dislike for a male-led church, as if the latter was a sinful action to take. We know that patriarchy is not a sinful style of leadership because God ordained it and has kept it in use for thousands of years. Now those who take leadership in the patriarchal set-up can be sinful and abuse their privilege of leadership but those individuals do not make patriarchy wrong or inferior to alternative styles of leadership.

All this about statement does is make public a self-confession by the participants, that they willfully sin against God and will proudly lead others astray from the truth and God himself. Do not women know that even being a dutiful housewife is serving alongside her husband in ministry? Their contribution relieves a lot of stress and other work from their husbands so he can concentrate on other duties God wants him to perform. Their work allows him blocks of prayer time which enables him to be strong in the faith and lead God’s people.

Their mission statement deepens their sin and shows how far from God they have traveled. For some reason these people think they know better than God on how to run his church. Instead of being humble and submissive to God’s word, they allow themselves to become proud, arrogant and rebellious.

I forget which article I found it in but the people of that website made the comment that Paul used a word only once and that lone  usage disqualified its definition and translation. That is a very misguided way to think for even I use words I have spoken many times only once and their usage is in line with their proper and intended definition. We can say the same for Paul’s use of certain words. he may have only used them once but he intended their meaning and purpose thus women being silent or not having authority over men is not an error or a mistranslation but God’s message to his church via Paul.

{I found the article: http://juniaproject.com/defusing-1-timothy-212-bomb/ }

People will attack other legitimate translational work simply because they do not like what the translators have done in their obedience to God. Junia are such people. We only need to point to God’s unchanging law about male priests and Jesus’ lack of reform in his time to show that the people of Junia is in total error on the topic.

There is more at work here than translation efforts where we draw our conclusions. If God did not institute female religious leadership in the beginning and no one changed that rule through thousands of years then it stands to reason we have it right and women need to refrain from having authority over a man and learn to be silent where God wants them to be silent.

Junia’s mission has no historical support and no biblical support either.

There is no evidence in the text that he was writing to establish a permanent restriction on all women for all time

I like it when groups like this make these type of statements and by the word ‘like’ I am being non-serious, sarcastic etc., as in their drive to get their selfish, sinful, false way into the church, they leave the church without guidance, instruction and rudderless.  If their point was accurate, it still doesn’t make their alternative the right action to take, it does not make their point of view correct nor from God. What it does do is require more scripture from God to instruct his people on what to do. If God says something different to the modern church than he did to the ancient one then he would become a hypocrite and sinful.

He would be telling the ancient church one thing and the modern one another bringing confusion to the church not light to them and the world. How sad Junia people are as they seek to hurt the church not enhance it for God’s glory. This group of people are misguided and confused at best. We can only hope they have not crossed the point of no return and are able to repent of their sinful ways before it is too late.

#2. Breastfeedinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/bunmi-laditan/how-to-breastfeed-appropriately_b_5530806.html

So you’ve decided to breastfeed. Fantastic! Breastfeeding is a wonderful way to nourish your baby while establishing early bonding. Unfortunately, breast milk comes out of breasts so there are a few ground rules that we need to cover.

As you know, (female) modesty is a highly protected value in modern society. Unless you’re a magazine cover model or in a music video, exposing your female udder flesh is entirely inappropriate. Science has proven that breasts are basically large vaginas. Only you and your partner should ever see them. Just because your breast-ginas are full of milk, doesn’t mean you get to wave them around.

“I don’t expose much when I breastfeed.” This is a common excuse made by exhibitionist mothers. Just knowing that your nipples may become visible at any time is offensive and a temptation to married or newly engaged men

I am a man so take my words as they are presented– words to guide your actions and attitude on this subject. It is true that breastfeeding is normal, natural part of life and that it is a healthy way to nurse your baby. More mothers should take up this practice but they need to do so with the proper biblical spirit.

Being a natural act of motherhood does not mean breastfeeding is meant for public display or that it is a spectator sport. I will not degrade the act by making bad comparisons to other natural acts but point out one view that is missing from the debate– respect.  The Bible teaches that when we get married our bodies do not belong to ourselves any more. They belong to our mates and we need to be respectful of that ownership.

The woman’s body is not solely hers to do as she pleases and she needs to realize this fact. Her husband needs to realize this fact about his body as well and each partner needs to respect their mate’s feelings on different issues and behavior. This issue of breastfeeding is not a feminist one but a marriage one and the wife needs to respect her husband and how he views her public display of her natural functions. Now many men may say that they do not care what his wife does in this issue but deep down many are not liking her public demonstrations.

The wife needs to remember that her body is for her husband only. It is not for all the men on the street even if it is a natural act of life. She needs to take care to not share it with strangers. Of course, the same thing can be said to men as well. Their bodies are for their wives not for all the women on the street so cover up when doing chores or athletic activities. Respect each other.

Then the mother needs to respect her children. How would they feel if they saw their mother exposing herself in public even for a natural act? How would the baby feel to be the object of public viewing when it feeds? A lot of parents do not consider their child’s well-being in their haste to ‘be natural’ and that lack of respect can come back years later to haunt the parents.

You see women, it is not just about you and your body. There are others to consider when making these type of decisions. Your actions do affect how they view you, life and may influence their later actions. We are not to lead people to sin and even a natural act like breastfeeding can either plant the seeds of sin or push them to act on their sinful thoughts.

Being spiritual and biblical in a simple act like breastfeeding goes a long ways in aiding the christian life. We do not follow the world’s attitudes or actions about the issue but seek to follow God’s way. In this way we provide the world a better alternative for them to consider. Unfortunately, the church is usually following the world to sinful actions instead of leading the way to the right behavior for all people.

In asking women to breastfeed in private is not demeaning, making them second class or slaves, etc., it is just a better way to handle natural duties that are a very beautiful time shared between mother and child.

 
Comments Off on Superlative Sunday

Posted by on December 30, 2014 in academics, Bible, church, controversial issues, faith, family, General Life, leadership

 

Representing God

It stands to reason that anyone who claims to be a follower of God would actually represent Him and his words correctly. After all that is what the word represent actually means

to act or speak officially for (someone or something)

to bring clearly before the mind (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/represent)

Which then makes one wonder why someone who is supposedly representing God is accusing others of misrepresenting him because they speak of what God did at creation.

http://christiannews.net/2014/10/20/catholic-astronomer-calls-young-earth-creation-beliefs-almost-blasphemous/

1. Vatican Astronomer Calls Young Earth Creation Beliefs ‘Almost Blasphemous’

Since God did not say one word about using processes, long eons of time or any alternative to Genesis 1 or Hebrews 11 then it is not the YEC people who are being blasphemous.  Here is what the word ‘blasphemy’ really means:

great disrespect shown to God or to something holy; something said or done that is disrespectful to God or to something holy the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God; the act of claiming the attributes of deity irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy)

What is blasphemy is representing God as saying and doing something he did not say he did or used. That is not a smart thing to do. All indications point to a young creation but we do not know exactly when God did create all things. And the reason for that has been talked about here on this website as well as myriads of others.

An influential Catholic astronomer who works at the Holy See’s Vatican Observatory told a news outlet last week that the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account is ‘almost blasphemous theology.

How he comes to this conclusion is without merit as there is no instruction anywhere in the Bible to believe the Bible in any other format than literal when it comes to God’s acts in history.  Hebrews 11 tells us that those who believe God created as he stated in Gen. 1 are honored people

 Now faith is the [a]assurance of things [b]hoped for, the [c]conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old [d]gained approval…

39 And all these, having [y]gained approval through their faith, did not receive [z]what was promised, 40 because God had [aa]provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

There is no mention of any such honor or acceptance for those who doubt God and his word or who side with alternatives to them.

2. “It’s almost blasphemous theology,” Consolmagno alleged, according to the Brisbane Times. “It’s certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what science is.”

No, YEC does not misunderstand the Bible or science. It believes the Bible and realizes that science contains false teaching meant to destroy people not lead them to the truth. YEC is realizing the truth about what the Bible says and closes its ears to the lies of the unbelieving world.

3. The papal astronomer said he rejects the literal interpretation of Genesis and instead finds truth through “science.”

Yet God did not say to use science to find the truth about our origins. Why would he when he already told us how he did it? We can use science to find the truth about biology, orbits, and other aspects of life as long as we do not attributed God’s work to some non-existent process or catastrophe but we have no permission to use science to say God lied or misrepresented himself in his own Bible.

4. Science is a way of getting close to creation, to really getting intimate with creation, and it’s a way of getting intimate with the creator,” he claimed. “It’s an act of worship.”

But we are not to be getting close to creation or intimate with it. We are to be using God’s act of creating to get close to and intimate with him. An actual act of worship is not going to God’s enemy and saying they are right over him and proclaiming God lied while deceived people are telling the truth.

5. Science goes out of date—it’s supposed to,” he insisted. “Now, if you’re turning the Bible into a science book, then you’re saying you should throw it out after three years. … The very concept of a science book didn’t exist when the Bible was written.”

If science goes out of date then why appeal to it at all or why use it to find answers? The answers will be out of date and useless for anyone. Why go to science at all if it is going to change its answers after only a few years? What good is science and its conclusions then?  That last line is an argument from silence and nonsensical.

6. The search for literalism, the search for absolute truth, isn’t what science is about and it’s not what religion is about,” he opined.

Then what good is science? How can we get close to or intimate with creation if we are not going to be fed the truth or even find the truth? What good is science then? Is it just to occupy our time so we do not get bored and kill ourselves out of sheer boredom? What is religion about if we cannot get absolute truth from it?  What good is a belief if it leaves you in the dark and fails to bring you to the right answers? Why have a belief under those conditions? Why follow a God who doesn’t give you absolute truth but keeps you guessing and sending you to some other source to get any answers?

7. Many influential leaders of the Roman Catholic Church have endorsed evolution and disregarded the literal interpretation of Genesis. In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that there is no intrinsic conflict between Catholicism and evolution, and, in 2007, Pope Benedict XVI stated that “there are … many scientific proofs in favor of evolution.”

So if previous popes jumped off a cliff and proclaimed suicide as good does that mean jumping off cliffs and suicide are good and acceptable?  Using the lemming argument to support your heresy is not helping you but undermines any claim of credibility you may have. Why appeal to people who got it wrong and are or were in error? That is not a legitimate argument and shows a lack of research and real evidence for one’s point.

8. Wait a minute,” Thomas said in an interview with Christian News Network. “Does he mean that it’s absolutely true that science is not about the search for absolute truth? What experiment did he do to lead him to that conclusion? Likewise, does he mean for me to take as absolutely true his religious statement that religion is not about the search for absolute truth? If his science or religion has given him the truth that science or religion cannot give truth, then his statement cannot possibly be true.

Great point. He says it better than I.

9. Consolmagno implied that those who believe in biblical creation mistakenly use the Bible as a science text, but this misses the mark,” Thomas told Christian News Network. “The Bible supplies information about the past, so when people believe what it says, they do not pretend the Bible is a science book—they simply take its history straightforwardly. It’s about history, not science.”

Another good point. There are two more good points in that article in opposition to Consolmagno’s point of view. The point of this article is that if you claim to follow and represent God then you need to follow and represent God. If you present a different version of  what God said then you are neither following God nor correctly representing him. Instead you are following and representing a god of your design.

It is a choice you have to make. If you want to be a Christian and represent God then you have to choose to represent him accurately, clearly and truthfully without changing his words or revelations. Anything else undermines your claims about following and representing God. God has clearly represented himself and his actions we have no authority to change those words or deeds. Such permission has not been granted to us.

It is not wise to side with the enemies of God and why supposed Christians and Christian officials decide to do so is not rational or logical. Why go against the God who can destroy both body and soul in hell? If you want to make an argument for what is rational or logical, start there because it is not irrational or illogical to back, believe and follow the one who has so much power that all he needs to do is speak and it takes place.

What human scientist can do that? Think about it then make the right choice. Rational and logical thinking means you follow God and the Bible not those who make God out to be a sinner who is worse than the devil.

 
Comments Off on Representing God

Posted by on December 28, 2014 in academics, astronomy, Bible, church, creation, faith, history, leadership, science, theology

 

Bad Archaeology

The following is taken from the article Noah’s Ark found at the following link:

http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=697

One of the Biblical stories that forms a central part of creationist beliefs is the supposed universal flood of Genesis. According to the account, the flood took place when Noah was 600 years old; the data provided by the genealogies in Genesis allow us to calculate that this would have been about 1,600 years after creation. If we assume the earth to have been created in 4004 BCE, the flood would have happened about 2348 BCE, around the time the pyramids were being built at Giza

The problem with this point is that Bishop Ussher’s work is not supported by the Bible nor is it set in stone. Any believer should not use his date for the creation of the world for God does not say to use the genealogies to discover when he created and the genealogies not be an exhaustive list. We cannot be sure. God does not lie but he also does not present us with all the information that took place in the ancient world.

If God was exhaustive in recording everything that took place in the ancient world and who had who as a child, the Bible would be so thick and boring, no one would pick it up and read it.

Unsurprisingly, the Egyptian historical records of the period, which are reasonably full and complex, do not document a flood or the complete annihilation of population from the Nile valley. Nor is there any indication that in the years following the otherwise undocumented flood, the region was recolonised by a new population,

The problem with this point is that it is untrue.  RK Harrison (OT Times) and others have documented that the ancient Egyptians continually rewrote their history in order to preserve patriotism in subsequent generations. They would not record the flood because first, the Egyptians did not exist at that time and second, if they had, it was not an event that would promote or support their desired goal for their descendents thus they would most likely omit it from their records.

This is why we have no record of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt and their subsequent Exodus. Egypt suffered a devastating loss and that defeat would not look good nor allow future Egyptians to look with pride upon their own ancestors. To assume that unbelieving nations will tell the gospel truth about their own history is naive at best. Yet secular archaeologist seem to apply God’s rules to the most sinful nations while attributing God’s people with the most sinful actions possible. They have it backwards.

In Britain, the third millennium saw the development of Stonehenge from a simple banked enclosure to a complex arrangement of stones with no evidence that it languished for the best part of a year, half finished, under thousands of metres of floodwater. Nowhere in the world do we find archaeological evidence for any form of disruption to populations, cultures or settlement patterns at the required date.

Yes and no. For yes- there is no uninterrupted history for most of the ancient civilizations of the world because they all came into existence AFTER the flood, and not before. Their records begin after they became independent nations. For no- the Sumerians record the flood in their king’s list so those authors are very wrong when they say that ‘nowhere in the world do we find archaeological evidence for any form of disruption’ and we have all the ancient flood tales which do provide archaeological evidence for a societal interruption.

Then we have all the flooded cities we find throughout the world to further prove these supposed archaeologists wrong (among other pieces of evidence- see www.dakotascba.com for more evidence).

The sole piece of evidence used by creationists is the so-called ‘flood deposit’ found by Sir Leonard Woolley (1880-1960) at Ur in 1929. This is more probably explained as a result of silting in marshes towards the mouths of the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris at a time of a marine transgression, when the Persian Gulf extended further north than it now does than evidence for even a regional flood

This is not true as we creationists have far more evidence than Sir Woolley’s discovery. We cannot use the Tigris or the Euphrates as the source for that silt layer because we have no archaeological evidence that those rivers were responsible for that deposit. Then I am inclined to accept his identification as Noah’s flood layer because there is nothing in history, in the Bible, anywhere where the evidence for Noah’s flood has to be uniform.

That was a demand made by Sir Woolley’s contemporaries not by anything legitimate source.

There is simply no evidence from any part of the world to support the Biblical account of a worldwide flood in the third millennium BCE (or at any other time, for that matter!) that wiped out all humanity, land animals and birds, with the exception of eight people from Mesopotamia and the animals that accompanied them on the Ark and the recolonisation of the earth by their descendants.

The date ‘3rd millennium’ is misleading and a distraction. We do not know for sure when the flood took place because God does not give us an exact time frame. To say that Bishop Ussher was right and use his dating is misleading as he never verified his work nor has anyone else. Even though some creationist’s have used Ussher’s research to support their YEC arguments, they need to stop doing so. We can present a YEC position without undermining it by using such non-credible work.

One response to the problem has been to re-date ancient sites, especially those of Egypt. Pointing out that pioneer Egyptologists in the early nineteenth century developed chronologies pushing back the start of pharaonic civilisation to before 5000 BCE and that the tendency since has been to reduce these chronologies to start around 3000 BCE, some suggest that it should be downdated still further.

I have no problem with re-dating certain ancient sites because certain structures like Stonehenge, the Sphinx, Gobekli Tepe, and other mysterious remains are probably left over from the pre-flood world and not built by the civilizations secularists claim constructed them. I would almost go as far to say that the pyramids at Giza were the result of pre-flood construction but am not totally there yet. One piece of graffiti does not make a concrete case for post-flood construction.

The problem with using the pharaonic record is that the majority of our knowledge of those kings comes from Manetho and his work remains only as quoted by other ancient writers. We do not have his original work extant thus we cannot even be sure if he was quoted correctly. We have other sources with partial lists but again there is a problem with those records–no verification for their validity and we do not know their source material.

Here is what Egyptian site says:

According to Egyptian legend, the first kings of Egypt were later some of Egypt’s most famous gods. We really do not know whether some of these individuals actually existed in human form or what regions of Egypt they may have ruled over. Only at the end of the Predynastic period, prior to the unification of Egypt, can we recognize specific kings who most likely ruled over either northern or southern Egypt. According to many sources, the first real king of Egypt, therefore ruling over the unified land, was Menes, who would have ruled Egypt around 3100 BC, but we have little if any archaeological basis for this name. Most scholars today believe that he may have been a king named Narmer, or more likely still, Aha, two figures that are better attested in the archaeological record.

However, Menes might have also been a legendary composition of several rulers. After these first rulers of a unified Egypt,: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pharaohs.htm#ixzz3NA8IVtMk

(Further reading– http://www.atlantisquest.com/Manetho.html  & http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/manetho.html)

It is interesting that the authors of Bad Archaeology would appeal to legends when they hate legends. I am leaning to the argument that the Pharaohs reigns need to be reconstructed to a more honest look on Egyptian history given what we know about Egyptian recording of history. it is interesting to see how secularists accept Egyptian history as accurate when it suits their argument the Pharaoh’s list and Egyptian timeline- yet reject it when the history goes against their point of view.

We know so little about the structures we examine that to say the flood has no evidence is speaking out far too soon and based more on arguing from silence than actual fact. The opposing arguments to the biblical flood are also based upon misleading dating of ancient civilizations, artifacts, records, and structures. Most scholars disagreeing with the biblical flood do not have any extant ancient manuscript they can appeal to. Their opposition simply comes from their unbelief and rejection of God’s truth not from any real evidence. Any evidence appealed to is usually manipulated in their favor and not honestly examined or presented.

It should come as no surprise that other past societies have flood myths. Leaving aside obvious allegorical connotations to purifying rebirth, they are a key element in the mythologies of civilisations who owe their existence to flood-prone river systems such as the Nile, Tigris or Euphrates.

I am going to skip to their conclusion as the next two sections have been dealt with in other works and not important for the purpose here. There are no rational or logical explanations for all ancient societies having a flood myth if the Bible is wrong. None whatsoever. I know of no ancient or modern civilization who would preserve in their history any local flood and do so by writing them in stone or passing their devastating work on to subsequent generations. Sure we have local floods written in newspaper reports etc. but nothing that would memorialize those events for all time.

Even the devastating Indian Tsunami is not preserved like the flood myths are preserved nor are any other modern society constructing similar stories. It just doesn’t happen for local flood events. Why would anyone take the time to record for posterity one local flood when local floods happen in the same region all the time?

It wouldn’t make sense to do so. The quoted argument above just doesn’t make sense nor is it logical or rational to even present such a theory. Their effort to do so is just an attempt to avoid the biblical truth. The only answer to the existence of ancient non-biblical flood stories is that Noah’s flood is true and that the story of Babel is also true. The latter event explains how the flood story made it around the world and was memorialized by so many different ancient people.

Without Babel, we would not have a worldwide record or extra-biblical written evidence for Noah’s flood. We would just have the usual silent artifacts we find throughout the world today.The problem does not lie with the bible believer (for the most part) nor with the physical evidence we do have today but with the unbeliever who refuses to be open-minded about that evidence.

Bad Archaeology is when secularists close their minds to the truth and try to force all believers into doing archaeology their way. It ensures that the truth is hidden and kept from the public who needs it most. No we do not follow the unbeliever when we do any type of research nor do we allow their rules to guide us.

The believer does good archaeology which searches through the evidence to find those nuggets of truth which helps them avoid the lies of secularists.

 

 
Comments Off on Bad Archaeology

Posted by on December 28, 2014 in academics, archaeology, Bible, history, science

 

Bad Archaeology/Good Archaeology

First up Bad archaeology, which is the name of a real website constructed and operated by secularists who think that they get to determine what is good or bad archaeology

#1. Bad Archaeology  https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/about/

Bad Archaeology is the brainchild of a couple of archaeologists who are fed up with the distorted view of the past that passes for knowledge in popular culture. We are unhappy that books written by people with no knowledge of real archaeology dominate the shelves at respectable bookshops. We do not appreciate news programmes that talk about ley lines (for example) as if they are real.

This is the evidence for my statement above.  Archaeology can only be about what they consider to be archaeology; yet I have not heard of anyone important dying and leaving them in charge of this research field. Their idea of real archaeology is simply keeping people lost, blind and full of questions. It has nothing to do with finding and presenting the truth

This ought to be the first rule of “Biblical Archaeology”

“Biblical archaeology” is in “scare quotes” because it’s a highly problematical concept, but more of that later. What I want to address first is what ought to be a first principle for anyone reading about claims for discoveries that are supposedly related to the Bible (Hebrew or Christian) or any religious text, for that matter. It’s this:

If a discovery confirms your pre-held religious beliefs, then it’s wishful thinking at best and even more likely to be a fraud. (https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/this-ought-to-be-the-first-rule-of-biblical-archaeology/)

In other words, you have to think like secularists to do archaeology and in doing so you will be as blind and lost as they are.  if you think like a secularist then you are not following God or what he wants you to do. You will not be following the HS to the truth but the unbeliever to no answers at all.

You will be as stumped for answers, confused about the past and learn nothing about God at all whereby your faith is dashed and you become a secularist. These archaeologists forget that secular archaeologists and scholars have pre-held ideas and use the discoveries of archaeology to firm up their unbelief or declare those ideas as true.

They are not accused of doing wishful thinking or fraud but applauded for their science. Sure there are people out there who will defraud others and the secular world is not free from such people. Evolutionists have approved of different frauds for 50 years at a time then when shown to be wrong, still hang onto those ideas as if they are a relevant and viable option in evolutionary science. Piltdown man comes to mind as a prime example.

All these archaeologists are saying is that they will operate by a double standard and what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. Having religious beliefs does not mean one automatically does archaeology or any science dishonestly or badly. It means that they will apply God’s principles of honesty, not lying, truthfulness etc., in their work so that all people can benefit from their work and get the answers they seek

The problems com in when the answers are not what the secularist is expecting or wanting. Thus they need to attack a field of research and trump up false charges against it or use the bad examples such as the last discoverers of the ark as evidence for their point.  They will not make the same allowances for believers as they do for people on their side of the fence when they are duped or create a hoax.

A great deal of what is presented to the public as “Biblical Archaeology” bears little relation to what other archaeologists recognise as archaeology. The spinning of data to push a particular and tendentious interpretation, the outright forgery of artefacts and the naïve belief that certain objects ought to survive to the present day are not characteristics of scientific archaeology but are typical of pseudoscience.

Yet these authors forget that their own people are spinning the data to push their own particular ideology or making tenuous interpretations about the past. It is not the biblical archaeologist who is claiming that evidence has remained untouched for millions of years, which is far more pseudo-science than what is claimed in that quote.

What that quote represents is those authors dislike for the information uncovered that supports the Bible instead of their alternative theory..   When we find the walls of Jericho exactly as the Bible has stated (Bryant Wood ABR) then we are not presenting evidence that ‘bears little relation’ to archaeology but showing that archaeology in action and that the Bible is true at the same time.

A great deal of what passes for “Biblical archaeology” consists of a search for sites and artefacts that ‘confirm’ what the Bible says; indeed, this was one of the inspirations behind the development of archaeological excavation.

Uhm…that is why it is called ‘biblical archaeology’. It is research searching for physical evidence to support the Bible. Need I remind those archaeologists that they are the ones crying for the physical evidence to prove our religious claims and when we set out to do and accomplish that objective the secularists cries foul.

They can’t have it both ways yet the secularists tries hard to do so.

Following the questioning attitudes to religious certainty inculcated by Enlightenment writers, the faithful wanted to demonstrate that their beliefs could not be shaken by rational inquiry but, rather, would be confirmed through it. Unfortunately, the reverse has tended to happen

What is ‘funny’ about that quote is the idea of the blind, the lost, the confused and the deceived calling themselves enlightened especially when they have a closed mind to all evidence and thinking that opposes their pet theories or ideas about the ancient past. The most irrational and illogical people I have ever met are those who declare that Christians, creationists and biblical archaeologists, etc., are irrational and illogical.

They are the ones who claim that an unrefined, unsophisticated and powerful force called plate tectonics could actually push up remains intact, undisturbed, with its original soil surrounding,  and so on, so far up to the surface that the anthropologist doesn’t have to dig more than a foot into the ground to unearth this supposedly pristine and uncorrupted artifact from ancient days gone by.

Then they have the audacity to exclaim that the biblical archaeologist who has dug down 10-100ft below the surface documenting all their finds correctly etc., and says their finds are from a scant few thousand years ago, as unrealistic, irrational and illogical.

Archaeology has not confirmed the glories of the Davidic kingdom, has failed to produce evidence for Noah’s flood, has not revealed the location of Jesus’s crucifixion, has not identified a Pharaoh of the Exodus. And it probably never will.

That is because it doesn’t have to nor does the believer have to use archaeology to believe what God has said in the Bible. The problem here is that the secularists think they get to make the rules for those who believe God and the Bible and for God himself. They forget that they are not in charge and that it is God who makes the rules about his word, biblical events  and his kingdom.

It is not God who humbles himself to the secular world demands, nor is the Christian to do so either. It is the unbeliever who has to humble themselves and do things God’s way.  God has said use faith so that is what we do. The demand for physical evidence comes from those who probably will not believe even after being shown the physical evidence they have demanded.

A great many of its practitioners start out from a particular religious viewpoint (usually orthodox Judaism or a Christian sect) and aim to find evidence that backs up their literalist interpretation of the sacred texts.

Well yeah. The secularist makes no apology for approaching archaeology from their particular unbelief so they should not demand that the believer give up their faith and beliefs when the secularist refuses to do so. All those archaeologists are doing here is saying archaeology can only be done our way and that is childish at best.

When we follow the HS to the truth, we are shown how to spot those religious claims that are fraudulent and presented by those who wish to con others. We have biblical guidelines to guide our steps to see the true and the false presentations and just because some people ignore those steps does not mean that the field of biblical archaeology is in error or needs to be removed from its place in science or any research field.

Very few people in secular archaeology or science are as honest as biblical archaeologists. The authors of that piece should clean the beams out of their own eyes first, then clean up the act of their side of archaeology before saying what should be done in biblical archaeology.

This seems to have been at least part of the motivation behind the forgery of the ‘James the Just ossuary’ and other dubious artefacts traced back to Oded Golan (the other being financial, of course).

Those authors should stop trying to manipulate the readers and followers of archaeology. The court decision was that the prosecution did not present anything that proved the James Ossuary was a fake. They cannot prove it was a forgery thus those authors need to stop speaking like they had.

Be honest for once and stop trying to badly influence others because you do not like the discovery.

Strong words. And perhaps a little over-the-top. But, as Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman show in The Bible unearthed: archaeology’s new vision of ancient Israel and the origin of its sacred texts (2001), archaeology paints a coherent picture of the development of the Jewish people that is completely at odds with the claims of the Bible

Again those authors are being dishonest and manipulating the viewpoints of their readers as archaeology is not painting a different picture about Israel’s history than the one the Bible states took place. Archaeology cannot do any such thing. What is painting this different picture is the unbelief, the assumptions, the conjectures, the hypothesizes, and so on of Finkelstein and Silberman.

In all the centuries archaeology has been conducted, not one discovery has yet shown the Bible to be in error nor proven one thing about the Bible false. Archaeology has proven the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Philistines and other biblical nations in the exact geographical spot and time frame as the Bible records.

Archaeology has proven the locations of many biblical towns and cities to be right where the Bible says. The same for the Patriarchs and their names. The list of evidence supporting the Bible grows longer each day while the evidence supporting Finkelstein’s and Silberman’s lower chronology is non-existent. Ancient evidence has to be manipulated to fit their theory.

No what attempts to prove the Bible wrong is not archaeology but all those unbelievers who disprove of believing archaeologists coming in and messing up their secular sandbox. The secularist thinks they own archaeology and the past thus they think they get to say what can or cannot be done. Well here is news for them–we do not need their permission, their rules, their ideas, their ways because we follow God not man.

No amount of fraud, wilful misinterpretation of data or quests to find the objects that will ‘prove’ a particular religious viewpoint will bring back the innocent and ignorant days when the Bible could be read as literally true.

This conclusion on the part of those authors is moot because what they described tasking place in biblical archaeology is rampant in secular archaeology. We need biblical archaeologists and archaeology to keep the secularists from lying to everyone. We need honest biblical archaeologists to present the truth in spite of the cries of opposition from those who do not want to believe God or see that the Bible is true.

Let’s not let the secularists win this one. We need the truth and the secularist is not about to present that to the world.

#2. Good Archaeology http://www.livescience.com/49231-coolest-archaeological-discoveries-2014.html

Livescience’s list of the best archaeological discoveries of 2014.  I do not totally agree with their blurbs of course but you might find something of note or interesting to research further.

 
Comments Off on Bad Archaeology/Good Archaeology

Posted by on December 28, 2014 in academics, archaeology, Bible, history, science

 
 
%d bloggers like this: