RSS

Monthly Archives: April 2015

An Update

A few weeks ago I wrote about my trouble with getting someone at Biblical Archaeology society to respond to my contact e-mails because my order had not arrived.  Well I finally posted a comment under one of their articles on their website, the one on how to spend 25,000 dollars. I wrote– you should give it to me  and then went on to describe the situation and their 2 month silence.

Well it wasn’t long after I did that that I got an e-mail from a person named Robin saying they had read my post and asked me what was going on. I told him or her (not sure which gender) what was what and they said they would check. Well to make a long story short, I got daily e-mails from Robin updating me on what was going on and it turned out my order never made it past Chicago.

They are sending me a new order, hopefully it will get here during the month of May and as a bonus they are giving me a book I wanted for free. Even though it took two months to get their attention at least they are being upstanding about what went wrong.

Advertisements
 
Comments Off on An Update

Posted by on April 30, 2015 in Uncategorized

 

A Photo Essay– South Korean Churches

I started blogging 3 years ago and though it was the middle of May when I presented my first post, I celebrate the anniversary on the 1st of the month.  I hope to do several of these photo essays to celebrate this milestone and will have more churches this weekend to put up here. This is my first time trying this so if it comes out screwy you know why–   i am not a computer nerd.

church essay 005 church essay 007 church essay 008 church essay 009 church essay 011 church essay 013 church essay 014 church essay 015 church essay 016 church essay 017 church essay 020 church essay 022 church essay 023 church essay 025 church essay 028 church essay 029 church essay 030 church essay 032 church essay 034 church essay 035

 

church essay 038

 

Some notes:1.  Two churches are scheduled for destruction. (without windows)

2. Yes that is a house on top of the orange church

3. The first church was my neighbor for 1 year. The corner of my old building is in the picture.

4. The lighting is bad on some of the churches because I am up early and the sun was just rising when I took the photos

5. The second to last photo, the church parking lot is bigger than the church

These churches are all in the Paju area of Gyeonggi-do

 
Comments Off on A Photo Essay– South Korean Churches

Posted by on April 30, 2015 in church

 

Preaching The Bible- Eating Meat Or Vegetarianism

. The beginning verses of this chapter provide us with so many changes to the new post-flood world and here is what they some of them say:

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the [a]sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.(verses 1-4)

The blessing in verse 1 is the same as the pre-flood world and it is a mandate by God to humans to populate the earth, though I doubt God intended to have the planet over-populated or that single families would try to do it all at once. I have trouble with some parents who over-indulge in multiplying as from what I have seen, they do not want to take responsibility for the size of their family but place it on God’s shoulders. In other words, they do not grow up but want to remain as children even though they are bringing children into the world.

It is a difficult topic to get into and it really should be reserved for another day. But needless to say, some families are large because of health issues and other legitimate reasons.

The first change is found in verse two and it reads:

#1. The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the [a]sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.

It is different from chapter one’s instruction

and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [al]sky and over every living thing that [am]moves on the earth.” (1:28b)

Fear of humans is now introduced to the animals. Prior to that we see no fear and that can be illustrated by how the serpent approached and talked to Eve in the Garden. That garden was a paradise thus there would be no reason for any of the animals to be afraid of man and in the curses God presented to the 3 participants in the sin against God, the animals were not mentioned save for the serpent and his descendents.

We can see how the pre-flood world could corrupt the animal kingdom because of this environment of friendship between man and the animals.

The second change comes in verse 3:

#2. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.

Notice the bold words for they provide us with a lot of information. First, eating red meat is not unhealthy for you despite what vegetarians claim. All meat was given to us to it, even though God places restrictions on certain foods for the people of Israel later. We did not rise up and demand this change nor did we usurp God authority and just take red meat to eat God allowed us to eat animals and that makes the big difference.

Paul talks about eating meat in Romans and he says

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. (ch. 14)

Verse 3 is the key– we are not to criticize or judge those who do not eat as we eat. Vegetarians go too far in their condemnation of eating meat and need to get back under God’s direction because one style is not healthier than the other. God has allowed us choice in our diet thus we should not partake in  those thoughts which divide the church. The one who eats meat is just as acceptable to God as the one who does not.

The problem in this issue comes in when we get to the following passage of scripture:

20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats [i]and gives offense. 21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles (ch. 14)

Verse 21 is where the problem comes in as too many people use this passage to force their ways upon others. They are not even close to stumbling but simply do not like what someone else does so they use this verse as a sledge-hammer to bring the other person into line with their personal views not God’s. I have seen this take place on a large-scale as in about my junior year at my undergrad alma mater people students started to use the word ‘offended’ as a means to control other student’s behavior.

They were in no danger of losing their faith but merely used that verse to state their personal opinion that believers should not do certain activities. Like the secular Political Correct problem we face in this era, students could not make a move without ‘offending’ someone. Discord and other negative emotions began to take hold and disharmony rose up until one student ‘lost it.’ I won’t go into details of that but suffice it to sat, that using scriptural words like ‘stumble’ or offended’ in the wrong way doe snot bring about the Christian harmony Jesus wants to see in his followers.

The misuse of scripture simply opens the door for evil to get in and work its destructive nature upon people who are to be the light to the world.  Another example on a lesser scale took place in a restaurant where a party of 4 students had a little wine with their meals as the Bible directs. Unfortunately for them a professor was eating at the same restaurant at the same time and witnessed their actions. They faced expulsion the next day.

Christians do more to hurt the cause of Christ than any group of unbelievers could hope to do. They hand evil open doors on a silver platter and I am not talking about the 4 students here but the failure of the professor and school administration to react in a biblical and christian manner. Sometimes when we try to maintain an image of spirituality we fail so miserably and do the exact opposite. We should not let fear dictate our response and by the word fear I mean that we do not allow the thought that the authority of the school and its staff would suffer because they acted in a just and merciful manner

To illustrate that I reference certain decisions by lesser courts who side with the unjust actions of the police force in hopes of not rendering their authority to maintain law and order useless. Like the police example whose authority would not be damaged by saying they erred and correcting that error,, the school’s authority would not be damaged by adjudicating the situation correctly and with wisdom, correcting the over-reaction by that particular professor and other staff members. Because the court handled certain decisions wrong, they did damage the authority of both the police and their office and the same held true in the case of my alma mater. They damaged their authority and spiritual stature by mishandling the whole affair.

This is what we cannot do when it comes to the issue of meat and non-meat eaters.We cannot mishandle the situation though at times many vegetarians do mishandle it when they offer to bring their own food to  a person’s house, after being invited to dinner, because meat will be served.  One thing that vegetarians need to remember is that their diet is not divinely ordained and they will not be sinning if they eat meat in order to be polite guests.

There are other ways of politely handling this situation but insulting the host by bringing your own food is not one of them. The following verse applies to vegetarians as well as meat eaters:

19 So then [h]we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another

Insulting someone is not obeying this instruction. Sometimes a vegetarian will have to swallow their pride and eat meat to keep the peace and not offend another person or cause them to stumble in their faith. if one does not want to eat meat, then fine but they need to remember that their diet is not sacred and that the rules of the Bible apply to their dietary habits as well. They also need to remember that one diet is not greater than another (unless it is fast and junk food rich) and they need to put aside the sin of superiority and humble themselves just like meat eaters need to do.

We cannot let our diets bring sin into the church, causing division and ruining the ministry that local congregation has or could have. The issue is not about what we eat but how we remain sinless when we eat.

In the beginning I mentioned those parents who seek large families, extremely large families, but they do not offend me nor cause me to stumble in my faith. I just do not agree with their reasoning and do not like the perceived lack of taking responsibility for their procreation habits. I do not judge them nor condemn them but I will not follow in their footsteps.We need to remember that personal opinion is not divine nor the order for the church and we must learn to accept differences treating each other as Christ wants

The unity of the church helps us keep evil outside but that unity must be Christ based and not implemented by bullying others or forcing our different views upon those who disagree with us. As much as I do not like vegetarianism, those who practice it and have repented of their sins are believers like me and I will treat them just like that even though we disagree on how or what we should eat.

Unity in Christ does not mean unity in daily habits or personal opinion. It means obedience to God’s instructions even when we disagree on human things. It does  not mean that we accept false teaching or unrepentant sinners to appear ‘inclusive’ but that we are united against sin as God has outlined it. It means we seek the truth and accept it when we find it.

There are so many things that do not doctrinally matter that have caused splits in different churches over the centuries and that is not the right way to go.

 
Comments Off on Preaching The Bible- Eating Meat Or Vegetarianism

Posted by on April 29, 2015 in academics, Bible, church, faith, family, leadership, theology

 

Preaching The Bible- The Flood Passage

I do not need to regale you with another account of how the flood applies to today’s world, so much has been written on this topic that it is pointless to expound on what everyone already knows almost everything about, even though debates remain on several issues mentioned in Genesis 6-9.  To start, I am going to go back to Noah’s father’s comment in Genesis 5:

#1. 28 Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and became the father of a son. 29 Now he called his name Noah, saying, “This one will [c]give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands arising from the ground which the Lord has cursed.”

Adam had died by this time but what we see in Lamech’s words is the knowledge that the curse actually took place and that it was real. Men were already looking for relief from their toil and that they knew where the origin of their work came from.  This is further proof that the fall took place and that through 9 generations that truth was passed down to each new member of society.

How it was passed down, we are not told but rest assured, the children would have asked their parents why they had to do so much work and the parents would hopefully, tell them the truth and as it seems some did.

#2. Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were [a]beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

This is one of those passages that generates a lot of discussion and I feel that scholars and other biblical students over-think the issue. These words do not imply that spiritual beings married and had sex with earthly women. There is no biblical teaching that this is even possible, let alone took place only one time if they could do so. Why would spiritual beings deprive themselves of this option since beautiful women have been born throughout the ages? We would certainly know that it took place other than that one pre-flood moment. We have no recorded restriction made by God in the Bible so let’s get rid of this thought that the supernatural interacted physically with terrestrial people.

When people use terms like ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men’ they are usually referring to godly men and those women born to unbelievers. I know of no other use for those terms. In Genesis 4 we read the following:

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.

This verse supports the point I just made as there were both godly men and daughters of unbelievers existing at that time.

#3. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not [b]strive with man forever, [c]because he also is flesh; [d]nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years

The word in bold is the focus of this point. Even though God sees our future and knows what is going to happen between us and him spiritually, he shows his generosity by saying ‘nevertheless’ then proceeds to give mankind a generous life span. This generosity is something we consistently with God. He gave the pre-flood world 120 years, while Noah built the ark to repent, then he gives man a lifespan of 120 years which provides him with ample time to repent of their sins and walk with God, on top of that he has given mankind at least 2000 years since Christ’s resurrection to find the truth and turn to it, leaving their sin behind and obtain eternal life.

We cannot find any generosity equal to this. Most humans would have given up with the pre-flood world and gone off to do something else but God knowing what would take place, saves 8 people and allows humans to fill the earth a second time, without removing the gift of free choice. What was God’s reward for this generosity? False religions, alternative origin theories, ISIS, Boko Haram, Communism, evil dictators, murderers, rapists, pedophiles and so much more. The population of true believers is minute in comparison to those who have chosen to remain with evil.

In the pre-flood world, his generosity was even greater as he gave them almost 1000 years of life to live and he was repaid how?

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.

They were so corrupt, that not one parent pleaded with Noah or his family to take their children upon the ark and save them. Many people ask me what crime or sin did less than 2-year-old babies commit to deserve this death sentence. They didn’t have to commit a sin. They were victims of the evil and corruption residing in the hearts of their parents and older siblings.

god gave parents the same authority to raise their children, make decisions for them until the child was old enough to know how to make decisions and so on, he does not violate that gift today and he did not violate it then. Today, secular people violate that right but not God as he did not tell Noah to go and collect the babies for safe keeping and rescue. He remained consistent and let the parents use their parental authority in deciding how the lives of their babies would play out.

Too many people blame God for being a murderer but he set up an order for how he wanted his world to run and he upheld that order even though he knew the babies would suffer for their parents sinful decisions. Those same people should be blaming the parents who refused to save their children for they are the true murderers of babies. God had provided a way out but they refused to take it thus God is not at fault.

#4. 13 Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. 14 Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall [j]cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you shall make it:

How did Noah build the ark? Well we have two options here. First, God performed a miracle and zapped him and his sons with the correct construction knowledge and skills to build but we do not know if that took place or not. Second, given the evidence that Cain knew how to build a city and that the pre-flood world built many structures since that first city, we can rest assured that the art of construction was given to Noah and his sons through direct teaching, through apprenticeship or some other instructional means.

We know that metal work was not unknown in those days thus wood construction was probably well-known as well. We do not know if shipbuilding was in existence or prevalent in those days as we do not know the actual geography of the pre-flood world nor do we know how much they explored, though given all the mysterious ruins we uncover, the pre-flood world spread out and fulfilled God’s blessing found in Genesis 1

28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [al]sky and over every living thing that [am]moves on the earth.”

If the pre-flood world had not done so, then Noah would not have needed an ark, God would have simply moved him to a safe territory and moved the animals himself.

#5. The water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible...11 The dove came to him toward [e]evening, and behold, in her [f]beak was a freshly picked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the water was abated from the earth. 12 Then he waited yet another seven days, and sent out the dove; but she did not return to him again.

These verses in Chapter 8 speaking on the water levels are important for they do not include 1 important detail. That detail is how much water actually left or remained.  God does not tell us and judging from the evidence of sunken cities, glaciers, lakes high in the mountains and so much more, all the water did not leave the earth. God altered the post-flood geography for his purpose only. According to last known accounts, some 450 feet of ocean front property is buried under the sea and this rise in water levels was not due to any ice age or alternative source other than the flood.

The glaciers are a result of God possibly altering the axis of the earth and that ‘pole shift’ is theorized on by Dr. Charles Hapgood in his book, The path of the Poles, and other scientists who dared to deal with such a topic. This pole shift may explain why we find mammoths that were flash frozen, I do not know because we are not told how all this took place. Scientist can only hypothesize and since most of them are unbelievers, we will not get the truth from them nor will they ask God for help in figuring out the answer.

#6. 15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying, 16 “Go out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, that they may [i]breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth

Many skeptics claim that there would not be enough room on the ark for all the animals and argue that they probably were full-grown but as we can see by that passage of scripture, God took those animals at an age where they would be ready to refill the earth once they got off the ark after the flood. Since we are only dealing with ‘kinds’ and not species, the amount of food required would be minimal and as would the variety of species.

Keep in mind also that the animals taken aboard the ark were of pre-flood stock thus their abilities were probably far more enhanced than the post-flood crop of animal descendents. many people assume that the animals looked like they do today but Noah did not have such specimens to gather from. He had those animals from his world not ours, thus their longevity and size would allow them to breed for a long, long time afterwards.

#7. 21 The Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said [k]to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the [l]intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again [m]destroy every living thing, as I have done.

Here we see mention of man’s sin nature that came upon us at Adam’s sin and provides us with the reason why Jesus was sent to save us from our sins. We also see the reason why God instituted a sacrificial system until that time when Jesus ended it. The flood did not wipe out the sin nature in man, for the 8 people on the ark brought that forward with them, then passed it on down to us with each subsequent generation.

#8.22 “While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat,
And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease.”

Here is an interesting promise that I have not heard spoken upon before. God i snot only promising not to destroy the world with water again, he is guaranteeing us that the ability to provide food and water for ourselves will not end while the earth exists. We can ignore all those naysaying secular scientists who fearmonger about the food supply. We will have an endless supply of food but if one reads Rev. we need to manage it well or we will be the cause of our own hunger and thirst.

We cannot let this promise allows us to ignore being good stewards of our farm land or take the wrong attitude about our food and water supply. we still have to be responsible and care of it as it is all the land we will get.  We can also see that we need to be able to provide housing for ourselves as the seasons and their temperatures will not go away either.

The flood passage gives us a lot more than just Noah building an ark and saving the animals. Gen. 6-8 is not an environmental story but one of many lessons, with the most important being that God will punish unrepentant sin and his judgement will not be like ours.

 
Comments Off on Preaching The Bible- The Flood Passage

Posted by on April 29, 2015 in academics, Bible, church, faith, history, Justice, leadership, theology

 

A Comment That Bothers Me

Under the Inspiration of the Bible 4 is a comment which I will quote here made by a guy who claims to be a Christian. It is a classic example of someone leaping to conclusions and assumption then using their own interpretation to make comments that answer their own interpretive results and not the words that I have spoken. His words bother me because he assumes and makes claims about me without checking with me first to see if he got it right. He then attacks my character and intelligence by his interpretive remarks.

Jesus did give us a mandate to follow science. You can read it in John 3:12.

KJV—“If I [Jesus] have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?”

That verse has nothing to do with science as Jesus taught creation in 6 24 hour days when he spoke on the topic. He did not present any scientific information nor did he say ‘to use science to get to the truth’. He said ‘ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. We do not need science to get to the truth, the truth is found in many places and we need the HS to help get us to it.

Can science present the truth? Only if done correctly and that would mean not following the rules and regulations constructed by secular science adherents. The telling of ‘earthly things’ in that verse does not necessary refer to science. Those words can refer to anything and it would be an arrogant person who would assume that they refer to science.

Seeing as you have just completed a 4-Part series on how all of The Holy Bible is directly inspired by God, who we both know Jesus is, then all of The Bible is what Jesus said. Science is discussed at numerous places in Scripture. But the enemy of science, and faith, is also discussed in 1 Timothy 6:20.

KJV—“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”

I addressed this point in my short remarks in the comment section of Inspiration of the Bible 4. The term ‘science’ can also include, and does include, the field of theology thus to take one word and apply it to one limited research field is arrogant and misleading. Paul could be referring to theological opposition to the truth and Matthew Henry seems to back me up on this as he says:

[3.] That science that opposes the truth of the gospel is falsely so called; it
is not true science, for if it were it would approve of the gospel and
consent to it.
419
[4.] Those who are so fond of such science are in great danger of erring
concerning the faith; those who are for advancing reason above faith are in
danger of leaving faith. (Commentary on the Whole Bible Vol. 10)

People should not be assuming what Paul means when he uses certain words until they research those terms with brighter minds than their own. Here is what Albert Barnes has to say on the issue:

And oppositions of science falsely so called Religion has nothing to fear
from true science, and the minister of the gospel is not exhorted to dread
764
that. Real science, in all its advances, contributes to the support of religion;
and just in proportion as that is promoted will it be found to sustain the
Bible, and to confirm the claims of religion to the faith of mankind. See this
illustrated at length in Wiseman’s Lectures on the connection between
science and religion. It is only false or pretended science that religion has
to dread, and which the friend of Christianity is to avoid. The meaning here
is, that Timothy was to avoid everything which falsely laid claim to being’
“knowledge’“ or “science.” There was much of this in the world at the time
the apostle wrote; and this, more perhaps than anything else, has tended to
corrupt true religion since.(Barnes Notes on the Bible Vol. 15)

We can oppose science when it lies about things of this world. This also brings me to my next concern about that comment:

You keep making it sound like science is secular and evil, but it isn’t. What the world uses against us is falsely named science, it is pseudo-science! Real science is Creationism, like what is seen at Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research.

Over the past 14 years I have read and studied a lot of material and some of the details do tend to escape recall and one of those details are the names of others who also use the term ‘secular science’. I am not the only one who uses that term and it is not misused. When I use that term with unbelievers in the many different discussions I have had over the years, they get as upset as eisner does, why he does I do not know but he is splitting hairs and being nit picky.

Secular science is a term used to describe the source of information and that that source doe snot have God’s stamp of approval nor involvement. It is secular in every sense of the word’s definition (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secular) which you can access through that link in brackets. Answers in Genesis actually uses different terminology when categorizing science than  Their labels can be found at the following link:

https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/

and are called: historical and observational not pseudo-science as eisner suggests. Real science simply includes God and does their work God’s way omitting all the secular rules and regulations, etc. Sadly, to many Christians want to do real science yet fail to excise the secular part that guides their work thus their work can be tainted and confusing. Clarity comes from God not scientific work, the truth comes from God and only if he guides the work to the right conclusion– the truth.

Secular science depends upon questions and ignores the answers they dig up. That is one of the problems if secular science, they do not want the truth for the truth means they will have to stop their work and move on to a different topic. Secular science i snot really pseudo-science, but it employs that aspect in its work. Secular science has evil as its source and when I say we go against secular science I mean we identify their lies and refute those. Not all the work of secular scientists comes up a lie or faulty information. We believers just need to learn how to sort the lies from the truth God wants us to know.

God created this world, He has destroyed it in a flood, and numerous other events which have left a physical fingerprint on this planet. Supernatural or not, the effects burned whole cities to ash, left memories in ancient records, and covered the earth in miles of sedimentary rock.

What bothers me about this comment, though while true it insults the other person and assumes that they do not know this fact even though the person using the term secular science has been a believer in Jesus for a very long time and has moved on past square one and deeper into the faith. Assuming people do not know this basic fact is an insult to their intelligence and faith. it is an arrogant position that states that the speaker  thinks he is the only one who knows such things.

Hard to say what he means by ‘ancient records’ as NO piece of written information has surfaced from the pre-flood world. There is also know way of knowing if certain documents originated in the pre-flood world or not. The post-flood era has many languages and symbols that cannot be deciphered by modern researchers.

Science, when used correctly, works hand-in-hand with faith. Science can never replace faith.

Wile I tend to agree with these two comments, the superiority complex of the writer just puts me off.  Again he assumes that I do not know anything even though I have about 4 science and theological degrees behind my name and have written about true science many times over.

If that were the case, the evidence crying up from the ground would convert every single atheist in a heartbeat

No not really for the author of those words forgets about evil and its deception strategy. It is a naive statement to make and ignores so many influences and mitigating factors that one should be laughing at that writer right now instead of taking the time to analyze his words.There is a reason God said to study; in 1 Tim. and

“Boast no more so very proudly, Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth; For the Lord is a God of knowledge, And with Him actions are weighed. (I Sam. 2:3 NASB)

ignorance and naivety are not part of the Christian life.

It doesn’t because the evidence doesn’t shake a matter like willful rejection, faith against God. Nevertheless, science continues to testify of God Almighty. We know the universe declares His glory, and astronomy is science!

This last part is just gibberish, incoherent and naive. It ignores facts like God sending a powerful delusion to the world  and that many people see the truth yet willfully ignore that truth and willfully become deceived. By the way that verse from 1 Sam. is but one of 153 that contain the word knowledge and there is even a wiser one to use

The mind of the prudent acquires knowledge, And the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.(Prov. 18:15 NASB)

The problem with that pursuit is that many people ignore the biblical passages that tell them how to assemble and implement that newly obtained knowledge. They think that they know something and they must spout it all the time without thinking and without considering that others have learned those same pieces of information long before them.

We are to use wisdom and understanding when we wield knowledge and not use it wildly, like flinging a machete about in a dense tropical jungle cutting a path to our destination. We believers have God’s rules to employ when we present our side of the issue and when we talk to other believers. When we seek knowledge we should do so by following the HS so we know we are getting the correct information  and can avoid the traps evil sets when one studies different fields of learning.

To believe that God created everything in 6 days a person does not need science to do so. To believe that the flood and exodus, or Jesus lived all took place all one has to do is accept God at his word and believe him. We do not need science to believe or maintain our faith but science, if done correctly, can shore up that faith.

God’s rule is–use faith and if you read the Bible you would see  that there is no ‘science’ chapter anywhere within its pages BUT there is a faith chapter, Hebrews 11 and over 300 verses talking about faith in the Bible. The most famous probably is–

The just shall live by faith.(Gal. 3:11 KJV)

Notice it does not say the just shall live by science. Science is a mere tool to get us knowledge, It has no authority nor importance over faith. The key is when we use science we ask the HS to get us to the truth so our faith will be made stronger not weakened by the lies produced by the secular version.

 

5,000

Throughout Bill Bryson’s book, A Brief History of Everything, you can find all sorts of great tidbits of information that undermine the evolutionists and their argument. I just finished it and was led to 6 specific quotes that show how weak and unscientific the theory of evolution really is. The anti-creationist demands proof from the creationist for every statement the latter makes yet is satisfied by the lack of evidence supporting their alternative ideology.

Here are the 6 quotes, now some may say I am pulling them out of context but I am not. I am letting the author’s words speak for him and I am not going to really present an argument. The quotes do so much damage that I do not really have to say anything. I may be charged with prooftexting but I am not doing that either but allowing the points being made in the chapters these quotes came from be untouched and unaltered. The context surrounding these 6 quotes do not alter their meaning in any way shape or form.

#1. A big part of the problem, paraodoxically, is a shortage of evidence. Since the dawn of time several billion human beings have lived… Out of this vast number, the whole of our understanding of human pre-history is based on the remains, often exceedingly fragmentary, of perhaps five thousand individuals. (pg. 440)

That is it folks. The whole theory of the development of man depends upon nothing but the imagination of the evolutionist conjuring up the theory surrounding those remains. No fact, no real evidence just mere speculation, conjecture, assumption and leaps to conclusions. The theory of evolution is just a house of cards.

#2. we really have very little idea of the relationships between many ancient species- which led to us and which led to evolutionary dead ends (pg. 440)

Yet, they feel that they can go into the science classroom and teach our children how our past took place.

#3. Most books describe Lucy’s skeleton as being 40 percent complete…Lucy constitutes only 28 percent of a half skeleton (and only 20 percent of a full one). (pgs. 443-4)

In other words, they do not know what Lucy was and only use her remains for their benefit knowing no one is going to double-check or refute their assumptions.

#4. Although erectus had been known about for almost a century it was known only from scattered fragments- not enough to come even close to making one full skeleton. (pg. 450)

The remaining paragraph describes the discovery of a young boy labeled now as an example of erectus but that identification is as iffy as the identification of those erectus fragments were. Remember, evolutionists can say whatever they want to as they are the ones writing the book on evolution and no one has any sort of definitive guideline or instruction manual telling us that these different ancient humanoids actually existed and described in detail their appearance or skeletal structure.

The evolutionist can take any fossil or skeletal remains and label them whatever they feel like labeling them. In other words, they are not using science but their own subjective opinions which are influenced by deception and evil. Also, there is no way to date when that young boy was buried in that dirt, if he was moved from another area or if the dirt surrounding his remains were contaminated (we wouldn’t know what had happened to the dirt over such a long period of time thus it is merely an assumption that the dirt is uncontaminated and produces an accurate date).

#5. The problem, as ever, is the fossil record. ‘Very few parts of the world are even vaguely amenable to the long term preservation of human remains, says Thorne…, ‘If it wasn’t for a few productive areas like Hadar and Olduvai in East Africa we’d know frightenly little. And when you look elsewhere, often we do know frightenly little.’ (pg. 456)

This tells us that their ‘out of Africa’ ideology is incorrect and distorted. As well as being a large gigantic leap to a conclusion with no hope of being verified.  In other words, the ‘out of Africa’ thinking is done to provide an alternative to the Biblical record which tells a better but different account of man’s past and migration. There is no hope in it being actually true.

#6. In order to get a reliably clean specimen you have to excavate it in sterile conditions and do tests on it at the site. it is the trickiest thing in the world not to contaminate a specimen. (pg. 466)

The speaker was talking about retrieving DNA and how utterly difficult, if not impossible, it is to get a testable sample that has not been corrupted. And even if you do follow the directions in the above quote there is no way to determine if the specimen was not already contaminated form some earlier encounter with either humans or animals and the events taking place in life throughout history.

All these quotes do is expose the vast weakness of evolution and its construction.  There is no evidence supporting that theory and any so-called evidence is labeled such by the assumptions, conjecture, speculation and leaps to conclusions made by those who do not believe God. They cannot point to their ancient dates as evidence for not only can those dates be verified but there is no way for the evolutionist to show that the fossil fragment or skeleton lay untouched, unmoved for millions of years, that the bone remains were not buried in that dirt at a much later date or that the dirt was not altered in some way throughout its peaceful existence.

It is unrealistic to think that millions of years passed by and nothing out of the ordinary took place affecting that patch of ground where the fragments were uncovered. Such thinking takes a faith that is greater than what God asks of us when he asks us to simply believe his words written in the Bible.

 
Comments Off on 5,000

Posted by on April 27, 2015 in academics, archaeology, creation, faith, history, leadership, science, theology

 

Inspiration of the Bible- 4

This will be the last quotation of J C Ryle for this series. I find his words hit the nail on the head on this issue cutting through the waste of rhetoric that permeates the discussion.

#1. Some object that there are occasional statements in the Bible which contradict the facts of history. Are these all verbally inspired? My answer is that it is far more easy to assert this than to prove it. There is nothing of which we have so few trustworthy remains as very ancient history, and if ancient uninspired history and Bible history seem to disagree, it is generally safer and wiser to believe that Bible is history is right and the other history is wrong. ( pgs. 37-8)

#2. Some object that there are occasional statements in the Bible which contradict the facts of natural science… The Bible was not written to teach a system of geology, botany, or astronomy, or a history of birds, insects and animals and on matters touching those subjects it wisely uses popular language, such as common people can understand. No one thinks of saying that the Astronomer Royal contradicts science because he speaks of the sun rising and setting. (pg. 38)

#3. Some object that there are occasional statements in the Bible which are monstrous, absurd and incredible…My answer is that Christ’s apostles speak of these things as historical facts, and were more likely to know the truth about them than we are. (pg. 39)

#4. Some object that there are things mentioned occasionally in the Bible which are so trifling that they are unworthy to be called inspired…I answer that the least things affecting any of God’s children are not too small for the notice of him who numbers the hairs of our heads. (pg. 40)

#5. Some object that there are grave discrepancies in some of the Bible histories, especially in the four Gospels, which cannot be made to harmonize and agree…I answer that the number of these discrepancies is grossly exaggerated, and that in many cases they are only apparent and disappear under the touch of common sense. (pg. 41)

#6. Some object to Job’s friends, in their long speeches, said weak and foolish things. Were all their words inspired?…But we are nowhere told that either Job or Eliphaz and his companions spoke all that they spoke by the Holy Ghost. The writer of the book of Job was thoroughly inspired to record all they said. But whether they spoke rightly or wrongly is to be decided by the general teaching of Scripture. (pg. 42)

#7. Some object that St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7, when giving certain advice to the Corinthian church, says at one time, Not I but the Lord, and at another, I not the Lord…I answer, not at all. A careful study of the chapter will show that when the Apostle says, Not i but the Lord, he lays down some principles on which the lord had spoken already; and when he says I not the Lord, he gives advice on some point about which there had been no revelation hitherto. But there is not the slightest proof that he is not writing all the way through under direct inspiration of God. (pg. 43)

#8. Some object that there are many various readings of the words of Scripture, and that we cannot, therefore, feel sure that we have the original inspired Word of God…I answer that the various readings, when fairly examined , will prove to be absurdly exaggerated in number and importance…Considering how many hands the Bible passed through before printing was invented, and who the transcribers were, it is marvellous that the various readings are so few. (pg. 43-44)

#9. Finally, some object that occasional parts of the Bible are taken out, copied and extracted from the writings of uninspired men, such as historical chronicles, and pedigrees, and lists of names. Are these to be regarded as inspired?…I reply that there seems no reason why the Holy Ghost should not have directed the Bible writers to use materials made ready for their hands, as well as facts which they had seen themselves, and, by so directing them, have invested such words as they are used with divine authority. (pg. 44)

A closer look at #3 is warranted as JC Ryle brings out a very good point. The disciples spent 3 years with Jesus and it is no stretch of the imagination to think that they would have questioned Jesus about creation, the flood and other key OT accounts. If Jesus had told them that those stories were not exactly true and the details needed to be altered, it is highly unlikely that the NT writers would have kept that information to themselves.

In fact, we have no extra-biblical extant book from the 1st century , or even the 2nd or 3rd, that says that the disciples of Jesus told a different story than what is found in the OT accounts. There is no record of any of the eye-witnesses to Jesus telling us that they provide alternative ideas than what is recorded in the OT or that they heard it from Jesus.

All ancient extra-biblical records support the biblical accounts and utter no word on there being any conspiracy by priests or other national leaders to hoodwink the people. Josephus, Pliny the elder & younger, Philo and a host of others make no mention of this activity thus we can be confident that the OT is very true and the words recorded in its pages are indeed accurate and without error.

This concludes the series on quoting JC Ryle and I hope that the words in the 4 parts have strengthened your faith and drove any doubts away. Inspiration is hard to prove to the unbeliever and it is a matter for the realm of faith only but unbelievers keep making unrealistic and ridiculous demands for evidence. The only evidence we can point to, not only are contained in JC Ryle’s book, but also in the impact the Bible has had on civilizations throughout history.

If you get into discussions on inspiration with unbelievers point them to Mr. Ryle’s words that inspiration was a miracle for that is the best way to describe it.The Christian should not worry about presenting scientific evidence for that is a secular demand not a criteria of God for sharing what one believes about Jesus or the Bible.

You see, God does not work the scientific way. he can but we would not always recognize his handiwork if he did so 100% of the time. God works supernaturally and there will be no scientific evidence but there will be faith evidence for God does not contradict what he says pleases him. A scientific explanation is not needed for anything biblical or concerning God.

There is no biblical instruction telling us that we are to use science to judge or place a stamp of approval on God’s work or intervention in history or personal lives. Science is not the authenticator of biblical or spiritual activities; in fact, it i snot the authenticator of history or people’s behavior or thoughts. It is merely a tool to understand what God created and how they work or work together.

Only the secular world places an unhealthy status upon science and we need to be careful not to do  the same thing. Science is not God’s representative on Earth. The believer needs to realize this and act accordingly.

 
 
%d bloggers like this: