RSS

Category Archives: Genetics

Believers 10

What was different she (Dorothy Chappell) explained is the broader context. We teach science from within a Christian worldview starting with the assumption that all truth is God’s truth. We believe there is a biblical truth- what we call special revelation– and there is natural truth or general revelation. Generally there is no conflict between the two. We do believe that God created the universe and that Adam and Eve  were the first humans, Chappell said, but we are agnostic as to how God did it– pg. 153

We will dissect this quote using specific terms

#1. Christian World View— not sure what hat is but if it does not contain the truth then it is not Christian. A believer cannot compromise their beliefs and once a person accepts alternative information, especially from secular sources, then they no longer have a Christian world view. They have a compromised view of the world.A Christian world view has to line up with the Bible or it is not of God.

#2. All Truth— It would be nice to know how she defines that category as scientific truth may not be truth at all. The same goes for natural truth.Processes may be considered natural truth but they are not true at all. The truth is found in the Bible not in nature for the Bible explains much of hat we see in nature. For example some people call homosexuality natural because individual animals are observed engaging in homosexual behavior. Their observation is false because those acts are the result of the corruption that entered the world at Adam’s sin. Nature does not provide us with much truth, it provides us with more evidence proving the Bible true.

#3. Special Revelation— We know people like to label the Bible as special revelation but it is simply God revealing to us what was done in the past, our instructions from him how to live correctly and what God did in human history. The Bible provides us with the truth while human historical works rarely do. The latter are influenced by so many mitigating factors that one would be hard pressed to find the truth within their pages.

The same for science.If science disagrees with the Bible, it is not scientific truth or new revelation. It just means that the science is wrong and he scientists have made the error.Evolution has never existed so it cannot be part of God’s truth.

#4. Agnostic About How God Did It— No Believer should be taking this point of view. One, it demonstrates an acceptance of lies from secular science, and two, God already told us how he did it. We re not in the dark about his methodology.  Any acceptance of alternative ideas as to how God created everything means there is a compromise and people claiming to be Christian do not believe God and his words. This is not acceptable especially when you area church or Christian academic institution. Christians are to believe and proclaim what God said and what he said he did regardless of the opposition from the unchurched and unbelieving world.

Christians cannot afford to compromise for once they do they are advertising that they do not believe God anymore. You cannot have an impact on this world if you do not believe God.

 

{****This ends our Believers series}

 

Pastors 5

One last post in this series. It is important for pastors to become educated and follow the Holy Spirit to the truth. In the case of the theory of evolution, pastors and many Christians can become confused because of the scientific hypothesis, conjecture, assumptions being tossed around by scientists and evolutionists.

Pastors need to be able to lead their people through the land mines of secular lies and get their people to the right information so that they and their people do not stumble and get led astray by the double talk given by evolutionists. For example, evolutionists cite the similarities between genetic codes as evidence for an evolutionary development.

What the evolutionist does not admit to, acknowledge or even factor in when they say they have proof for their non-existent theory is the fact that most animals and humans live in the exact same environment and have the exact same needs. This means that both humans and animals will share many genetic and bodily functions and this shared trait is not evidence for evolution but the wisdom of God as he designed both humans and most animals to live together within the same environment.

It would be ridiculous to have a diversity of bodily functions and other organs when animals and humans live together.  It is the evolutionist that is deceived not the Christian thus the pastor cannot lean upon the words of unbelievers to help them understand our origins or the Bible. God knew what he did, and evil is leading many people astray because pastors re not correctly informed. We rely upon God not science for our information concerning our origins  and other details.

Science has long kicked the God of truth out of its laboratories and invited the father of lies in, We do not trust what secular scientists claim or declare, especially when their words go against God and his word. The church is not against science but the lies that are produced by secular science.

 

3 Words

–Racism, sexism & change. When it comes to the first two words, racism and sexism, Christians cannot jump on one or the other side of the argument.They must jump to God’s side and brig the truth to the issue. They must cast light on the problem showing the rest of the world what is really at the heart of the issue.

#1. Racism—  the believer must point out, and accept, the fact that there are not different races in the world. There is only one and no matter what color of skin everyone is a member of that one race.That race of humans all came from Adam and Eve.  No matter what scientists say about Cro-magnon man, Neanderthals and any other proto-human, those creatures did not exist and are distortions of ancient skeletal remains. Darwin got it wrong as do all evolutionists.

#2. sexism-– There are no winners in this issue. If a person favors men then they are accused of being sexist towards women. Both sexism and racism are terms thrown about loosely in attempts to bully those who disagree with those who misapply such terms. But the argument of sexism cuts both ways. Once you favor women over men then you are being sexist towards men. As we said, you cannot win in this issue if you play the sexist card.

The truth of this issue can be seen in the qualifications of both genders but men are biblically charged with taking care of their families. The verse ‘if a man doe snot provide for his family he is worse than an infidel’ (paraphrase) plays a role in this charge to the male gender. of course there are other verses like, ‘if a man shall not work neither shall he eat’. Women d not receive such divine instructions for they are not the head of the family. They are men’s helpmeets, fulfilling roles and duties to aid the man not replace him.

Being a helpmeet does not mean a woman cannot work. it just means that they are not the primary employable person of the family unit. If a company hires a man over a woman, they are not being sexist but helping the man fulfill his biblical responsibilities. The secular world does not want God’s ways in either the race or sexist issues thus they distort both in order to achieve their own selfish adjectives. They need true Christians to provide not only the light but wise counsel as well as knowledgeable insight to guide the unbeliever,and the believer, in what s the right thing to do

#3. Change— This word is often used by evolutionists to describe their false theory of life development. They claim that change is evolution. But there is a danger that comes with being so ambiguous. By using such a broad term the evolutionist has effectively removed the standard of right and wrong from all scientific work. This move also undermines ethical standards as well as the application of the term implies that all change is good.

The true believer knows that idea is not so and they also know that such terminology indicates that any change in life forms is okay and nothing is found to be in error.No one can be corrected for their work because there is no standard of the right and wrong way of doing things. Change has taken place thus it must be studied and accepted. Nothing is wrong and nothing has to be corrected.

Change is declared as an evolutionary advance but with no standard measurement guiding the experiments or the scientists, how can they determine if that change was the correct one and in line with evolutionary thought? How does the scientist know he is on the right track with nothing to guide him or her?

What the ambiguous application of the word ‘change’ does is leave the theory of evolution flexible enough so that it can be altered at an evolutionist’s convenience when part of their theory is shown to be unworkable. We have had evolutionists tell us that the theory of evolution is not the same as the one Darwin imagined when he constructed his version of the theory. if this is so, how can anyone trust what any evolutionary scientist declares? He is not working within the framework of Darwin’s theory but some altered version that has no standard telling the modern evolutionist if they got it correct or not.

Each evolutionist is working with their own version of the theory of evolution not a truth. That means that any modern idea of evolution is purely subjective and has no hope of being verified at any time.They can’t be because there is no model of how evolution works to guide the evolutionist. There is no standard of right and wrong either informing the evolutionist when they have made an error in their calculations or thinking. anything and everything becomes ‘evidence’ for the theory but all that means is that evolutionists will distort ‘change’ in a move of desperation as they try to support their fictional ideas on life development.

Predictions cannot do it as those are not 100% accurate and are a tool of pseudo-science not real science.Predictions do not come with a standard of right and wrong informing the evolutionist that they are mistaken, all they have is a failed experiment for it did not produce the predicted result. This failure does not motivate the evolutionist to throw out their theory; instead they just keep making predictions, like they are doing a multiple choice quiz and keep picking a letter till they get the question right. Predictions do nothing but reinforce wrong ideas.

Change is not a good determiner when trying to figure out a theory that has no hope of being verified. All change does is lead people down the wrong paths to look in the wrong places for the wrong answers. Change is not evolutionary. All change tells us is that something is not the same and that alteration may not be correct.Life forms are placed in grave danger because evolutionist misunderstand them and misapply their results.

Change is not always good nor is it scientific. It could mean that someone violated the process and committed a great wrong. We need the standard of right and wrong to guide us to the right answers not so someone can ‘do science’. Right and wrong provide us great help in determining if we are on the right track and evolution i snot the right track for there is nothing that verifies it, no matter how loud the evolutionist howls.

 

Distorting Creationists’ Views

We have crossed swords with Age of Rocks before and usually it has been a good encounter as both sides present their views. However, this post of his

Mr. Creationist Goes to Court

is a blatant and gross distortion of creationists’ views concerning our origins.  The author of that piece assumes far too much. For example he assumes that secular science has been charged with the duty of discovering our origins. It has not. He assumes that secular science has found and maintains the truth about our origins. It has not.He assumes that secular science is infallible when it comes to the information it uncovers. It isn’t.

He assumes that secular science or any science knows more than God does. It doesn’t. He assumes that evil plays no role in the work of secular scientists work, thinking and presentations, as well as those scientists who call themselves Christian. He would be in error. He assumes that secular science is an authority and has the final say on all matters of life. Again he errs.

Secular science is the blind leading the blind and that is the best thing we can say about that field of research. We include all those scientists,like Francis Collins, who claim to be Christian yet contradict God and his word by including evolutionary ideas and models in with God’s creative act.Those people are very misguided and deceived.

The other important aspect that author assumes is that only those who do secular science can do rational and logical thought or are the only people who know anything. I am sure he is one of the group of anti-creationists who will say creationists lie when they disagree with the claims of secular scientists but they have to prove an actual lie has been told willingly.  Disagreeing with the results of secular science is not lying nor is honestly producing information one believes to be the truth. Sometimes people repeat information that they think is the truth because they were taught that information was true. That is not lying.

Then that author thinks that one has to be a scientist to rebut anything secular science declares.That s far from the truth for even an office assistant can know the truth because they listen to the God who did the actual creating over the fallible human who was not even an adviser to the creator of the universe, life and its development. The secular scientist is the one who does not know anything about our origins not the lowly uneducated believer of the Most High God.

In fact, it is smarter to be the latter than the former. It is rational and logical to be a believer in the one who did the actual creating than follow the one who rejects  him and his revelation.Making fun of those who believe God and the Bible is also not an intelligent, rational or logical move. That behavior only exposes the ignorance of the one who rejects God and his word. Science, any variety, is a lowly creation and not greater than the one who created it. Science was created by God so we would understand him more and learn about him. It was not created to usurp authority nor declare that God was or is wrong. Nor was it created to be  the authority or final word on all aspects of life.

Sadly, too many people,including those who claim to be Christian, have thrown God out of his own creation and try to do science on their own. All they have done is open the door to evil and let it destroy any truth science could uncover. You cannot throw the God of truth out and expect to come to the truth when you are influenced and led by the father of lies.

Secular science and scientists need to humble themselves and recognize that they are not the supreme being and acknowledge God as above them. Then they need to repent of their sins and get right with God so that science can be used correctly, leading people to the truth and to a greater understanding of God. Currently, science is being used to lead people to lies, to say God did things he did not say he did, and to distort the evidence we have to fit their humanistic views. Science is being misused and abused by those who reject God and that is wrong.

The church is not against science especially when science gets things correct– like orbits and other factual members of the universe.It is against the lies of that secular science produces. Lies like Darwin’s theory of evolution, natural selection and other human alternatives to the truth of Genesis 1 and 2. Science does not belong in the affairs of our origins for that is not a mystery. We know where we came from, how it all came about and we do not need secular science meddling in what we already know to be the truth.

Secular science and its human alternatives bring confusion and confusion, as the Bible tells us, is not of God. This fact tells the believer to reject what unbelieving scientists say because they are disagreeing with God and the Bible. Anything that disagrees with God and the Bible are the ones in error. God does not lie and he does not make mistakes so we take God’s word over the word over those who ‘do science’. That is the right and Christian thing to do.

 

A Word Or Two On Scholars

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/first-person-misogyny-in-the-bible/

It is an interesting article on a topic we are fully aware. We do not agree with Mr. Shanks or Dr. Rollston as neither person has the spirit of truth guiding them to the truth. This is the confusing thing about scholarship. Many people claim to be Christian, who are scholars, yet they throw out God’s rules that would guide them to the truth of a topic and embrace the rules of man. Rarely do scholars come to the truth using that formula. They try to please men, not God.

Christopher Rollston is one of the world’s leading paleographers of ancient Near Eastern inscriptions. I have been harshly critical of some of his views, principally regarding unprovenanced inscriptions—inscriptions that have surfaced only from the antiquities market, not from a professional archaeological excavation. They may be forgeries, he argues. Although my criticism of Chris’s position is intense,1 we remain good friends and regularly share a meal.

Yes he is a leading scholar but we find his answer wanting and lacking in anything that is helpful to the believer. We know this as he refused to provide a direct answer to some our questions when we asked him point-blank, when does a Hebrew script mean a Hebrew script? Scholarship should be dedicated to finding the truth and informing the people of that truth. Sadly, too many Christians opt for constructing new theories for discussion and avoid the truth like the plague. This is why we used the word ‘confusing’ earlier. Even Christian scholars bring confusion to the church and confusion is not of God. These men and women are trained  in ancient languages and other disciplines thus they are in a unique position to help the church…unfortunately, this rarely happens.

Rollston finds the marginalization of women obvious and “clear” in the Ten Commandments: “The wife is classified as her husband’s property, and she’s listed with the slaves and work animals. There is also a striking omission in this commandment: Never does it say, ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s husband.’”

People like Rollston tend to read too much of their own or some other secular person’s views into scripture and make a mole hill into a mountain.  When the word woman is or wife is used in the 10 commandments she is not being listed as property. That is an idea that is read into the passage of scripture. The idea that women were ancient men’s property is more of a secular cultural idea than a spiritual one for we never read any passage of scripture instructing men to make women their property. But when a couple marries and becomes one they do belong to each other and no one else. it is a different concept than the one proposed by Dr. Rollston.

Men have specific instructions from God on how to treat women and none of them tell the man to make a woman their property.But these passages are ignored when scholars, like Dr. Rollston, publish their views on scripture.

Rollston continues with other examples:

An unmarried woman could be compelled to marry her rapist, as long as the rapist could pay the standard bride price and the woman’s father was comfortable with the marriage (Deuteronomy 22:28–29). Polygyny (a man having multiple wives at the same time) was not condemned, but was an accepted and legal custom (Deuteronomy 21:15–17; Genesis 4:19–24; and 2 Samuel 3:2–5). A woman’s religious vow could be nullified by her father or her husband (Numbers 30:3–15). And the assumption of the text is that the priesthood is all male (Leviticus 21). In short, within the legal literature of the Bible, women were not accorded the same status as men.

What we find when scholars make these type of points is that it is not God who is in error. Rather, it is the scholar who does not understand scripture properly and attack the passage from their own understanding not using God’s wisdom or spirit of truth to help them grasp what God is saying. Dr. Rollston, there, is pulling passages out of context and without proper exegetical work to understand why God said what he said. Scholars cherry pick as well. They also ignore passages that would clarify what God is saying for those passages stop the scholar from writing what they do.

But there’s more: “Let a woman learn in silence and full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to be silent” (vv. 11–12). The author’s rationale: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (vv. 13–14). According to this text, women were to be silent in worship gatherings (and men were certainly not told to be silent)

Another example of cherry picking a verse to support a bad agenda and another example of understanding what God is saying. Does the word silent mean that women cannot worship or pray? We do not think so. Most likely the women was not to teach or preach to men but as you can read it looks like Dr. Rollston is importing his own ideas to the text and not taking out exactly what God means. We get a clue when men are not told to be silent. Dr. Rollston seems to forget that if men are to be silent then there is no teaching, preaching or worship going on in the service, everyone just sits around watching each other grow. This is the problem with scholars and scholarship. They leave God out of the process and think their conclusions trump what God wants for his church. God owns the church thus he gets the say how it will operate.

Rollston recently told us in writing what we already knew. This criticism of the Bible led to his “forced ouster” from Emmanuel Christian Seminary.

We know this story and yes there was nothing wrong with his ouster. He was teaching contrary to the ideology of the institution that employed him and he taught things that were not of God.This is the result of scholarship when you leave the spirit of truth out of helping–you leave God and speak something God did not teach or say. Dr. Rollston, then, becomes a false teacher and those people have no place in God’s academic institutions or churches. He has no business teaching young Christians nor do those pastors who do not believe God’s word any more. The Bible warns us against false teachers and the church and academic institution must obey God and get rid of those who do not teach what God wants or commanded. There is no alternative to that position.

If you cannot believe, preach or teach what God wants, then you have no right to teach or preach in what is God’s. Christian scholars are to be servants of God and they must present what God wants– the truth in love– not contrary theories or lead people to false teaching. They are to obey God in all areas of life and cannot adopt secular ideas to guide them in their work. Christian scholars need to bring the truth for they have a great responsibility given to them by God and they fail God and the people when they allow themselves to be led astray by those who reject God, Jesus and the aid of the Holy Spirit.

 

I Guess It Is A Hit

The Genesis Movie. Here is a link to a review of the show

http://crev.info/2017/02/genesis-hits-the-big-screen/

It’s very difficult to get a hearing for intelligent design these days, let alone Genesis 1–11. And even if you got a public platform for Genesis, limiting it to a rational discussion of creation in six literal days and a global flood would seem miraculous. But that’s what Compass Cinema pulled off in secular theaters around the country for a one-night film event by Fathom Media. Some towns had to open additional theater space because of the demand. That happened in Littleton Colorado, I know, and in my hometown, a second theater was added. Both filled up, indicating significant interest in the subject.

On Content

The film consists largely of conversations by Del Tackett with leaders in the Biblical creation movement about scientific evidence supporting the historicity of Genesis accounts of Creation and the Flood. The conversations occur at Grand Canyon, in museums and zoos, on a dinosaur dig and other locations. Del is founder of The Truth Project, a popular worldview apologetics course. In 2008, Del was among two dozen Bible scholars who participated in a special scholar’s rafting trip through the Grand Canyon sponsored by Canyon Ministries. I was on that trip and got to know Del, finding him to be a humble, godly, and very intelligent man, an excellent teacher who is genuinely interested in scientific questions. It appears that trip was very stimulating for him and all the other Bible scholars. We all saw profound evidence for the Flood with our own eyes as veteran guide Tom Vail steered us down the river. Details of the evidence were expounded by PhD geologist Andrew Snelling, who is also prominent in the film. Perhaps that trip was a turning point in Del’s thinking to take him beyond mere Biblical apologetics into full embrace of the historical Genesis.

Go read the rest of the review please

 

Quotes From Billy Graham

The following quotes have been taken from his World Aflame book.

pg. 47-8 — And as Carl Henry says: In his desire to control the universe, man repeatedly puts himself in God’s place but the idea of God’s Son as a substitute in man’s place he dismisses as incredible nonsense

pg. 48 — From many universities come these ideas: First, man is only an animal; Second, existence is a chemical accident; Third, the struggle for survival has made man what he is; Fourth, morality and standards of conduct are derived only from a sociological context; Fifth, man lives in and for this world only and any further thought is unscientific.

pg. 51 — In a bull session at Harvard, a student observed: Does it not seem strange that millions should be spent trying to create life or to discover its origin? Is not our number one problem to care for the life we already have?

pg. 51 — Either man began nowhere and is looking for someplace to go or he began somewhere and has lost his way.

pg. 83 — There is a strong movement… to recast the Christian message in order to make it acceptable to modern man.

pg. 83 — Karl Barth…in a scathing denunciation of these demythologizers says… In trying to make Christianity plausible for skeptics they have succeeded only in making it meaningless.

pg. 88 — The inescapable implication of a counterfeit is that the real thing exists. No one ever counterfeited a seventy-five dollar bill. Every counterfeit bears witness to the reality of the currency it captures

pg. 127 — Ask the scientist and he cannot give an answer. I have asked a number of scientists questions concerning life after death an most of them say ‘we just do not know’.Science deals in formilas and test tubes. There is a spiritual world that science knows nothing about.

pg. 141 — At birth our sex is settled, the very frame of our body is already determined.

As to the second to last quote, all we can say is that scientists need to be evangelized not have their theories accepted. Science, especially secular science, does not know more than God. For the quotes from page 83, even today we have people trying to change the christian message to make it more attractive to unbelievers. IF you change God’s message then you are not bringing God’s message to the lost. Finally, the last quote reminds us that transgender issues are not a 21st century problem ut has existed for a long, long time. The gender one was born as is the gender they are, anything else is a product of deception.

 
 
%d bloggers like this: