January 26, 2009

Civic Duty

Serious case ahead and I cannot say any more. This will take at least a couple of weeks. I cannot read anything about this case, courts, or jury duty as I was instructed.

Stan said Since you're poised to sit in a jury box, perhaps you should be more aware of just what the laws of this country stipulate.

Stan, I stopped reading everything past this point. First because I can't stand your arrogant smugness right now and second I don't want my virgin eyes to be affected by anything for this case. I will read it after we reach a verdict.

Have a good couple of weeks all. Two weeks without atheists? Is this Heaven?

Speaking of judgments...How would you fair in God's Court?

January 23, 2009

Defending the Christian Faith

I may have to go to jury duty for a long case so this may be my last post for a while. I will know more Monday.

To allow a continuation of the discussion about worldviews this post is relevant. More accurately though, this post is a ode to Dani' El from discussions I have had with him, also since he is currently reading the book "Always Ready- Directions for Defending the Faith" by the late great Dr. Greg Bahnsen. (my copy is on it's way). I so love this man's mind.

I thought you would find it interesting to be a fly on the wall as he is lecturing to us Christians. Atheists, if you want to be shoved back against the wall gasping for breath just listen to some of this brilliant teaching. Does the evidence of God, or lack of, place atheists in a neutral position? Listen for the answer by Dr. Bahnsen.

UPDATE: Hendrik van der Breggen did an article on Moral relativism and tolerance that would be worth the read. The comment to froggie was brilliant.

January 21, 2009

Adams Rib?

Speaking of proper hermeneutics…

I heard something early in the morning from a local preacher that gave me pause. He was discussing Adam's rib and the proper translation that was compelling.

In Genesis 2:21 God took one of Adam’s ribs to create Eve.

and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof” KJV

he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.” NIV, NASB

And it appears that all of the translations say this. Is that what it really said in the original Hebrew manuscripts?

According to Strong's Hebrew Lexicon the word rib, Hebrew צלע 'tsela' (Strong’s 6763) , side or rib from the primitive root word of צלע 'tsala' (Strong’s 6760) which means curve, limp in the sense of bowing, to arc, as in pray.

So what does this all mean? Well what if the translation was indeed wrong and that it was in fact “tsala“(Strong’s 6760) they did not understand that God took from Adam’s curve. So they extrapolated (assumed) that it meant rib. God said Adam’s curve. In other words from Adam’s Double Helix (Curve) DNA.

Understandably, back in 1611 we had it wrong. We had no clue what a curve from Adam was. The very exact Hebrew word צלע could mean rib or curve. The implications of this is huge, Howard huge.

Remember this was written 3000-4000 years before mankind had any clue as to what DNA was. This shows, once again, the supernatural aspect of God’s Word. The Bible is fully and completely inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. No man can convince me otherwise.

So, should we trust man with the various translations to make decisions about the fallibility and in turn question the reliability of the Bible? Of course not. Should we trust the preserved Word of God with our entire lives? Definitely!


Rhetorical Adjuration

January 19, 2009

A Paradigm for Design

"I have not heard of any scientific theory about a creator... God should be considered part of nature, not separate from it, and thus the subject of scientific inquiry"

If you have noticed the original video has been removed and replaced. The Original was titled: Bacterial Flagella: a Paradigm for Design please keep an eye out for it! We cannot be silenced.

Before it is written off so quickly or if anyone introduces Ken Miller, watch this rant.

January 18, 2009

The Theory of Evilution is a Myth

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

This five part series should show anyone who is open to the truth, the very obvious reason that the Myth of Evolution is being imposed on the evidence, lacks falsifiability, and has become a part of the contemporary worldview.

January 10, 2009

Christ’s New Covenant Church Kingdom

CwC asked: Dan, what stops you from obeying the Mosaic Code?

For those of us who are saved, if it's in the Old Covenant it has been nailed to the Cross by Jesus, as fulfilled, and the New Covenant has continued it. The only time you would follow the Old Covenant of the nation of Israel, is if it is repeated in the New Covenant, for the saved. 

You won't find anything repeated about keeping the Sabbath in the New Covenant, for example, because Jesus is our Sabbath rest. So the 4th Old Commandment had been fulfilled for the saved. (Hebrews 4:9-10, Matthew 11:28)

Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:7-8,13, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, Hebrews 8:6, Hebrews 9:11-15, ,Hebrews 1:1-14, Romans 6:14, Romans 8:1-4, Hebrews 10:16

I can stop here and point you to Hebrews 10:9-10  that clearly spells it out, but I'll flesh it out further. I am sure you are fully aware of this, but it's worth repeating for the discussion. We need to make a distinction between the three types of laws in the Old Testament for the nation of Isreal.

The first type is ceremonial. These are the laws governing the temple worship and the way the Jewish were to approach God. They have to do with the layout of the temple, the ways a person must be purified, the sacrificial system. We don’t sacrifice animals today because, for one they were for Israel, and two Jesus has come, the perfect sacrificial Lamb of God. He, in his death on the cross, fulfilled the ceremonial law. They only apply as Christ has fulfilled these, to those that are saved in Him.

The second type is judicial, civil law. These laws covered the specific laws for the nation of Israel. These still apply to given a proper Godly way to run a government, I believe. They are about not taxing, no police force fining it's citizens for infractions, and more about restitution and capital punishment, instead of prisons, as a much better way to governing it's citizens. The civil law has been fulfilled by Christ in that God’s Kingdom, extended to all nations, transcending national identity as a better way to run a government with the headship of Jesus Christ.  

The third type is moral law, the Ten Commandments fall into this category. These are laws that transcend the civil and ceremonial laws. Yes, Jesus fulfilled the moral law, just as he did the other two, but we are now free to follow this Law. They are still in effect, because they are a reflection of God’s moral character, and that does not change. We, as the saved, are not held to the Law as a Covenant.

On a side note, the dietary guidelines in Leviticus 11 are still "in effect" I want to believe. Even if it's repeated and continued in the NT for Israel, while Christ was still around, they have been fulfilled and no longer apply under the New Covenant. But, the fact that 'clean' and 'unclean' foods haven't changed, gives us a guide. But again, you're made clean through Christ, not from anything we're doing, or ingesting. It's just good to not ingest unclean animals that were created to ingest death and the refuge of the world. God's wisdom gave us very good nutritional, and preparatory, guidelines. Following them just makes sense still. It just will not get you to heaven by doing so. These days we have more options to continue to follow the practices even. We even have beef bacon!

Galatians 3:11-13 "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"

Jesus, at the time before the cross, was an Old Covenant prophet (Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David), after the cross he became the High Priest (Christ’s New Covenant Church Kingdom)

In order for there to be a change in the LAW, there had to be a change in the Priesthood. Jesus did NOT become High Priest of His New Covenant Kingdom until He was Resurrected from the dead. If Jesus, before the Cross, had given NEW Covenant Law, there would have been NO New High Priest to Mediate it. When He was alive we were still under the Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David.

Hebrews 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

Romans 7:5-7 "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

All people will face God under one of two covenants. Either Adam, or the second Adam named Jesus Christ. It's that simple. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49

Which Covenant are you going to meet God under?


January 5, 2009

Shadowy Prophecies

[Click inside picture for links to Messianic Prophecy list]
In the OT there were many shadowy prophecies for the NT.

For example baptism:

1 Pet 3:20-21 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

Another example is the sacrificing of a lamb to cover the sins in the OT to the sacrificing the Lamb of God for forgiveness of sins in the NT.

The sacrificial lamb during Passover referring to Jesus our Passover Lamb. (1 Corinthians 5:7) The blood of the lamb over the door to save your first born and the Lamb of God, His first and only begotten son, shed His Blood to save everyone.

From Sabbath as a day in the OT, to Sabbath is Jesus Christ in NT; Jesus is our Sabbath Rest is another shadowy prophecy.

The reason why Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34) was because of the fulfillment of the prophetic explanation of Himself dying on the Cross in Psalm 22. In verse 15 "they pierced my hands and my feet" hundreds of years before Crucifictions were invented as a form of death penalty.

Read Isaiah 53 1-12 and you will see that it was written about Jesus and was written almost 700 years before Christ was even born.

My all time favorite is The Ten Commandments are like the ten camels that carried Abraham's servant in search of a bride for his only begotten son, Isaac (Genesis 24:10-20). When the servant arrived at the city, Nahor I believe, he had his ten camels kneel down outside the city before the well at the time the woman go out to draw water. He prayed that the bride to be would be evidenced by the fact that she would have consideration for the camels. When Rebekah saw the camels, she ran to the well to get water for them.

God, the Father, sent His Spirit to search for a bride for His only begotten Son. He has chosen the Ten Commandments to carry this special message.

The Holy Spirit knows that the primary reason the bride draws water from the well of salvation is to satisfy the ten thirsting camels of a holy and just Law. If the Law didn't demand death for sin, we wouldn't need a Savior. The true convert comes to the savior simply to satisfy the demands of a holy Law.

The espoused virgin has respect for the Commandments of God. She loves God's Law because of what it is (an expression of His holy nature) and what it does (show us our need for mercy). She isn't a worker of lawlessness. [taken from WotM]

We must keep in mind some of these prophecies were listed 1000 years before it happened. Logic will tell you that the Bible is supernatural unless you want to fulfill another prophecy of the Bible, by denying Him and His truth. (Proverbs 30:9, 2 Timothy 2:12, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, Titus 1:16, 2 Peter 2:1, Jude 1:4)


January 3, 2009

Scientific Consensus?

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID Violates the Scientific Consensus

Scientific consensus is highly problematic because it has been notoriously unreliable. For example in 1960 geosynclinal theory was the consensus explanation for mountain formation. It was "one of the great unifying principals of geology" according to authors of 'Geological Evolution of North America.' Geosynclinal theory was utterly abandoned after ten years of declaration and replaced with plate tectonics.

Even in a recent conversation it was get_education who poignantly said: "Actually, all scientific theories are "dubious" in the sense that further data might contradict the current theories, and thus we would have to come to different conclusions."

To which Dr. Van der Breggen complemented it with: "I think that we can agree that we should let a scientific investigation of the evidence of the world arbitrate our disagreement and that we should let the investigation do so unfettered by either an atheistic or theistic philosophy which might unfairly force our conclusions one way or the other."

Darwininism, today, is touted so widely as fact. We need to understand though that Darwin's theory at the start of the twentieth century was rejected by most all biologists. In the 1930's Darwinism revived when a handful of scientists merged Darwin's theory with Mendelian genetics, now known as Neo-Darwinism.

We can all agree that Darwinism remains the scientific consensus, but that consensus is shrinking. Dissent from Darwinism continues to grow in the scientific population. More would sign the list if their livelihood and reasearch would not be threatened by challenging Darwinism.

Michael Crichton, Medical Doctor, said it best: "I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

January 2, 2009

Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate

Let's kick this year off right with a knock down drag out fight between truth and perceived truth. We will let this 8 part debate be the opener.

ID Proponents: William F. Buckley Jr., Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, and David Berlinski.

Evolutionist: Barry Lynn, Eugenie C. Scott, Michael Ruse, and Kenneth Miller.

I am not a huge fan of this debate and it did go on tangents at times. I will say I enjoyed Berlinski and his confident arguments. Since he is not a Christian no one can claim his "Christian Propaganda". I was amazed that Scott said that ICR frustrated her because they always claim that (x) didn't happen and it then takes much longer to explain that (x) did happen. So her frustrations are that we don't take it on faith of mankind about evilution, plus that is the very same thing done by atheists and (x), in that case, is God. At least the sides do seem to be balanced where you have a professing Christian who believes in evolution (Lynn) and a non believer who rejects evolution (Berlinski).

Since I am not satisfied with the results of the closing arguments, and since this is my arena, I will allow Berlinski an additional 5 minutes as a closing:

Once again atheists have sought to silence christian opinions by taking down this video. Ah, who will have the last word? ...God.

This clip was part of a 22 part interview that I recommend as part of a journey towards truth.