Wednesday, July 17, 2019

A False Claim about the Evolution of Christianity

Since materialists believe that everything evolved, that also means religion itself evolved as well. A Darwinist believes that societies conjured up gods via natural selection when their population levels reached a million people, and these gods were ill-tempered.

Materialists believe that since everything else evolved, religion must have as well. One foolish speculation is not logical and reeks of desperation.
Background image courtesy of Why?Outreach
There are far too many fallacies in this foolish speculation to count. (One reason biblical creationists emphasize logic and critical thinking to so that people can learn to catch atheists and evolutionists in their bad reasoning and falsehoods.) There stories reek of desperation. Such a notion is also self-refuting, such as how love, compassion, forgiveness, and other good things are overlooked.
A typical theory on the ‘evolution of religion’ commits multiple logical blunders, not the least of which is ignoring evidence.
What’s wrong with this line of reasoning? ‘The Greeks reached a certain population size. At that population size, the idea of Zeus arose. Zeus was a vengeful god. Having a vengeful god gave the powerful a way to control the population. Conclusion: This explains the origin of religions.’
To laugh and also learn, read the rest by clicking on "Did Christianity Evolve from a ‘Vengeful God’ Myth?"


Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Compartmentalizing Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

When I began doing creation apologetics many centuries ago, I foolishly tried to divorce the Bible from scientific and logical evidence. My approach was only discussing theology when necessary, keeping scientific evidence for creation separate, arguing on neutral ground. Essentially, I was compartmentalizing.


We cannot separate science and theology, especially when discussing origins. It may seem valid on the surface, but such an approach will not work.
Floral compartments image credit: Unsplash / Michael Aleo
One big problem with the idea of neutral ground is that it is contrary to Scripture. If you ride up to the top of the hill and get the bigger picture, you'll also see that discussions of origins are metaphysical in nature. Really, they involve theology. 

Have you ever noticed that folks who want both sides presented in an unbiased view so people can "make up their own minds" seldom (if ever) accurately represent biblical creation science? They are biased toward materialism, therefore favoring atheistic interpretations of evidence.


via GIPHY

You want equal time, pilgrim? The secularists dominate science, so creation science ministries exist so we can present evidence that is suppressed. But they don't want you to hear our side, nor do they want to hear it themselves. Suppressing evidence is not science, nor is shouting down creationists and crying, "Liar!" while throwing outdated, irrelevant secularist links at us. You savvy? For an interesting discussion on accusations of creationists selectively rejecting science, see "Denouncing Science".

Both creationists and evolutionists have their starting points. Those of us with a high view of Scripture presuppose the truth of the Bible and creation, while evolutionists insist that their materialistic views are the only way to use science. Secularists fail to realize that their arbitrary view of science is based on metaphysical philosophies.

To take the compartmentalization concept a step further, I still have a tendency to do that. (Posts and articles on this site lean more toward theology than those at Piltdown Superman or Radaractive, but there is still some theology over there.) While I occasionally use this site to discuss various biblical topics and some may be considered side issues, I realized that I am compartmentalizing again.

My calling is to help equip Christians defend the faith regarding origins, so I tend to avoid certain side issues. (On more than one occasion, I have been surprised by an out-of-the-blue query at The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook where I had to reply, "I have no idea.") Like with politics, sometimes topics must necessarily overlap — especially when they involve core doctrines of the faith or matters that are extremely important to Christians. We cannot fully compartmentalize between science, the Bible, and certain doctrines.

The article linked below is specific for Creation Ministries International (after all, they can speak of their own ministry's experiences and policies), but I think you will see that it applies to related ministries as well. There are two feedback letters and their replies. To see it, click on "Should CMI ‘stick to the science’?"



Wednesday, July 3, 2019

Evangelism and the Genesis Flood

While professing Christians claim to believe the Bible, far too many put atheistic interpretations of modern science philosophies into a magisterial position. That is, Scripture is interpreted through the spectacles of long ages. This is backwards.


Some professing Christians shy away from or even deny the global Genesis Flood. They think it is a problem for evangelism. Such a view causes several problems.
Credit: RGBStock / rkirbycom
Some who compromise with secular views put down biblical creation with the falsehood that it hinders evangelism, so they ride for the old earth brand. (Did you ever notice that these folks usually deny the global Flood of Genesis in one way or another?) Bible believers teach the hard truth of sin, Judgment, repentance, and redemption.

People may shy away from the Flood because of old earth beliefs, but also because it describes judgment against the wicked people of the day. It is referred to in the Bible, and Peter even likened the Flood to the coming final Judgment (2 Peter 3:5-6). Discussing the Genesis Flood is actually helpful in evangelism.
Some Christians claim that insisting on a literal Genesis is a hindrance to evangelism. Since science has supposedly proved that the creation and Flood it describes weren’t real, historical events, they see a literal Genesis as an intellectual stumbling block to potential converts. However, this thinking is completely backward. It is the denial, not the affirmation, of Genesis that is damaging to effective evangelism.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "The Genesis Flood and Evangelism".



Thursday, June 27, 2019

Evolution and the Nature of God

You may have noticed that purveyors of atoms-to-astronomer evolution are very evangelistic, making efforts to destroy the faith of Bible believers. It would not surprise me if they eventually wore name badges and white shirts, rode bicycles and came to your door with the "good news" of Darwinism. Some try to tell us that God created through evolution.


Adding evolution to the Bible impugns the nature of God. Evolution is cruel and wasteful, which is no secret among its adherents.
Original image before modication: Freeimages /Mario Alberto Magallanes Trejo
Look at all the wonders and beauty around us. Mother Nature perfected everything through the magic of evolution, you know. That may sound good, but these sidewinders are deceitful. Way back in the thrilling days of yesteryear, I presented creation science talks in churches. One point I raised is that evolution is that evolution is wasteful and cruel, thought some wolves among us who profess to believe the Bible want us to embrace Darwin. Of course, atheists want to destroy our faith and have us to add evolution. No surprise there, it's who they are and what they do.

Although he believes in evolution, one devotee implores us to holler "Whoa!" to human evolution. Does someone in authority send out a memo, "Okay, all y'all stop evolving right now"? I thought evolution was an inexorable mystical force of materialism that supersedes God.

Evolution is a wasteful, cruel, inefficient method, and I am glad it is false. It impugns the nature of God and violates Scripture — indeed, it also violates the gospel message. Indeed, indicating that God "needs" evolution is insulting the Creator! Professing Christians who claim to believe the Bible need to cowboy up and learn what it really says.
A few sentences from this evolutionist’s plea should cure theologians of theistic evolution.

Under the shadow of the March of Progress icon, geneticist Alasdair Mackenzie shouts, “It’s time we stopped human evolution” — really? That should start a conversation—The Conversation. Isn’t evolution an engine of progress? Isn’t it God’s method of populating the Earth with endless things most beautiful? At its base, isn’t Mother Nature a benevolent, caring force?
I'd be much obliged if you'd read the rest of the article, "Evolutionist Cries, We Must Stop Human Evolution!"



Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Why Creation in the Image of God is Important

When atheists and evolutionists will say that harm to another person is wrong, they are tacitly rejecting their own worldviews and standing on the biblical worldview. According to them, man is just another evolved animal and is nothing special. No Bible-respecting person should add evolution to it.

The fact that we are created in God's image has important ramifications throughout the Bible. It also gives us hope, unlike the evolutionary worldview.
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
We are created in the image of God. This is affirmed several times in Genesis and its importance is seen many times throughout the Bible. The atheistic worldview is incoherent and full of despair by its very nature. The biblical creationist understands, however, that we are image-bearers of God, and it is being renewed in us until the final, ultimate redemption and Judgment. We are not just animals, we are different and special.
Atheism views man as simply a material being like all other animals. In many ways, this is the predominant view of popular culture: man may have “evolutionary advantages” over animals in reason, communication, and some physical abilities but is not a spiritual or sacred being with a purpose and destiny higher than that of the animals.)
In this view, man lives and dies like the beast. Thus concentration camps, gulags, killing fields, and abortion clinics are all monuments to atheism.  
. . .  
God’s Word, in contrast, views man as the pinnacle of God’s handiwork. On the sixth day of Creation, as His final work, God created man as a physical and spiritual being. . . .
But what exactly is the image of God and what are the implications of man being made in His image? The answers and applications of such questions are essential to the Christian because they dictate human happiness or wretchedness—and often life and death. 
To read the entire article, click on "God’s Image—The Difference Maker".

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

The Days of Genesis One

Since we are bombarded at every turn with assertions of evolution and millions of years as a fact, many Christians try to reconcile the days of Creation with long periods of time. Expressions like, "Well I think the days are God's days, and we can't know how long they really are!" Some are sidewinders who know precisely what is going on and deliberately corrupt God's Word.

The days of creation are confusing to people who do not accept what the Bible actually says. Day means day. If God wanted us to think he meant long ages, there were other words he could have used.
Background image credit: freestocks.org / Joanna Malinowska
To be blunt, it doesn't matter what you or I think. The important thing is what God said in Scripture, and that too many professing Christians are uninformed about the Bible they claim to believe — especially at the foundation, the first chapter of Genesis. Some misquote 2 Peter 3:8, "One day is like a thousand years", which does not help much because it would make creation week six thousand years long, unhelpful for deep time. Also, the verse cancels this idea out, "...and a thousand years like one day". Read the context, people.

"Evening and morning, one day...evening and morning, the second (third, fourth, fifth, sixth) day." God defined yom (יוֹם) as day. A child or anyone else who has been uncorrupted by secularism can plainly see that day means literal day. To get millions or billions of years out of Genesis, you must perform eisegesis and put them into it first. For them, God cannot preserve his Word or make it understandable — or they are unwilling to believe it.



There are compromisers who adamantly refuse to let a day in Genesis 1 be an actual day. Biblical scholars (even those who do not believe the plain meaning of the text) know that yom means day. It is interesting that Bible-deniers circle the wagons to defend against logic and scholarship, trying to take word and force it to mean long ages. They ignorie the fact that if God had wanted us to think the creation days were long ages, there were other Hebrew words he could have used! (They also ignore Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, and essentially call Jesus, Paul, Peter and others erroneous or even liars.) Let's be honest about what the text actually says and perform serious exegesis.
Were the days of Creation Week of 24 hours duration or were they long periods of time? This article will discuss the Hebrew ‘time’ words which the author had available to him and what meaning he intended to convey by his choice of the specific words he used.
I hope you will read the rest of this important article and even save it for reference. To continue, click on "How long were the days of Genesis 1?" I also recommend "Genesis and the Character of God".

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Gopher Wood and Noah's Ark

Something that has puzzled readers of the sixth chapter of Genesis is the use of the term gopher wood. Footnotes often say that the "Hebrew term is uncertain", and Bible translations differ —

"I know what that means, Cowboy Bob! Noah commanded his sons, "Shem, you gopher water, Ham can gopher more pitch, and Japheth can gopher wood".


No.

Anyway, Bible translations differ. Many use the term gopher wood, and using the translations in my copy of theWord Bible Software, Coverdale (1535,) Geneva (1587), and Tyndale (1526) translated it as pine. The NIV translates it as cypress and adds the "uncertain" reference. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, WEB all render the term as gopher wood.


Noah built the Ark out of gopher wood. What was it? The answer may not be what you would expect, and has biblical implications as well as science.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Cimerondagert (CC by-SA 4.0)
An excellent possibility is that God was not specifying a particular tree that has disappeared since then, but that Noah was to use hardwood. Getting into the Hebrew language, we see the root word that is used with brimstone, which is now called sulfur. This makes the plant material strong. The Ark, the wood, the pitch used to coat it all foreshadow the work of Jesus Christ. We can gain not only construction insight here, but also some theological principles!
Scientific facts can sometimes yield surprising biblical insight. For example, lignins make hardwood trees hard. They are a complex group of organic compounds found in the cell walls of plants that give structural rigidity to the plants’ overall growth and architecture. One type of plant lignin contains sulphur, while the other is sulphur-free. It’s the sulphur-bearing lignins that form the fundamental structural basis of all hardwood trees used for lumber products.

This botanical fact casts an interesting theological light on Genesis 6:14, where God instructs Noah to build a large ship. The Ark allowed him and his family (eight people total) and various representatives of the animal kingdom to survive the impending global Flood and repopulate the earth. Specifically, Noah is commanded, “Make yourself an ark of gopher wood.”
To read the rest of the article, click on "Scientific and Biblical Truth Converge for Gopher Wood".

Labels