Saturday, November 24, 2012

Video: Dinosaurs and the Bible

A short video discussing dinosaurs and the Bible. Several basic questions are answered. Some people might be surprised to find out that the fossil record is actually a friend of the Bible! I hope this encourages people to check out creationist sites and find out more.


Piltdown Superman (this site points to other biblical creationist sites)
Institute for Creation Research
Creation Ministries International
Answers in Genesis
Apologetics Press

Friday, November 23, 2012

Noah's Flood and the New Testament


For some reason, people want to add to God's Word so they can justify their belief in an old Earth. There is nothing in Scripture that justifies such a position, but some people want it anyway. Why? What value is there in accepting atheistic interpretations of ever-changing origins science?

Old-Earthers cannot have a global flood because it explains geology and the fossil record far better than uniformitarian geology, and points to a young Earth. If the Earth is not billions of years old, evolution cannot happen. (Actually, given an infinite amount of time, evolution still cannot happen.) You can find out more about the science aspects of the global flood at Piltdown Superman.

But if old-Earth advocates, including theistic evolutionists, proponents of the mostly-abandoned "Gap Theory", "Progressive" Creationists, Day-Age Theorists and others have some serious problems when they compromise on the plain words of Scripture. Ultimately, they are calling Peter, Paul, Jesus and others liars!
Many Bible skeptics regard Genesis 1–11 as mythical, copied from Enuma Elish, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and other such ancient writings—so not only is it a primitive myth, it’s not a particularly original one, in their view. We’ve often written about the characteristics of Genesis that show it claims to record history.
Sadly many believers have bought into these interpretations, but as Christians, aren’t we supposed to believe what Jesus did? And it’s easy to extend that to believing what the apostles that He appointed and inspired by the Holy Spirit to author Scripture believed as well. If Christians don’t believe the Bible, in what sense are they ‘Christ followers’? So let’s look at what Jesus believed and what the New Testament tells us about the circumstances surrounding Noah’s Flood.
You can read the rest of "The global flood—according to the New Testament", here.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

The Spirit of the Thing

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Decades ago, I thought that I could use occult methods and still be a Bible-believing Christian. My mental image was almost comic book, where I would be using "good" magic against the forces of evil, complete with eerie glows and bolts of force emitting from my hands (Amos 3.3 NKJV). (If this had happened in modern times, I would probably have had a Harry Potter image of myself.) I had several errors going on in my naïve mind. One error was basic wishful thinking; I wanted certain things to be true, despite the Bible's admonitions against magic and occult practices (Deut. 18.9-12a, Isaiah 9.19-20, Jer. 27.9-10). There was no distinction between "white" and "black" magic, all was forbidden and condemned. I justified my opinions because I believed that the Old Testament does not apply to Christians. Of course, I ignored the fact that those warnings were there for a deeper reason that to just keep Israel separate from the other nations; those practices are detestable to God.

Also, I conveniently neglected the New Testament passages where occult practices were condemned as well as being abandoned by converts to the faith (Rev. 22.14-15, Acts 13.6-12, Acts 19.19-20, Gal. 5.20-21). Self-justification is a powerful thing because it is difficult for the Word of God to penetrate a determined, foolish mindset. (More about what the Bible has to say regarding the occult is here.) Instead of obedience to what God has said in his Word, I had something better: My opinions.

Funny how I refused to have Ouija boards, though. Go figure.

There was a time when I foolishly thought that I could use magic on the side of good. Then I learned about how foolish that idea really was.
Ouija board (modified) / FreeImages / zaid zolkiffli
I read many things and was ready to self-initiate. No joining a group for me, because I had unique views with my mix of good intentions, lame theology, opinions, excuses and wishful thinking. It came up in conversation, and a co-worker made a simple comment that rang in my ears: "Get a Christian perspective".

So I did. I think I picked up several books on the subject in the Christian section tucked away in the back at the local bookseller. The one that I fondly remember is Demons in the World Today, by Merrill F. Unger. Unfortunately, it is out of print, but Biblical Demonology appears to be a suitable replacement.
I stopped my activities in occult exploration, boxed up all the books I had and took them outside.

Fortunately, I was alone in the house, so my activities could not be argued or questioned. It was a cold winter's night. We lived on the outskirts of a small town, and the back yard was rather spacious. I walked on the crusted snow, dragging my box of occult books. A bit of gasoline, a shovel, matches, dreadful feelings of being watched. Flame on! I burned the books. Neighbor dogs were making some very odd barkings and whinings while this was going on; I half expected to see some thing charging out of the woods behind the property at me. And I seem to recall singing spiritual songs, too.

There is a void that needs to be filled when something is removed. The co-worker who recommended that I get a Christian perspective happened to call after I had done my deed and pointed this fact out to me. So, I got back into the Word and good spiritual teachings.

I have been wanting to share a scaled-down version of my occult experience. No, nothing sensational, no glowing eyes in the dark or demonic voices. But I suspect that those would have happened if I had continued on my path.

Now I have something else to share with you. Uh, you're not busy, are you? Anyway, there is an interesting article on whether or not ghosts are real, and what they may actually be. Let me start you off:
For centuries people have claimed interactions with entities that appear to be supernatural in nature. The seeming reality of the experience often has a transforming effect, even to the extent that the experience itself becomes a new kind of worldview filter. For example, today people claim interactions with alleged aliens and even abduction experiences at their hands.
If an interdimensional (as in, it looks as if it suddenly emerged out of nowhere) entity suddenly appears at the foot of someone’s bed in the middle of the night and claims that it is from the Pleiades cluster, then on most occasions the person will believe that its claims are true. The belief in the experience often changes their views about the big picture issues of life, such as “Where did we come from?” and “Where are we going when we die?” So, because of the experience, they are also given over to the larger claims of the entity that may include tales that the alien benefactors were originally humankind’s creators; that they have been overseeing our evolution for millennia; and that in the end they will redeem and restore the human species and the Earth to some kind of utopian paradise. In short, most experiencers undergo a kind of religious transformation or ‘awakening’ and many researchers believe that this is the actual purpose of the deceptive entities.
Click here to read the rest of "Are Ghosts Real?", here. I recommend that you also read the follow-up feedback and response, here.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Saturday Resource: Logic, Atheism, the Gospel and More



This edition touches on several topics, including evolution, the importance of Genesis, atheism and logic. But more importantly, it dealt with how Christians should present the gospel message, and what kind of foundation we should have.

Sunday, October 14, 2012 was an interesting day for me. I was invited ("invited" as in, "hounded the guys until they gave in") to be on the "Evidence 4 Faith" radio show/podcast. Host Keith Kendrix was away, and Kirk Hastings was filling in. It was my first live guest spot on a radio show, not including call-in shows. (Before that, I was involved in a three-part  podcast for Theopologetics, but that was recorded and not a live broadcast.) I was hesitant a few times, not wanting to steamroll over Kirk — it's not my show. And I had a dry throat problem on occasion.

Perchance they wish to have me on again, there are some items that I would like to expand upon. The next time should be better.

If you find this material helpful, I hope you will pass it along to your friends. You can listen to the show on the site, linked above, or download the MP3 at this link.


Tuesday, September 18, 2012

But So Many Scientists Believe Evolution!

Source unknown, found on Facebook, click for larger 
Two "arguments" have the same problem. First, "Most scientists believe evolution". Second, "Most modern Christians do not accept the first eleven chapters of Genesis as actual history". Those are the ad populum fallacy, where people will accept something as true because many people believe it. In addition, we also have the appeal to authority fallacy ("scientists believe"). While it is valid to cite an authority on a topic, people make mistakes. Especially when appealing to authority and majority instead of using reason.

Still, it is puzzling. So many people believe something that is contrary to God's Word. Why is that? Well, why do you think? "Science" is practically worshiped by many people, and is used as an excuse to ignore or even replace God. If scientists say something, well, we had better accept what they say, yes? No. For one thing, scientific conclusions, procedures and so forth "proving" an ancient Earth and evolution are not undisputed, even within the secular scientific community. Thanks to publicity, however, people are deceived into thinking that everything is "case closed". And so many people compromise their theology with the ever-changing whims of man-made "science". Why?
What better place to teach geology than the Grand Canyon? Exposed there is a large slice through the rock record of a major part of earth history. Every year we take groups through the Grand Canyon, and people see in-depth the compelling evidence for the global, cataclysmic Genesis Flood.

Overwhelmed by this evidence, a common response is: “How could most scientists be wrong about its formation?” If the evidence for the catastrophic accumulation of the rock record and its contained fossils in only a year or so, rather than over millions of years, is so compelling, why don’t all geologists accept the evidence and agree that the biblical Flood accounts for the rock and fossil records?

Such questions demonstrate that most people do not understand how geologists deal with the rock and fossil evidence. The only facts are that the rocks and fossils are observed in layers. They can be measured and tested repeatedly in the present.

When it comes to explaining how the rocks and fossils formed, however, those are events that occurred in the past. They can’t be repeated and observed. Thus, explanations about how rocks and fossils formed in the past are interpretations, not facts.
I think you'll want to read the rest of "How Could Most Scientists Be Wrong?", here.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Saturday Resource - Refuting Compromise (Video)

Although it is just over an hour, this video is well worth your time. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati shows how proponents of an old Earth are using the same atheistic interpretations of scientific facts. Worse, he shows how compromisers like Hugh Ross and BioLogos are on terrible theological ground. The real question is about biblical authority versus man's opinions. Let him explain. NOTE: Skip ahead to the seven minute mark to where he actually begins talking.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Reinterpretation and Other Old-Earth Compromise Efforts

It constantly baffles me why some Christians insist that the Bible does not mean what it says back in Genesis. Some blatant compromisers like Hugh Ross and BioLogos can be seen as dangerous to the gospel. It is disheartening when a respected philosopher like William Lane Craig actually mocks biblical creationists. When people I respect, like Greg Koukl of "Stand to Reason", keep making efforts to say that Genesis does not mean what it says (as he did in his radio show on September 2, 2012, at about the 1 hour 10 minute mark), it is discouraging. Especially when I know that Koukl has a great deal of worthwhile material!

As I have said before, we are sending people a mixed message:

The Bible is true, and contains what we need for salvation and a godly life, it means what it says. You don't need to be told what to think, have a "Watchtower" magazine or Book of Mormon. Except for the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Then, we have to go with the current trends of modern science philosophies; do not go with the plain reading of the text, nononono!


But many of us do believe what the Bible says. We do not need the ever-changing whims of science philosophies to tell us what it means. Why the compromise? Why the insistence on eisegesis, forcing "deep time" into the Bible? What is the purpose of using atheistic interpretations of scientific data? If people want to let "science" tell us what we should believe, why stop at Genesis? "Science" also says that water is not turned into wine, virgins do not conceive a child from the Holy Spirit, men do not rise from the dead... Compromise begets more compromise.

Here is an article about theological tap-dancing and reinterpretations of the text that old-Earth people commit.
Since the rise of uniformitarian geology in about 1800, many in the church have capitulated to this new ‘science’. Thus they have rejected the traditional plain historical-grammatical interpretation of the creation and Flood accounts. They routinely resort to erroneous reasoning to support their compromising reinterpretation. Following are discussions of the three most common errors committed.
I urge you to read the rest of "Common errors made by deniers of a young Earth", here.

Labels