Ephemeral Mortal

2009-04-06T23:56:00.002+01:00

Atheism is no new thing

Ask the vast majority of atheists today why they believe what they believe (i.e. that there is no God) and why they don't believe the Bible, and they'll most likely give you an answer along the lines of "well the Bible was written thousands of years ago by ignorant and superstitious people, and we know live in the twenty first century, and have vastly superior scientific knowledge to the ignorant nomads of Bible times; therefore we no longer have a need to believe in the myths that these people believed".

They claim they are modern, scientific thinkers. "We're too intelligent and intellectually sophisticated to believe all this nonsense", they say.

But real history tells us that this is just not so. King David who wrote the Psalm below around 1020 years B.C., which is about 3000 years ago now, records for us exactly the same atheism as we see in the world today.

Psalm 10

1Why do You stand afar off, O LORD? Why do You hide Yourself in times of trouble?

2In pride the wicked hotly pursue the afflicted; Let them be caught in the plots which they have devised.

3For the wicked boasts of his heart's desire, And the greedy man curses and spurns the LORD.

4The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him All his thoughts are, "There is no God."

5His ways prosper at all times; Your judgments are on high, out of his sight; As for all his adversaries, he snorts at them.

6He says to himself, "I will not be moved; Throughout all generations I will not be in adversity."

7His mouth is full of curses and deceit and oppression; Under his tongue is mischief and wickedness.

8He sits in the lurking places of the villages; In the hiding places he kills the innocent; His eyes stealthily watch for the unfortunate.

9He lurks in a hiding place as a lion in his lair; He lurks to catch the afflicted; He catches the afflicted when he draws him into his net.

10He crouches, he bows down, And the unfortunate fall by his mighty ones.

11He says to himself, "God has forgotten; He has hidden His face; He will never see it."

12Arise, O LORD; O God, lift up Your hand Do not forget the afflicted.

13Why has the wicked spurned God? He has said to himself, "You will not require it."

14You have seen it, for You have beheld mischief and vexation to take it into Your hand The unfortunate commits himself to You; You have been the helper of the orphan.

15Break the arm of the wicked and the evildoer, Seek out his wickedness until You find none.

16The LORD is King forever and ever; Nations have perished from His land.

17O LORD, You have heard the desire of the humble; You will strengthen their heart, You will incline Your ear

18To vindicate the orphan and the oppressed, So that man who is of the earth will no longer cause terror.

There's modern day atheism described in detail in a supposedly antiquated irrelevant book.

It seems to me that it's atheism that's antiquated and irrelevant.

2009-03-16T23:57:00.003Z

Christ on Justification!

There are those who would drive a wedge between the Apostle Paul and his doctrine of justification by faith, and the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ.

No more of a clearer statement can be found in scripture on this subject than the words spoken by our Lord in John 6:63 - "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

I think those responsible for disseminating this error ought to look at these words more closely.

2009-02-13T20:49:00.000Z

This should be shown in all schools

2009-02-08T20:16:00.003Z

The Reality of Jesus Christ!

When he was 31, Blaise Pascal came to know God personally through Jesus Christ. That conversion experience changed his life. When Pascal died, there was found sewn into his clothing a reminder of that experience which he constantly carried with him:

"From about 10:30 at night until about 12:30. FIRE. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and of the learned. Certitude certitude, feeling, joy, peace. God of Jesus Christ . . . Jesus Christ . . . Let me never be separated from Him."

Atheist, please explain this.

2008-10-13T21:28:00.001+01:00

Quote of the Day

If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take His place...it'll be either megalomania or erotomania...the drive for power or the drive for pleasure...the clenched fist or the phallus...Hitler or Hugh Hefner.

--Malcolm Muggeridge

2008-09-26T23:52:00.006+01:00

The reality of Christianity
(Just one example)

1 Corinthians 1:26-27 (King James Version)

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.

See the link here

2008-05-24T00:50:00.003+01:00

Florida Revival

(or Christianity Astray)

Can you believe that this stuff is actually happening in the church today, the 21st century.

This really makes me sad.

2008-05-17T10:29:00.004+01:00

The Darkness

Where I am right now.

Hope to see you soon.

2008-04-26T21:46:00.004+01:00

My head hurts

Just a quick note to mention the book I'm currently reading - it's The Defense Of The Faith by Cornelius Van Til. It's a highly recommended book, but isn't an easy read (I've understood about 70 - 80% of it). How do I feel after reading it?...well, the graphic and title says it all.

Having said that, I've realised while reading it that the human mind is a mysterious thing. I've had while reading it something of a eureka moment...you know the thing I mean I'm sure, you read something, and the penny just drops, and you get a new perspective on something that you didn't have before.

For me, while reading this book, the subject matter in which I had this eureka moment was nothing new to me, and it was this: the whole of being and reality is, in its very essence and in truth a Christian theistic system. And every fact that exists, exists as a fact within this Christian theistic reality, and outside of this reality no fact has any meaning at all (deep stuff huh?).

But this isn't new. We knew this already (at least I did), it's exactly what the Bible teaches. But although I knew this, I didn't really know it. It took me the struggle of reading this difficult (for me at least) book, of which I only understood a part, for this truth that I already knew to really imprint itself into my mind and soul in a way that affects the way I think and look at reality every day.

The mind really is a mysterious thing.

2008-04-24T22:41:00.004+01:00

Par for the course...

As I mentioned in a previous post, the standard of the objections levelled at the Bible by the SAB are bordering on the ridiculous...and here is a prime example of what I mean:

As part of my Bible reading today I was reading through some of the book of Genesis, which included this verse:

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." (Genesis 6:3).

This is what the SAB have to say about this verse under the contradictions category:

"His days shall be an hundred and twenty years." How long is the human life span?

Need I say more...anyone with any intelligence who reads this verse in its context, will be able to discern immediately that this verse says absolutely nothing about the human life span.

As I said, this is typical of the type of objections put forward by the SAB, so expect more of the same if you feel inclined to read it.

2008-04-24T00:15:00.003+01:00

...And Relax

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,..." (Hebrews 12:1)

Easier said than done! So much for all those protagonists of sanctification who just say we are to relax and God will do it all for us. Not according to this text, and not according to my experience either. If I were to relax instead of struggle and fight, it wouldn't be long before I slouched all the way back into hell. I fail enough when I struggle, heaven knows what I'd be if I relaxed.

I wish it were so easy that I could take a pill or a potion and wake up in the morning and my struggles against myself were over - I'd take it without hesitation, whatever the cost. But alas, there's no such thing in existence, so struggle and fight on, but whatever happens, never relax.

2008-04-22T21:44:00.002+01:00

Scientology...Scient - WHAT?

I don't know whether anyone has heard in the news recently about the website WIKI Leaks publishing secret documents from the Church of Scientology cult .

Out of curiosity I downloaded these documents and attempted to read them...has anyone read this stuff?? I think you need to be ingesting some serious mind altering substances for any of this to make any sense whatsoever. But then the advocates of this nonsense will just tell us that we cannot understand it because we haven't been 'enlightened'.

Take a look for yourselves and see what you think.

How anyone can reject and ridicule the Bible and then subscribe to this and similar nonsense is amazing.

Romans 1:28 describes the people who seriously subscribe to this stuff perfectly:
"And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"

SDG

2008-04-22T21:07:00.004+01:00

Change of Intent

I started this blog with the intention of rebutting the contents of the Skeptics Annotated Bible , but after working my way through the first few objections there, and reading a few more, I found that most of the objections were completely ridiculous and not worthy of my time.

Therefore I have decided to start blogging again, but this time the blog will include both spiritual and not so spiritual content (with hopefully more of the former). This may still include a refutation of the odd objection levelled from people like the SAB, as I feel inclined.

SDG

2008-03-10T22:21:00.004Z

"...Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."

I have just watched channel 4's program about Professor Stephen Hawking and his work. The program was titled 'The Master of the Universe' (talk about ironic). Quite frankly, after watching it I'm staggered. Why am I staggered?

He made a statement in the program along these lines - he has seriously proposed that the universe spontaneously appeared out of nothing, just popped into existence - all the materials just appeared from nothing and then a big explosion occurred. Now I've never heard that before from any eminent scientist - they all normally just go quiet when asked about what happened before the bang.

I'm staggered that such an intelligent man can seriously propose such a thing - when I hear things like this I'm convinced more and more of the truth of Romans 1:

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things...
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;...

Hawking's mind has certainly become deluded and reprobate to make such a ludicrous suggestion, however intelligently gifted he is.

We really do have an awe inspiring God.

(still shaking my head in disbelief at the statement).

2007-01-07T13:09:00.000Z

Saddam's Deplorable Treatment!

I see that the big names on the political world stage have strongly voiced thier condemnation of the deplorable nature of Saddam Hussein's execution. The mocking, the jeering and shouting - no doubt spitting and profanities were in the air as well. A dingey execution room and such a humiliating and degrading form of execution.

But there's another side to this story isn't there? Wasn't Saddam a war criminal? Didn't he kill thousands of his own innocent people? You could be forgiven for thinking that Saddam in some way deserves to die in such a way, in the light of the misdeeds he committed.

I wonder how many of the people so vocally condemning this act would have been so vocal two millenia ago, when the humble carpenter of Nazareth was so degradingly and humiliatingly tortured and killed, in an atmosphere of even more venemous spitting and jeering - and for what? - He didn't deserve any of it. Not many of them I don't think.

I wonder why that is?

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." 2 Cor 4: 3 - 4.

2006-11-14T19:30:00.000Z

Another One For The WatchTower

One of the most prominent heresies advanced by the Watch Tower cult (Jehovah's Witnesses for the uninitiated), is the denial of the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. They have worked hard to conjure up apparently scholarly objections to most of the standard or 'common' texts that teach this doctrine (e.g. Isaiah 9:6, John 1:1 etc.), and are always ready when challenged on this doctrine with their well practised answers. But here is another series of texts that they may not have come across:

John 2: 19 -
Jesus answered and said unto them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up".

Acts 2: 32 -
"This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses."

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this, but I'll explain anyway (otherwise this post will be extremely short).

In John 2: 19 Jesus is answering a company of Jews who questioned Him about who's authority He assumed in order to drive the tradesmen out of the temple. His answer was that after His death at the hands of the Jews, He would prove His authority by raising himself from the dead (the Jews typically interpreted what He said literally and failed to understand what He was saying).

In Acts 2: 32 Peter is preaching after the miraculous events on the day of Pentecost, and referring to the resurrection of Jesus three days after His death, tells all his listeners that God raised Jesus from the dead, an event to which they were all witnesses.

So what's the point? The point is this: Who is it that Jesus tells the Jews will raise Him from the dead three days after his death in John 2:19?
I quote "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up". Jesus tells them that He will raise Himself from the dead.

Who is it that Peter tells his listeners raised Jesus from the dead after three days?
I quote again "This Jesus hath God raised up,...". Peter tells them that God raised Jesus from the dead.

So Jesus tells his listeners that He will raise Himself from the dead, whilst Peter tells his listeners that God raised Jesus from the dead.
This seems to present something of a problem. Is Jesus right and Peter wrong, or is Peter right and Jesus wrong? How are we to answer this? There are a number of possibilities:

Peter is right and Jesus is wrong. God raised Jesus from the dead and Jesus' statement was either a slip of the tongue or He was suffering from serious delusions of grandeur.
Jesus is right and Peter is wrong. Jesus raised Himself from the dead (an act impossible by any ordinary human), and Peter is sadly confused.
Jesus is right and Peter is right. This is the clear answer given in a multitude of other locations throughout the whole Word of God.

Jesus never suffered from slips of the tongue, and Peter was perfectly clear in his thinking. They were both right because Jesus is God. He says so Himself in John 2:19.
Jesus both raised Himself from the dead and God raised Him from the dead because, as He says, "I and MyFather are one...".

What's that noise? Oh it's the sound of JW's jumping through hoops.

2006-04-29T09:22:00.000+01:00

Sorry For the Silence (Part 2)!

For the few people who read this blog, as you may have noticed, things have gone strangely silent...again. I do apologise for this and have not packed it in all together. The reason for the silence is that I have just started a new job and the transition/learning curve is taking up more of my spare time than I would like, or have.

Anyway, I should hopefully break my silence within the next few weeks, God willing.

In the immortal words of a psychopathic robot - "I'll be Back!" (in an Austrian accent).

2006-04-06T22:36:00.000+01:00

“…Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” [1 Cor 5:6]

The importance of every member of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ in keeping themselves unspotted from the world, the flesh and the devil is tragically illustrated in the following extracts taken from the Old Testament:

Joshua 7: 1 - 6
1. But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against the children of Israel.

2. And Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which [is] beside Bethaven, on the east side of Bethel, and spake unto them, saying, Go up and view the country. And the men went up and viewed Ai.

3. And they returned to Joshua, and said unto him, Let not all the people go up; but let about two or three thousand men go up and smite Ai; [and] make not all the people to labour thither; for they [are but] few.

4. So there went up thither of the people about three thousand men: and they fled before the men of Ai.

5. And the men of Ai smote of them about thirty and six men: for they chased them [from] before the gate [even] unto Shebarim, and smote them in the going down: wherefore the hearts of the people melted, and became as water.

6. And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the eventide, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads.

This account comes just after Joshua and the children of Israel, through the power of God have miraculously overthrown the city of Jericho.

Before the people overthrew the city, Joshua had expressly commanded them not to take from the accursed city of Jericho anything that was not expressly permitted by God for them to take, for fear of bringing a curse and troubles onto the whole nation [Joshua 6:18].

But what do we read happens in the next chapter, quoted above? The disobedience of a single individual named Achan, who does that which Joshua has expressly forbidden, brings the threatened curse onto the nation and removes the help and blessing of God; evidenced by the fact that they are defeated in their endeavour to overthrow the men of Ai [Joshua 7:5].

But why did God punish the whole nation for one man’s sin? Can I suggest the following possible reasons:

1. The other members of the nation concealed and consented to Achan’s actions.
2. The other members of the nation failed to rebuke and deal appropriately with Achan for his actions.
3. To demonstrate to the nation God’s hatred of sin.
4. To compel the members of the nation to be more cautious in the ordering of their own behaviour, and to be more diligent in watching over the behaviour of their neighbours.

There are many lessons that we as individuals, and as members and leaders of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ should learn from this account today:

1. The actions and life of the individual Christian has a significant effect on the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, both in the individual’s local body of believers, and in the universal church as a whole. Disobedience, whether seen by others or not may bring chastisement from God onto the whole church and many blessings may be forfeited; remember, you may be able to hide your sin from others, but you cannot hide it from God.

2. Church leaders need to ensure that church discipline is exercised where necessary according to the principles layed out in Scripture.

3. Church leaders, and ordinary members need to be watchful over the flock to identify evidence of possible disobedience and to deal with it in the appropriate ways.

Remember the church is the bride of the Lord Jesus Christ and must be kept pure and free from sin, and this involves effort from all members of the body.

2006-03-14T22:21:00.000Z

Mormon Encounter

I received a visit this evening from two elders (their names slip my mind) from the mormon church.

I decided, as I was not particularly busy, to invite them in and let them tell me a little about their beliefs.

I provided them with refreshments (it had to be ribena, as they would not accept coffee) and allowed them to present me with their 'gospel'.

They went through their usual presentation with new 'potential' converts, slipping in a few scripture references (authorised version too); emphasizing the importance of the family; how the true church has been apostate since the 1st century and that Joseph Smith was visited by none other than God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, then some angels as well as John the Baptist, who all told him directly to re-establish the true church on earth, and write the various extra-Biblical books, making Joseph Smith a true prophet, as well as setting up prophetic succession, whereby the mormon church today still is the only true church, who, by the way, receive direct revelation from God.

I, (amazingly for me I thought), sat silently and listened through this barrage of wild fantasy, and when they had finished put this question to them:

Since there are at least 4 world religions who all exclusively claim that they are the only true church and their prophet(s) (roman catholics with the pope, jehovahs witnesses with their prophets and new light, islam with Muhammad and the mormons with Joseph Smith and their existing prophets) are the only one(s) who claim to be telling the truth and either did, or still are receiving direct revelation from God, how do I know which one to believe?

As they could not answer me, I helped them and gave them the following anecdote:

Imagine you woke up tomorrow morning feeling sick and displaying various quite severe symptoms, and you had a choice of 4 or 5 doctors that you could see to diagnose and treat the problem. Due to your lack of satisfaction at the diagnoses of the doctors, you end up seeing all 5 of them, and each one diagnoses a different illness that is causing your symptoms. How do you make a judgment as to which one to believe about the diagnoses?

They both looked at me blankly.

Surely, I said, you would want to check out somehow the credentials and qualifications of the doctors. Then, having done this, it would be a wise move, I think, to trust the diagnoses of the doctor with the best credentials.

I then asked, what credentials do Joseph Smith, or any of the others mentioned for that matter have to qualify them as true prophets of God?

Can or did they work authenticating signs and miracles as the Biblical prophets did? They had to admit that they didn't or couldn't.

Were or are their prophetical utterances, where they involve future predictions, 100% accurate? They could not answer me this, but I know in every case of a person claiming to be a prophet, including those mentioned above, time and again they fail in this area.

For these reasons alone (although there are others I didn't go in to), I told them, I could not accept the authenticity of the writings of their prophet Joseph Smith (this goes for all the other extra-Biblical prophets also).

At this, they could see that they were not getting anywhere and decided to leave. I'm not sure they'll call again, but I do hope so; perhaps I can then start to debate points of doctrine with them next time. By the way, they did leave me with two gifts:

And

I think I'll auction them on e-bay, starting bid - tuppence. Any takers?

2006-02-21T21:33:00.000Z

By Dr. Peter Masters

Prayer is the ultimate form of communication. Operating in a spiritual zone or 'waveband' far beyond the reach of human technology, prayer can convey the faintest thought-waves across all known barriers and into the spiritual presence of man's Creator.

The great question is - how can anyone be sure that his or her prayers are heard by God?

Along the highways of the USA there are numerous road signs carrying words such as: 'Channel 9 monitored'. If your car is fitted with a Citizens' Band transmitter-receiver you can take advantage of the fact that the local police department has someone listening-in to that channel 24 hours-a day. Any emergency call will be heard immediately.

God is constantly listening to prayer and everyone can approach Him. Listen to the grandeur of the opening words of one of the psalms of the Bible: '0 Thou that hearest prayer, unto Thee shall all flesh come.'

Tragically, however, many thousands of people never, or hardly ever, approach their God in prayer. And many others who do pray make such serious mistakes in their approach that God refuses to hear them.

The Lord Jesus Christ once told a parable about a man who 'prayed with himself', and the Bible states clearly that God will not hear the prayers of such people. As far as He is concerned a great deal of prayer is just so much hot air.

According to the Bible, prayer will only be heard by God if it fulfils certain simple conditions. What sort of things can we do wrong when we try to approach God? What kind of prayer is defective and useless?

Before the apostle Paul was converted to Christianity he engaged in prayer several times every day, yet God would not answer those prayers. We know this because when Paul saw that blinding light on the Damascus road at the time of his conversion, he realised he had never really known God at all. Suddenly he saw himself as a fanatical, religious bigot and a hypocrite. He realised that his claims to know and represent God were all an empty sham.

In great turmoil of mind, he came to acknowledge his real character and behaviour. He began to pray to God in a new way, asking sincerely for forgiveness and spiritual life.

Then the record of the Bible tells us that the Lord said, 'Behold, he is praying.' At last Paul's first real prayer was heard in Heaven.

Right terms
What was the difference between the hundreds of prayers that Paul had previously offered as an unconvected religious leader, and this latest prayer? The difference was that now he came to God on the right terms. He came as someone who was truly ashamed of his past life. He came not proudly, but humbly.

A verse of the Bible reads - 'If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.' It is very obvious therefore that one type of prayer which God absolutely refuses to hear is prayer made by anyone who has not truly repented of sin and sincerely sought His forgiveness.

Many people have never faced up to the problem of their guilt and the great barrier which it forms between them and God. They do not like to admit to their inner selfishness and pride.

They close their eyes to their deceitfulness, possessiveness, greed, temper, and so on, and the thoughts and deeds which God hates. There is so much in everyone which is offensive in God's sight, but these people do not see themselves as God sees them. From time to time in their self-confidence and ignorance they will attempt to pray without feeling any need to seek forgiveness or real conversion to God first.

We must never lose sight of the fact that God is not fooled by our claims to decency. He is not impressed by the pretences of middle-class self-righteousness, or any other kind of self-righteousness. If I think myself worthy to approach God, justify my sins or make excuses for my failings, then one thing is certain - God will not listen to me at all. He only listens to those who acknowledge their sin and rebellion and approach Him scarcely thinking it is possible for them to be forgiven.

There are several other kinds of prayer which God will not hear. Occasional prayers get no hearing in Heaven. A man or woman who has no intention of seeking God and turning to Him merely prays occasional prayers. Often people have no intention of seeking a new life from God and truly living for Him. They just want His help in some immediate problem, and then the Lord can leave them alone again. But the Lord will not hear such requests.

When people are overpowered by problems they often pray, 'Lord, help me.' When plunged in grief they may cry out to God for relief. When burning with desire for some possession, or some high job, some will say, '0 God, let me have this! '

As a pastor I have heard all kinds of people tell me about the things which they have prayed for when at the time they had no intention of turning to God.

It is well known how the hardest of men will sometimes call to God in moments of seeming doom when real fear grips the mind. Whether before operations, or in war, or at sea, at some time, almost everyone prays.

Tranquillisers
Christians believe that sometimes God does hear such prayers, even selfish prayers coming from people who have no intention of turning their lives over to Him. But He hears them, on occasions, with a view to encouraging such people to believe in Him and seek Him in a deeper way.

The clear warning of the Bible is that generally speaking, God will not listen to the occasional prayer. He will not hand out help or blessing to anyone who is not interested in seeking and finding Him.

Tranquilliser prayers are equally useless. Some people pray simply because it makes them feel better. It may be (for some) a fairly successful psychological ploy to escape from worry or trouble, but it is nothing like prayer.

If by prayer I mean a rehearsing of my fears and problems to a vague, unknown god, just to get it all off my mind, then that is tranquilliser talk, not prayer.

Another kind of prayer which is no use at all is ritual prayer. However beautiful some may think the words sound, liturgical prayers intoned feelinglessly by aloof clerics bear no resemblance to the praying of the Bible.

Prayer is real words which we feel and mean. What are empty chantings? The Saviour Himself condemns them as 'vain repetition' - in other words they are worthless.

To be effective
The prayer of a real seeker, or a truly converted Christian, is altogether different. What sort of prayer is real? What kind of prayer will bring us to know God?

This advice comes straight from the teaching of the Bible. To be effective, prayer must be accompaniedby a surrender of the life to the Lord God.

The psalm already quoted says:- '0 Thou that hearest prayer, unto Thee shall all flesh come.' But the psalm also gives this condition: 'Unto Thee shall the vow be performed.' True prayer involves keeping a vow.

Do we really want to seek and find God? Are we really convinced about our urgent need of forgiveness and new life? Do we really desire to taste and experience and know God? Then we must hand over our entire lives to Him, so that He can rebuild them. Then, and only then, can we pray.

Remember also that true prayers are always reverent. All the examples of prayer in the Bible are both humble and reverent.

Then, supremely, we must realise that we can only approach God at all because the Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour, has made it possible. Our sin has brought us to the position of condemned sinners. We deserve no favour from God at all. But because the Lord Jesus Christ came into this world to suffer the penalty of sin in the place of all who turn to Him, we can be forgiven.

The Saviour has paid so that we can pray, and real prayer is made on these terms alone. Genuine prayer can be made by anyone who realises what the terms are. We must go first to Jesus Christ the Saviour for pardon and conversion, and to have our lives completely rebuilt. He must bring us to life spiritually. The Saviour's purpose is to save us.

What amazing love our God has. We, who have lived as prayerless, ungrateful, unseeking, spiritually dumb people, can find Him after all. If we come on the right terms God is still ready to hear and to forgive.

How many will leave prayer too late? Ask yourself - Why do I not pray to God? Is it because of pride or self-confidence? Or is my mind ruled by materialism, ambition or sensual things?

Have you ever really closed your eyes and spoken to God in true prayer? No matter what you have done in this life, His arms are still open to receive seeking sinners, and no-one will ever be turned away.

How can we really know if prayer is answered? Could it be, after all, merely the work of an overactive imagination?

It is a fact that people who have become real seekers (on the terms just described), and who have found the Lord, are always totally and absolutely sure that God has worked in their lives. For them, the question no longer arises.

The great change
When a person finds the Lord the experience is so dramatic and profound that there can be no question of it being a matter of imagination. The fundamental character of that person is unmistakably changed so that traits which could never have been altered by any amount of effort, are altered.

One's feelings and outlook change also as the words of the Bible come true - 'If any man is in Christ, he has become a new creation. Old things have passed away; new things have come .'

The great change is far too great to be mistaken. And over it all, the person who finds the Lord truly comes to love Him and sense Him. No wonder in times of persecution countless Christians have faced death rather than deny the Lord. Genuine seeking prayer leads to the most certain and definite experience a person can ever have.

2006-02-02T20:18:00.000Z

Most people are very concerned about physical health - especially when they develop strange pains which could indicate some serious problem. But one major part of us which escapes attention in this concern for health is the soul.
By Dr. Peter Masters

This is certainly rather illogical, because the body is only temporary, while the soul goes on for ever.

As you read this,imagine you have entered a kind of soul clinic where the organs and limbs of the soul will be checked out, and where you will get a full report on its condition.

The trouble is that any examination is bound to reveal serious problems. No ordinary human being has ever been found free from major defects and diseases in the soul.

At the time of the Korean war, American doctors carried out numerous post-mortem examinations on soldiers killed in action. As time went by they drew up statistics which startled the medical world. They found that a majority of young men under 25 years of age already showed marked signs of heart disease which would have resulted in heart attacks within 20 years.

If our souls could be laid open to inspection in the same way it would be found that everyone of us has a very advanced, fatal condition. The malady which affects us all is the disease of sin. Its symptoms are easy to recognise, not by our pallor or blood pressure, but by far more disfiguring signs.

The great spoiler
The symptoms of this disease of the soul show up in the personality. It makes us vain, cold, haughty and even arrogant. It makes us deceitful, shifty and boastful. It is the disease which creates dirty-mindedness, jealousy and back-stabbing. It also gives rise to greed and selfishness - the list of symptoms is endless.

Sin is the vilest, and yet the most underestimated disease in the world. It infects every part of the soul and character, steadily spoiling and corrupting everything. But even worse - it totally disables us for the greatest experiences of life.

Paralysis will usually prevent a young man from ever engaging in athletics or any other active sport. Such pursuits are far beyond his hopes and dreams. Similarly, the disease of sin ruins all possibility of interaction with God. It completely cuts us off from God so that we can have no personal experience of Him.

Our diagnostic health check must begin with an examination of the conscience. Is it in good health? Is it a functioning conscience?

The answer must be negative, because most of the time the conscience suffers from a kind of sleeping paralysis. It hardly moves and seldom speaks. Why is this? It is because of the self-inflicted battering it has received over the years.

We quickly learn in youth how to manipulate the conscience. Whenever it protests over some sin or shoots a warning pang of shame into the mind we move quickly in self-defence. We learn to justify whatever we do, or to blame our circumstances or other people. Gradually we beat the conscience into submission.

The first time we commit serious sin the conscience hurts a good deal. The second time it hurts less. But once the conscience is fully suppressed it scarcely hurts at all.

Somewhere down in a dungeon of the soul, a starved, bruised, weakened conscience eventually becomes limp and silent, and then we are free to behave and speak as we like. We are at liberty to be as selfish, greedy and even sensual as we want, with little trouble.

Take another aspect of the soul. In what state of health is the faculty or power of self-control? What happens when bad temper begins to build up, or envy, or greed - does it all have to come out? Can we control ourselves? Or is this portion of the soul flabby and weak and hopeless?

What about the great faculty of integrity or honesty - is it healthy? Sadly, this part of the soul is generally riddled with disease. Everyone is shoddy and shabby here. Everyone is full of white lies, excuses, exaggerations, invented boasts, direct lies, deceits, and every other form of dishonesty. The faculty of integrity has become wilfully twisted beyond recognition.

Checking vital organs
What about the virtue of the soul which we call humility? Is this diseased too? Of course it is, because everyone seems to suffer from the cancer of pride. For most people the great motive for living is pride. What will people think of them? How can they create a good impression?

People boast, swagger and show off endlessly. They fight tooth and nail for promotion, power and superiority. Sickening pride has buried itself deeply into the soul so that humility has shrivelled out of all recognition.

If we examine the three main parts of the personality, what condition shall we find them in? The mind or intellect is full of selfish and impure thoughts. It is swollen and discoloured by a wide range of sinful schemes and thoughts. Prominent among them are selfishness, self-love, hatred and hostility.
The emotions are seriously deformed. These too are covered with the cancer of self-love as well as other tumours which we call lusts.

The will is so badly deformed that it works in terrible and unreasonable convulsions. It either responds with alacrity to every passing temptation, or it utterly refuses to move, becoming
obstinate and stubborn.

Truly this is a stunning and depressing report on various aspects of the soul. If we ever heard such a devastating assessment of our physical health we would realise that survival was impossible.

Years ago we used to see mass X-ray caravans in the cities. The idea was to detect T.B. early enough to gain the best chance of treating it. The trouble was that the public had to be persuaded to enter the X-ray caravans on the off-chance of hearing bad news. Many people would rather not know the worst.

This is exactly the case with the message of the Bible. If we cannot get people to realise that the soul is in a desperately diseased condition then they will never seek the healing power of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Great Physician of Souls.

Let me describe some of the worst features of sin as it gets free course in our lives. It is the most infectious disease imaginable. If, for example, we bring children into the world, our weaknesses and corruptions will be transmitted to them through our example and the atmosphere of home life. They will inevitably absorb some of our worst traits.

Another thing about sin is that it is a very weakening and highly progressive disease. Somehow we always imagine that in ten or fifteen years time we will be much the same people as we are today in basic personality, outlook and character. But this is never the case. There is bound to be a great and inescapable deterioration in us because the disease of sin will take its toll.

Anyone who is past thirty can prove this easily. Just try to recall what you(and your old friends) were like in teenage or in early twenties. Note how much everyone has changed. Note particularly how all have hardened and come to accept more compromise in life. Even the most idealistic members of that once youthful circle have lost their rare, unselfish trait.

Observe how each one has become so much more materialistic, cynical, and sadly, more selfish also. You will be compelled to agree that any attractive aspects which once drew you together are fast slipping away. Sin is always progressive.

Living with pain
A further feature of sin is the fact that it is a very painful disease. Sinful thoughts, words or deeds may not necessarily hurt at the time, but the consequences are always painful. A life lived at the mercy of every temptation, whim and passion costs youth and years, not to mention money.

It leads to heartbreak, disappointment, remorse, bitterness and even neurosis. Half the pills swallowed daily in this sin-sick world are really palliatives for the deeper disease of the soul.

In addition to all this, sin is a terribly isolating disease. It separates us from each other, but most of all it separates us from God. It is solely because of the selfishness, rottenness and pride in the human heart that we fall out with each other and become enemies.

What can be done about this disease? Is a doctor any use, or a psychologist? Is there any drug or therapy? No, says the Bible, as far as man is concerned it is utterly untreatable. There is nothing we can do to halt or to heal this disease. We have no remedies at all.

All man can do is administer painkillers. He can only dull the effects of the disease by seeking pleasure and entertainment, or by turning to drink to deaden the discomfort. Alternatively he can bury his heart in his business, or in possessions or anything else which may help to subdue the aching void within.

The only hope for curing the soul's disease is to realise that we cannot cure it and to turn to God to be forgiven and healed. He alone can wash away the rebellion and the proud independence which brought this disease into the world in the first place. He alone can wash away the guilt and the deep perversion of years of sin.

Because God is perfect and holy, if He is to forgive and heal any member of the human race, He must first purge away the guilt which renders us unfit for fellowship or contact with Him.

In order to forgive us God had to come into this world Himself to suffer the punishment of our sin in our place. That is what Christ was doing when he suffered and died on the Cross of Calvary
2000 years ago. There He made a personal atonement for the sin of all who turn to Him for help.

Before anyone can be saved from the disease of sin, there must be an urgent approach to the Great Physician. We must be deeply anxious about the disease in the soul, and we must really want to be healed. Then Christ must be approached along these lines: you must pray to Him telling Him about your condition, and you must acknowledge that you deserve to be condemned and discarded for ever.

You must sincerely repent of your sin and long to have your life completely changed by His power. Tell Him that you truly want to come to know Him and to live for Him from now on.

If you sincerely ask Christ to forgive you and convert you in this way, He will not turn you away. He will perform radical divine surgery in your life, accomplishing results which you could not even begin to achieve yourself.

The only cure
The Lord can destroy the potency of the disease and give a completely new life; a transformed personality.

The side effects of the disease of sin will also be removed, such as the numbness of soul which made it impossible for you to pray or to feel God. You will come to love Him and know Him. All these things He will do for you and you will know that you have been changed. You will know that He has blessed you and healed your disease.

How many people will spend the rest of their lives with sin capturing more and more of the soul, until it finally overwhelms them in death and all hope is gone?

There is no physician on earth like Christ. There is no doctor in human medicine who cures his patients by taking the force and consequences of the disease himself. That is the exclusive glory of Christ Himself - the Physician of Souls.

2006-01-24T18:11:00.000Z

What must it be like when our final moment comes? What is death? Do we remain conscious in any way at the moment of death? Do we feel the journey from time into eternity? Will we know that we are crossing over that threshold?

It has often been pointed out that every second the clock ticks, someone, somewhere dies. Over 30 million people die every year, or 86,400 every day.

Everyone has to keep this final appointment. It is the great destination of life which draws everyone and makes no distinctions. Rich or poor, strong or weak, brilliant or simple, famous or forgotten - all will leave this life through the same dark doorway, for life is short and death is sure.

All through our lives we try to put that final day out of our minds. But from the moment we are born our bodies have already begun the long decay - the preparation for death. The poet Montgomery put it like this:

The arrow that shall lay me low
Was shot from death's unerring bow
The instant of my breath.
And every moment I proceed
It tracks me, with unceasing speed;
I turn, it meets me -
Death!...
Hath given such instinct to that dart
It points for ever at my heart.

Are we feelingfully conscious at the time of death? The answer of the Bible is emphatic. Even if we are unconscious right up to the end of this life we shall suddenly become conscious as we enter the next.

When the light of this world snaps off, the light of the next will come on. Immediately we shall realise that we have passed from time into eternity. The light, the atmosphere around us and the whole realm of sensation will be altogether different.

Our feelings
We shall be filled with an overpowering awareness that time is now behind us for ever, and that we are now disembodied souls. However, our feelings will vary tremendously.

For some, the sensations felt immediately they pass into the next life will be too terrible for words to describe. For others, the sensations felt will be marvellous.

Consider the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ about this final moment. Speaking to a tremendous crowd of people, He once described the death of a very wealthy man in a highly significant way. He described him as an expensively dressed man who dined daily on the most extravagant gourmet meals. He described him in terms of what he had, what he wore, and what he ate.

The Lord made no mention of what kind of man he was, what he did, what he accomplished, or what he knew. He described him by a few external things - possessions, clothes and food! This rich man apparently had no character, no depth, and certainly no spiritual relationship with God.

The Lord told how the rich man's death was marked outwardly by a flamboyant funeral befitting a man of his wealth and ostentatious ways. But his soul was instantly plunged into a state of indescribable anguish, remorse and despair.

There are countless people who will never grasp the value ,of their eternal souls until they have passed through the irreversible experience of death. Then it will be too late!

Time gone
Think of all the energy, all the days of life which they will have spent on external things such as possessions, clothes and fleeting luxuries, only to find that they have thrown away eternity.

Across the line of death everything completely changes. That is the great principle taught by the Lord Jesus Christ. We leave the values of this earth behind. Spiritual values count now.

But suppose we have none? Suppose we have had nothing to do with God, and have never sought Him or come to know Him? The rich man in the Lord's teaching prayed for the first time in his life when he was shut away from God, and it was too late.

He discovered, all too late, that there was a great gulf between Heaven (with the eternal presence of God) and the domain of rejected souls. The Bible teaches that everyone will have to face Chrtst one day, to be accepted or rejected by Him in the final Day of Judgement.

Interestingly, this subject is not only taught in the Bible. It is an undeniable fact that we all have a strong awareness built into us that this life leads towards a day of reckoning. An awareness that we are made by God, and that we are accountable to Him, is imprinted deep into our being.

Every land and nation has some kind of judgement system indelibly stamped upon its behaviour, thinking and literature, and this is a reflection of mankind's deep-seated realisation that wrongdoing must be judged.

But every individual knows it also. Everyone has a conscience. Everyone feels guilt and shame, even if we push such feelings as far away from us as possible. Everyone fears death, and in a remarkable way.

The fear of death which we all possess is not just a rational kind of fear arising from our not wanting to lose the enjoyment of conscious life. It is a far greater fear than that because even people who hate every minute of their lives still fear death (unless suffering from suicidal depression).

Awareness
The apprehension which surrounds death is something which cannot be explained, except by the fact that buried deep in every soul there is an awareness of a coming day of account. The inner being knows that there is something more to fear than the end of life and consciousness. There is an uncertain eternity, and there is God to face.

There is other evidence of a coming day of reckoning in the natural world around us. The way living creatures are 'designed' shows that there is an ultimate goal towards which everything is steadily moving. All living things are built to fulfil a definite purpose and follow a preset course of life.

Take the obvious example of the germ cell which is the beginning of every human being. Locked into that microscopic cell is all the design-data for the finished adult. A complete record of the future personality, physical aptitudes, intellect and appearance is there. It is almost a parable about destiny. Growing up from childhood is a journey to something definite.

Wherever we look we see in this world numerous similar indications of order and destiny. Everything has a definite, unfolding future.

How can we meander down the pathway of life as though there is no meaning or destination, when we are surrounded by so much evidence that it is a journey to somewhere?

The teaching of the Bible is that there must be a day of judgement because God is absolutely holy. He is both perfect and just and is therefore bound to judge and punish sin. All the selfishness, pride, deceitfulness and wretchedness which is in everyone of us must one day be eradicated from God's presence, together with all the sinful acts, words and thoughts which our sinful condition generates.

But because God is also full of love and mercy, He has made a way of escape for us if we seek it while here on earth. The Lord Jesus Christ (Who is God - a member of the eternal Godhead) came into this world Himself to make it possible.

He left the royal palaces of Heaven to enter into a body of flesh. He suffered and died in indescribable agony to bear the punishment of sin for all those people who seek His forgiveness.

Having done this He has the right to forgive and convert all the millions of people throughout history who are drawn to seek Him for pardon and new life.

Hidden memory
What will happen to us on the last day of life - when the light of this world is turned off? In that day there will be no hiding, for all must be completely exposed before the Judge of all the earth.

We live in an age of video, of 'instant replay'. But when we stand before God's throne of judgement, our whole lives will be replayed before us in seconds. We shall be aware of every sin we ever committed. We shall see the kind of people we really were. We shall be aware of our guilt in a way which we could not possibly imagine while here on earth. When our souls are naked before Almighty God absolutely everything will come back to us.

Sometimes we get some hint of the equipment of the soul within us. Everyone has experienced amazing tricks of memory. Sometimes when we have been day-dreaming by ourselves some recollection from way back in childhood has suddenly and strangely come to mind. Perhaps it was an event of no great significance at all, yet it has come back in vivid detail.

Sometimes it is as though we can taste the very atmosphere of some far off event, so strangely realistic has been the memory.

Such moments give us some hint of the amazing amount of data locked into our minds; the amazingly accurate pattern of events which is stored and maintained there. One day everything will be reviewed, everything will be known, as we stand before God while the history of our life passes before us.

Do we realise that in that day, if we have never repented of our sin and sought the forgiveness of Christ, we shall have no defence, nothing to say? We shall be speechless before God, and we shall realise that we systematically, wilfully, sinned away our entire life.

It will be shown us in that day how God on numerous occasions pulled at our hearts, moved in our consciences, and by various means urged us to seek Him and find Him. But each time we shrugged off these influences and went our own way.

For countless people death will mean that the spirit will make its terrible journey into a lost eternity away from the presence of a loving God and Saviour. In that tragic moment every good thing must be withdrawn from the soul - for all good things are only on loan from God.

For rejected souls, no beauty will ever meet the eye again. No happy sound will ever reach the ear. No peace of heart and mind will ever be felt. The soul will be gripped with unimaginable fear as those who die as rebels against God sense with unspeakable horror that they are now under the just sentence of condemnation from the Judge of all the earth.

They must pass into the moral blackness of anti-values, an everlasting swamp of selfishness and lies, anguish and despair. They must bear their own punishment. The value of an eternal soul will be learned too late.

But if we are among the great company of people who have sought and found Christ, and we know Him and live for Him, then it will be so different.

Last journey
When that last moment comes the soul will be overwhelmed with inexpressible anticipation. Excitement is far too small a word for this. The journey into eternity will be a million times more spectacular and amazing than any adventure or experience we could possibly known on earth.

New sights, new sounds and all the breathtaking scenery of the eternal realm will move us to ecstasy. We will find ourselves suddenly filled with a rush of knowledge and understanding, and we will know what life was all for.

All pain and disability will disappear and we will be filled with emotions such as we never imagined - amazing fulfilment, peace, happiness, love, and security. We shall mix and mingle with all God's people from every day and age.

All sin and weakness will be gone, and we will see and hear our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who we came to know and feel and love while here on earth. Death will prove to be not only a conscious experience, but the gateway to everlasting life.

2006-01-18T18:59:00.000Z

Time: the Mysterious Dimension
by Dr. Peter Masters

Time is something which dominates us all. We are held in by time rather like goldfish in a bowl. Our entire lives are just brief moments in the rolling ages of time - just flecks; tiny passing seconds.

No-one has any power over time. We like to think that ultimately man will be able to control more or less everything in the universe, but there are certain things which mankind has no power over at all. He cannot make the slightest impression upon them.

Time is one af these 'unconquerables'. It is as though a great Creator has organised such things to keep the human race in its place. We cannot tamper with time even to the extent of a milli-second. It is a whole dimension which we are utterly unable to alter.

We may dream of time machines but they remain pure fiction. Not a single step has ever been made towards building one. Mankind is firmly stuck in time, and under its authority.

All we can do with time is to make clocks and measure it. We cannot rush it, nor can we slow it down. We certainly cannot step back in time to re-live or revise events. Things happen to all af us which cause so much pain and regret that we would give anything to have our time back and do everything differently. But once something has happened no-one can bring that moment back. It has gone for ever.

An unknown future
Time also dominates and humbles us as far as the future is concerned. We can guess at future events and make short-term forecasts, but we really have not the remotest idea what our lives will be like a few years from now.

Similarly, we have no idea what the world will be like in twenty years time. Will there be global war soon, or will economic catastrophe shatter our lives? We have no control over the past, and no capacity to either predict or avoid the future.

And who can extend his lifespan? Soon we shall leave this life behind and all too soon we shall be forgotten. Time will take its toll of us, erode away our youth, speed on the ageing process and finally claim us in death.

Time, like an ever-rolling stream
Bears all her sons away;
They fly forgotten, as a dream
Dies at the opening day.

We are just here today and gone tomorrow. Change and decay rule!

Time is like a large room. That is how God has designed it. It is a container for the human race.

For God, however, it is altogether different. He is not boxed into this dimension of time but stands outside it and above it. Time, to God, is like a modern, semi-circular organ console where every key and every stop-tab is at the same distance from the organist. God has that kind of relationship with time, for every event which occurs in history is at an equal distance from the Lord of time.

Above time
Imagine a group of travellers trekking on foot across difficult, hilly countryside. Because of the hills they can only ever see a few hundred yards ahead. Every time they crest another hill, all they see is another small phase of their journey, and so their journey seems endless.

But imagine a helicopter climbing above the hills and, hovering high above these travellers. Its pilot can see the place they have came from and the point which they are making for. He can watch their every step and see the end just as clearly as the beginning.

That is how God stands at an equal distance from all time, as Lord over it. Being above time God obviously does not change. He will always be perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful. He cannot be affected by time as we are. He cannot grow old and weary, nor can He became out of date in any way. God's message to man never changes either, so His way of saving souls will be unaltered to the end of time.

If God can observe everyone's entire life at a scan, it is obvious that no sin will ever pass unnoticed, no act of rebellion, no misdemeanour against God, no slander of Him. Our most secret sins will always be exposed to His searching sight.

At twenty years-of-age we already have many years of sin to account for when we stand in the presence of God. At the beginning of our adult lives we have already polluted His moral universe and decided to spend our lives entirely upon ourselves. We have quickly become taken up with pride, arrogance and selfishness, and have completely turned our backs on our Creator and God.

By forty years-of-age the record of guilt is twice as long; by sixty, three times as long. All that we do is seen and marked by our God Who is absolutely holy, and we must one day be held to account for the lives which we have lived.

The Bible tells us that - 'one day is with the Lord as a thousand years; and a thousand years as one day.' This indicates that God can review a thousand years with the ease with which we can reflect on the events of a single day, or even a few moments.

However, it also gives us an insight into how God evaluates human history. A thousand years may, in God's sight, possess only the value of a single day!

Take an approximate thousand years of history like the period from William the Conqueror to the present day. To become an expert in such a period of history would take several lifetimes of study, but what is it worth by Heaven's estimation?

Apart from the fact that God touched the lives of many people who came to know Him and who are now with Him in Heaven, what is all the human struggle and toil worth in the sight of God? When it is all past, what will it have brought to Him? It will be worth no more than a single day, because all life lived away from God is lived in vain.

Value of a life
An entire millennium can be played through on the 'video' of Heaven within a day, and to God it may not be worth any more than a passing glance.

What about an individual life? Suppose we never seek and find the Lord, what is any one life worth in God's sight? Barely a second. Our seventy years are worth nothing from God's perspective. One day they will all prove to have been a tragic waste of time.

We may protest that we try to live good lives and to bring up our children well. But our feeble claims look pathetic from God's viewpoint. All our waywardness and self-seeking over the years, and all our ugly deeds far outweigh the few good intentions and the fleeting moments of righteousness we may have had.

In every day and age God will call men, women and young people to turn to Him for forgiveness and conversion. Many will seek and find Him, and this is the whole point and purpose of time. This alone will bring significance and value into life.

Returning to our biblical quotation, if a thousand years can be worth no more than a single day in God's sight, in what way may a single day be like a thousand years?

This reminds us that God is not fickle and forgetful like us. If God loves and forgives a sinner, He does not lose interest in him after a day or two. God's affection and mercy will never die or fade.

The quotation also teaches us that every act of God has lasting significance. Think of the death of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross of Calvary. When Christ came into this world to suffer and die on the Cross, He accomplished in a single day something which was worth far more than a thousand years. His personal sacrifice for sin lasts for all eternity.

Just consider the 'mechanics' of bringing one lost soul to an experience of true conversion. That person's lifetime of sin had to be paid for by Christ on Calvary's Cross. All the punishment which that person deserved to suffer had to be taken instead by Christ. What He did on the Cross was an act of atonement.

Then think further of the millions of people who have been and who will be converted to God through the long history of this world. Think of the sum total of all that guilt. All of it was dealt with, wiped out, and purged away, when the Lord Jesus bore its terrible punishment.

In a single day Christ made possible; forgiveness, conversion and eternal life, for all who ask Him. The accomplishment of that one day was worth a thousand years multiplied by infinity!

The most important issue of life is to face up to this: What is my life worth? Will it turn out to be meaningless - a mere speck in the timescale?

The greatest day
It could be so different, because anyone who seeks the Lord sincerely will be received by Him. Jesus said clearly enough, 'Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out.' If we will only admit to Him what a mess we have made of life, and what sinners and failures we are, He will wash away the guilt of all our sin and infuse spiritual life into our souls. He will totally change our lives and bring us to know and serve Him.

When the last Day comes and the 'record books' of God are opened all the inhabitants of this world from every period of history will be divided up into two categories - those for whom life was worth nothing but dismissal from the presence of God, and those who one day earnestly sought the Lord and came to know Him. That day will prove to be worth a whole eternity.

2006-01-17T18:00:00.000Z

The following is one of the promised articles from the Unseen World, published by the Metropolitan Tabernacle. The article is written by Prof John Whitcomb.

For many years the general public has been given the impression that the theory of evolution is a proven fact accepted by all scientists. But in recent years a growing body of scientific opinion in the USA and Britain has been pouring doubt onthe most basic teachings of evolutionism.

The Natural History Museum in London - the world's foremost museum of life science - recently mounted an exhibition which exposed many of the weaknesses of evolutionary theory. The Museum's principal biologist described much of Dr Richard Leakey's proevolutionary television programmes as 'sheer fiction'.

This article outlines some of the highly improbable things which must be believed (like an act of faith) if we put the theory of evolution in place of belief in a Creator God.

The evolutionary perspective insists that life began with marine creatures - tiny, simple, marine forms of life - and that only vast ages later did the highly complex organisms appear on dry land.

Evolutionism is totally committed to the view that all living things appeared on this planet when the ingredients necessary for life floated together by chance, in a liquid environment, millions of years ago. Let us examine these tremendous claims.

We are told that long, long ago, the world was totally different from its present form. Two or three billions of years ago, or so evolutionism teaches, oceans were totally different from their present appearance. They were packed with just the right biochemical ingredients to come together to form micro-organisms. Of course, we have no geologic evidence in the earth's crust today that any such ocean ever really existed., This is a faith projection on the part of evolutionism - a hypothetical dreamworld, a strange, fantasy world, totally different from our Own.

We are also told that the atmosphere was altogether different from its present form in that it was a reducing atmosphere, with absolutely no oxygen present, because if oxygen had been present it would have destroyed or oxidised the life forms and then there could have been no evolution of anything.

According to evolutionism, the atmosphere millions of years ago consisted of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapour. Great lightning bolts lashed through this soupy mixture, seething with biochemical ingredients waiting to become alive.

Furthermore we are told that in this totally unique, strange, wonderful world, the second law of thermodynamics did not operate. Now this is a law which is universal so far as we can tell in all galaxies and other planets in the universe.

The law states that through the passage of time a closed system (that is a system closed from outside interference) will tend downward toward disorder. In other words, in all highly ordered systems, the tendency is that disorder always increases as time passes. There are no significant, known exceptions to this process.

We are told by evolutionism, however, that in that marvellous world of long ago simple things, namely lifeless chemicals, with the passing of time became complex things. In fact they became living, self-reproducing organisms, and ultimately human beings.

This is an astounding contradiction of all that we see happening in the present universe. A beautiful, polished, new car, left to the vicissitudes of the total environment will tend toward rust, decay, ultimate collapse and uselessness. Eventually it will join the enormous, endless parade of vehicles deposited on the junk heap.

We are also told (by evolutionism) that in that wonderful world of life origins, the ingredients for life not only floated together by chance, but they stayed together. Today they float apart again! But we are told that in those days, things that floated together stayed together and became greater and greater in complexity until they attained the level of amazingly complex, self-reproducing, living organisms.

We must now consider the remarkable organism which supposedly resulted when all kinds of lifeless chemicals floated together in that wonderful world where the second law of thermodynamics did not operate, where reversible movements within a liquid environment did not operate, where there was a totally different kind of ocean and an -altogether different, atmosphere also. After making all these enormous faith projections or extrapolations - what kind of organism does evolutionism say was produced when 'life' first dawned?

Darwin used to say (and his earlier followers also emphasised this) that the end product was a simple little thing. It was a protozoan, an amoeba, a single-celled organism. It seemed reasonably feasible to think that something very simple might have resulted, from chance events occurring in the wonderful world of long ago.

But now that 125 years have passed and knowledge has advanced, we realise that the single-celled organism is not so simple after all. The National Geographic Society has published a 'geography' of the living cell; an atlas which embodies the fruit of biological advance in recent decades. One of their 'maps' of a single cell is reproduced here.

Our bodies contain hundreds of millions of single cells which are programmed in various ways to produce the fantastic complexity of the human body, and every one of them has within it all the information of a living system. The living cell has come under intensive study in the last couple of generations, and we now know that each tiny component part is vastly more complex than Darwin and his colleagues could ever have dreamed.

For example, it is now known that the outer membrane of each cell is so complex that it can breathe in and out of the cell materials needed or not needed, as the case may be, for its proper function.

Essential functions
Just inside the outer membrane the cell possesses such marvellous things as a messenger system, boiler houses and a vacuum cleaning system (the mitochondria and various vacuoles), together with numerous 'factories' which do things that modern science is only beginning to comprehend. All these functions are absolutely essential for life.

Inside the cell is the brain of the system, the nucleus, containing the astonishing deoxyribonucleic acid system of nucleic acid information units which are arranged like a double helix or double spiral staircase, intertwined around itself, which has more information programmed into it than may be found in a one hundred volume encyclopaedia in which each volume has a hundred thousand pages!

That blueprint, or template, which provides all the necessary information for determining what the next generation in the reproductive process is going to be like, has to be transferred from the nucleus to the outer cytoplasm by RNA messenger molecules that tell the enzymes which amino acids to build up into polypeptides and proteins by the thousand.

That is what all floated together by chance! Evolutionism believes that chance can do staggering things if only it has enough time in which to operate.

Mathematicians in recent years have issued an increasingly discouraging response to evolutionists in their constant appeal to time to bring about all these improbable events. In Philadelphia there was a great symposium held between some of the world's leading mathematicians and some of the world's leading neo-Darwinian biologists.

In this symposium the mathematicians said, in effect, 'We are sorry but you cannot endlessly appeal to the probability statistics of time and chance to allow impossible things to happen biologically in origins . You cannot use mathematics to solve your problem. '

Could the simple cell, which turns out to be highly complicated after all, really have come into existence by a chance coming together of all the necessary ingredients? Does the possibility of an enormous amount of time help to make the concept credible?

Picture a typewriter with only twenty-six keys and a monkey poking blindly at it, producing an endless stream of absolutely meaningless letters. How long would it take this monkey, poking away at fifteen keys a second, night and day, without ever getting tired, to spell out, say, the first verse of the Bible?

The monkey has only forty-four letters to accomplish - In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. How long would it take, according to known probability statistics, for that monkey to spell this out by pure chance?

The likelihood of the monkey achieving this feat is actually much greater than the likelihood of the vast number of complex chemical reactions occurring (in absolutely the correct order) to produce a highly complex single cell.

Yet, according to probability mathematics, the monkey's much easier task would take 190,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000 times longer than the entire age of the universe according to cosmogonists.

Chance takes too long
How much time does the evolutionist need for his chance processes? According. to evolutionary ideas the early history of this planet takes up 4,500,000,000 years. This is all the time evolutionism has available to accommodate its entire process of evolution to the level of the human race, let alone the original beginning of a single living cell.

Actually, evolutionism does not even have this much time, for according to evolutionary ideas about earth's history, the earth began as a highly molten mass of rock and metal, and it would have taken an enormous segment of the available time to cool down sufficiently for steam to condense so that things could start to float in the primeval ocean.

In other words the evolutionist is trapped in a negative time slot; he has no time for chance to achieve anything.

Clearly, evolutionism cannot explain life. It has no answers whatever to the origin of life. Every new biological discovery underlines the enormous complexity of self-reproducing organisms, rendering evolutionary theory utterly incredible as an explanation of how life arrived on planet Earth.

The only alternatives left to the modern mind are complete agnosticism, some form of occultism, or acceptance of the view that it was created by God. The last alternative will never be readily accepted by the natural man, because he is haunted by the proximity of his God. If he is created, then there must be a Creator and it is highly probable that man will have to answer to Him some day. Tragically, the rebellious heart of man always tends to recoil from this concept.

2006-01-16T23:07:00.000Z

Sorry for the Silence!

To anyone who may have been reading this blog, I apologise for the long gap in the postings (I have been very busy). I finished off my last post with the promise that I would be dealing with the SAB's objection of whether a plurality of Gods is taught in the Bible. I still intend to cover that topic. But not just yet. First I would like to post a series of articles published in a small magazine by the Metropolitan Tabernacle (I am first hoping to be allowed permission to do so by Dr. Masters) titled Unseen World.

Watch this space.

Bye for now.

2005-11-30T06:13:00.000Z

Would You Adam and Eve It!

Today, the SAB make two objections under the
interpretation and contradictions categories respectively.

Objection 1
When was Adam created?
"God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." -- Genesis 1:27

Jehovah's Witnesses: 4026 BCE
"According to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation." (April 1, 1968, Watchtower) This was the basis of the failed 1975 prophecy: that Armageddon would occur in 1975, 6000 years after Adam's creation. The failure of the "reliable Bible chronology" was never explained, and the whole 6000 years thing was promptly dropped and forgotten after 1975 passed uneventfully.

Response
As already mentioned in a previous post, the Watchtower organisation (Jehovahs Witnesses) are notorious for making false predictions about various events, and this is no exception. See here for a catalogue of Watchtower false prophecies and erroneous dating information.

Objection 2

**When was Eve created?**
At the same time as Adam.	After Adam and all the animals were created.
Gen.1:27 God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.	Gen.2:20-22 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Response
Again, as already mentioned in a previous post, Genesis 1:27 does not even imply that the man and woman were created simultaneously.

As mentioned many times (in fact, I'm getting slightly sick of saying this now) the SAB have shown their true colours, i.e. biased militant atheists whose material has no foundation in fact.

Bye for now.

2005-11-24T07:31:00.000Z

Users or Abusers?

In my last post I said that we would look at SAB's objection to the number of Gods that the Bible teaches. Because of the substantial content of the necessary reply to this objection and time constraints, I have decided to leave this topic until I have more time available (perhaps on the weekend).

Instead, this post will deal with the following objection from the SAB under the interpretation category:

Gen.1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

God gave humans dominion over every other living thing on earth. This couldn't be true, of course, since millions of other species existed for millions of years before humans existed. But this verse is used by fundamentalist Christians to justify their mistreatment of other species and disregard for the environment. After all, they believe that God created the other species just for them, so they can do whatever they please with them.

Dealing with each statement in turn:

God gave humans dominion over every other living thing on earth. Correct.
This couldn't be true, of course, since millions of other species existed for millions of years before humans existed. Really? The SAB are sure about that are they? It looks like the SAB are just swallowing the evolutionary dating methods without question, ignoring their unreliability -- see here.
But this verse is used by fundamentalist Christians to justify their mistreatment of other species and disregard for the environment. What a sweeping generalisation. I know of no genuine Christians who use this verse, or the environment in that way. The SAB need to provide some evidence of this.
After all, they believe that God created the other species just for them, so they can do whatever they please with them. Another unsubstantiated statement. It is more likely that Christians will care for the environment (see passages like Proverbs 12:10 and 1 Timothy 5:18), unlike evolutionists who believe that we all evolved by the survival of the fittest.

Again, the SAB have revealed their atheistic bias, since none of their objections have an ounce of substance.

See you soon.

2005-11-21T07:35:00.000Z

Man Or Beast?
The SAB outdo themselves with this objection. Here it is under the interpretation category:

The beast of the earth, beast of the field

And God made the beast of the earth. -- Genesis 1:25

The Christian Identity and Aryan Nations folks say that "beast of the earth" and "beast of the field" refer to all non-human animals and non-white humans. They consider all people of color to be without a soul and on the same level as animals, such as cattle, fish, and birds.

The Christian Identity and Aryan Nation movements are non Christian racist sects who twist and use the message of the Bible to further their own racist agendas, in a similar way that David Koresh did at Waco, and not unlike the way the SAB use it to further their atheist agenda.

The beast of the earth and beast of the field refer to what they say, non human animals. The Bible is not and never has been racist, as is testified by the redeemed people worshipping in heaven -- "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;" (Revelation 5:9).

It's amazing the lengths the unbelieving mind will go to in order to try and oppose the will and purpose of God; it reminds us of Joseph's brothers.

The next instalment will deal with the question of how many Gods the Bible teaches about.

Bye for now.

2005-11-18T22:06:00.000Z

Fowl Play!
Today we deal with the following objections from the SAB under the contradictions category:

**From what were the fowls created?**
From the waters.	From the ground.
Gen.1:20-21 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."	Gen.2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

There is no problem in reconciling these two accounts. The waters bringing forth the fowl in Gen.1:20-21 says nothing about what the fowl (or the sea creatures for that matter) were actually made out of, but that they came forth from the waters. Similarly, Gen.2:19 says nothing about which part of the ground was used to form the beasts of the field and fowls of the air. The most obvious conclusion to draw from this is that God made the fowl using ground (i.e. earth or soil) from the ocean bed. Why He did this we do not know.

This explanation agrees perfectly with both accounts - they were brought forth by the water, and were formed out of the ground, and dissolves the apparent contradiction.

Let the SAB jump through hoops and do what they can to argue otherwise.

Next we will be dealing with some strange interpretations of what the Beasts of the Earth are.

Bye for now.

2005-11-17T18:17:00.000Z

Stars in your skies!
In this episode, the SAB raise two objections concerning the creation of the stars - one under the science and history category, and the other under the contradictions category.

The first objection is reproduced below:

Gen.1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
God makes two lights: "The greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light; it only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky?
"He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making the sun and stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars.

The SAB says "...But the moon is not a light; it only reflects light from the sun...".

The Hebrew term used for light in Genesis 1:16 is maw-ore, which more literally translates as luminary. The Oxford English Dictionary definition for luminary is
"A natural light-giving body, esp. a celestial body; pre-eminently applied to the sun or the moon. the luminaries often = the sun and moon."
The moon is indeed a light giving body. The mechanism by which the light is given from the moon (reflection from the sun) doesn't change this fact. The SAB are, not untypically imposing a biased interpretation on to the passage that is unwarranted.

The SAB says "...why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky?...".

Why not? It would only be a problem if that adversely affected its night-ruling duties. SAB must have fallen asleep at his day job after moonlighting. Of course he wouldn't call it "moonlighting" with his pedantry elsewhere about the moon not shining by its own light.

The SAB says "...God spends a day making light (before making the sun and stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars."

Exactly, demonstrating God's immense power, so that making trillions of gigantic balls of gas is just a doddle. But scholars of the literature see this as an afterthought, though in part against pagan claims of the importance of the stars in astrology.

The second objection is reproduced below:

**When were the stars made?**
On the fourth day of creation, after the earth was made.	Before the earth was made.
Gen.1:16-19 He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven.... And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.	Job 38:4-7 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together.

This is another apparent 'order of creation' objection from the SAB.

But Job 38:7 speaks of some kind of celebration occurring in response to the spectacle of God's amazing creative activity at the beginning of time, which can be seen clearly if the whole of verse 7 is considered: "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:7).

It would take some very imaginative exegesis of the passage to equate the morning stars singing together with God's creation of the stars at the beginning of time. But this is clearly what the SAB are suggesting that this passage is talking about. And why call the physical stars morning stars instead of just stars? This verse clearly uses figurative language, and most biblical scholars are in agreement that the morning stars and sons of God referred to in this verse are angels (the context of the verse also favours this interpretation). So the verse actually speaks of the celebration and praise to God made by the angels in response to God's creative activities, and has nothing to do with the creation of the stars on the fourth day of the creation week.

Again, the SAB's ignorance has been exposed, and the word of God stands unmoved and defiant in the face of this and other foolish attacks.

Join me next time where we explain to the SAB "From what were the fowls created?".

Bye for now.

2005-11-16T22:26:00.000Z

Return of the Backslidden blogger!!

Just a quick post to signal my return to the blogsphere after some gentle encouragement from my friend over on Fatbaptist. I've let things slip over the past couple of months and as a result have been relegated to the 'Good blogs gone silent...' category on the Fatbaptist blog. I hope to make my way back into the 'Other blogs i like' category soon.

The first post of my comeback will deal with the SAB's objections to God's creation of the stars. Here goes nothing!!!

Bye for now.

2005-09-06T23:40:00.000+01:00

Signs of the Times!
Does the Bible condemn or encourage astrology?

Before we consider the main theme of this post, we will take a quick look at another of the SAB claims - whether plants were created before or after humans. The objection is stated as follows:

Plants were created before humans.	Plants were created after humans.
Gen.1:11-13, 27-31 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so .... And the evening and the morning were the third day. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them .... And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.	Gen.2:4-7 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth ... And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground.

Plants were created before humans.

Plants were created after humans.

Gen.1:11-13, 27-31

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so .... And the evening and the morning were the third day. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them .... And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Gen.2:4-7

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth ... And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground.

It is sufficient to say on this issue that it is exactly the same as the objection dealt with in a previous post, and the answers given there also apply here. For further information on this issue, see here.

Now on to the main theme of this post. The SAB make the following claims:

Let them be for signs"God placed the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac to predict what will happen on Earth.

And,

Does the Bible condemn astrology?

Yes, the Bible condemns astrology.	No, the Bible approves of astrology.
Lev.19:26 Neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times. Dt.18:10-12 There shall not be found among you any ... that useth divination, or an observer of times.... For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD. Is.47:13-14 Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it. Jer.10:2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.	Gen.1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: Jg.5:20 The stars in their courses fought against Sisera. Mt.2:1-2 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Lk.21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars.

Yes, the Bible condemns astrology.

No, the Bible approves of astrology.

Lev.19:26
Neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.

Dt.18:10-12
There shall not be found among you any ... that useth divination, or an observer of times.... For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD.

Is.47:13-14
Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it.

Jer.10:2
Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

Gen.1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Jg.5:20
The stars in their courses fought against Sisera.

Mt.2:1-2
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Lk.21:25
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars.

The first thing to say about this objection is that Moses, Isaiah, and other Old Testament prophets categorically condemned astrology, as seen by the verses cited in the left hand column of the table above. What then do the verses in the right hand column mean? Taking each verse in turn:

Gen.1:14 - And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

By teaching that the word “signs” here indicates heavenly bodies (planets), given by God as astrological signs, astrologers claim the Bible is affirming astrology. Some astrologers assert that the “signs” here refer to Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc. However, the Hebrew word for signs means "beacons" or "signals" and suggests that the heavenly bodies were set in place to serve as markers to indicate times and seasons, and not for astrological "fortune telling".

Jg.5:20 - The stars in their courses fought against Sisera.

Astrologers claim this is a reference to the influence of the stars on Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army. But to do this, they must interpret a poetic or figurative passage literally. These words occur in the “Song of Deborah,” which is a poetic victory song describing Israel’s victory over her enemies. (See Judges 4:7; 5:20-21; Joshua 10:11-14.). This is actually a poetic way to say that God used these heavenly bodies to help Israel.

Mt.2:1-2 - Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Astrologers claim that this means the Bible supports astrology. But a careful examination of this passage reveals:

The star actually moved because it preceded the Magi.
In some unknown manner the star was able to indicate the exact place Jesus and His parents were staying.
The star apparently was lost from sight for a period of time, and then became visible again.
The star seems to have been visible only to the Magi.

This was not a normal star but a miracle from God to guide and direct the Magi to Jesus. This was a temporary phenomenon and had no other purpose than stated. Certainly it had no astrological meaning. If the only purpose for the star was to lead the Magi to Christ, this would also explain why they alone appeared to have seen it.
Astrologers have claimed these Magi were astrologers, but their conclusion is not proven. That these men are mentioned favorably, and that God deals with them especially in relationship to His Son, indicates that they were probably not astrologers. The term “magi” primarily means “wise men,” and astrology was part of the practice and interest of some “wise men,” but certainly not of all. Nothing in this passage condones or approves the practice of astrology.

Lk.21:25 - And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars.

This is a clear case of wrenching the verse out of context. Astrologers believe that these references prove the Bible supports astrology. But all of these references refer to the day of the Lord, the second coming of Jesus Christ. Other similar verses speaking of the same thing talk of the sun and moon being darkened, not giving their light (turning to blood). These events have nothing to do with astrology. If astrologers claim them for today, it is obvious that the sun and the moon are not darkened and have not turned to blood. Also, Isaiah 13:7 points out that in that day of the Lord the stars and constellations will not show their light. Would any astrologer claim this occurs today?

The SAB have yet again been shown to be less than honest in their use of the scriptures to further their own ends. We'll let God, speaking through the Apostle Peter have the last word on this matter:

"...As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto thier own destruction." (2 Peter 3: 16).

Bye for now.

2005-08-31T06:33:00.000+01:00

Modern Day Idols!
The sun and evolution - two for the price of one.

In today's episode, the SAB give us two objections in one under the scientific historical absurdity categories:

Objection 1 - The sun god

(Gen.1:11-13) "Let the earth bring forth grass". Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes.

Response:

This objection really does expose the SAB for what they are, a bunch of unlearned, angry skeptics who frequently use the argument from outrage tactic. But anyway... just because there was no sun created at this stage, there was light, and as most people know, plants will photosynthesize without the sun in artificial light even today. So there is no problem here and the SAB are silenced once more.

The SAB seem to have an unhealthy fixation with the sun...the terms baal worship spring to mind.

Objection 2 - The evolution god

The next objection from the SAB referring to the same verse is:

Notice, though, that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all.

And

Does the Bible teach evolution?
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree. --
Gen. 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -- Gen. 1:24
Notice that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants and animals, rather than create them directly. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all.

But both Luther and Calvin rejected any non-literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis.

At the Reformation the vast authority of Luther was thrown in favour of the literal acceptance of Scripture as the main source of natural science. The allegorical and mystical interpretations of earlier theologians he utterly rejected. "Why," he asks, "should Moses use allegory when he is not speaking of allegorical creatures or of an allegorical world, but of real creatures and of a visible world, which can be seen, felt, and grasped? Moses calls things by their right names, as we ought to do....I hold that the animals took their being at once upon the word of God, as did also the fishes in the sea."

Not less explicit in his adherence to the literal account of creation given in Genesis was Calvin. He warns those who, by taking another view than his own, "basely insult the Creator, to expect a judge who will annihilate them." He insists that all species of animals were created in six days, each made up of an evening and a morning, and that no new species has ever appeared since. He dwells on the production of birds from the water as resting upon certain warrant of Scripture, but adds, "If the question is to be argued on physical grounds, we know that water is more akin to air than the earth is." As to difficulties in the scriptural account of creation, he tells us that God "wished by these to give proofs of his power which should fill us with astonishment."

Response:
The answer to the absurd suggestion that the Bible teaches evolution is found in the fact that the Bible teaches literal 24 hour creation days, whereas evolution requires millions of years. For articles showing that the creation days were literally 24 hours see here.

Also, we doubt "bring forth" as used elsewhere (Joel 2:22), could mean evolution.

Referring to the Luther and Calvin quotes given above, most truly Bible believing christians will strongly agree with the quote from Luther. As for the Calvin information, whether he believed that all species of animals were created in six days and that no new species has ever appeared since is irrelevant, the Bible doesn't teach this, see here. With the other Calvin statements we agree.

Again, it seems to us that the SAB show their true colours from these objections. Their so called objections, far from furnishing any evidence for the unreliability of the Bible, are nothing more than excuses for their unbelief in the true God, and their worship of any other god (sun, moon, evolution, materialism) that comes along - they simply do not want to believe in the God of the Bible and use whatever they can to silence their consciences.

In the next installment, we will be giving a short comment on the question of whether plants were created before or after humans (as this has been answered in a previous post), and what the Bible says on astrology.

See you soon.

2005-08-29T10:59:00.000+01:00

'Good day to you!'
Why is the second day of creation not called good?

Today, the SAB make this objection, under the interpretation category:

" Gen. 1:8
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
The second day is the only day God didn't call "good".
St. Jerome held that the reason why God did not pronounce the work of the second day "good" is to be found in the fact that there is something essentially evil in the number two, and this was echoed centuries afterward, afar off in Britain, by Bede."

Certain skeptics make much of these types of objections in order to try and convey the picture that the Bible is open to any number of interpretations, and so it is impossible to know which one is correct. It is true that there are some passages of scripture which are open to various possible interpretations, but none of these passages involve any fundamental significant doctrine of the faith, all of which have a single interpretation which is clearly set out in scripture. None of the types of interpretive difficulties as that mentioned in this objection by the SAB change in the slightest the overall message of the Bible. But now to the objection itself,

The interpretations cited by the SAB from St.Jerome and St.Bede are typical of mystical, superstitious roman catholic interpretation of scripture and are groundless. For more information on this subject see here.

Two more common sense and logical interpretations are,

An interpretation given by Picherellus, that the ninth and tenth verses of Genesis 1 all belonged to the work of the second day, though mentioned after it, or rather
The work on the second day was part of a larger unit of work which was not completed until the third day, where it is then called good. So the larger unit of work was to create the firmament, divide the waters, then gather the lower waters into oceans and reveal the dry land. The creation of the firmament and division of the waters was the first phase of the work on day two, then the forming of the oceans and dry land the second and final phase on day three, where it is then called good. This interpretation concurs with that given by Calvin.

Either of these interpretations give a reasonable explanation why the second creation day is not called good by God, and the SAB are silenced yet again.

Join me soon for the next episode where God, the creator and sustainer of all things, is accused of being unable to sustain plant life without the sun. And get this, Genesis actually teaches evolution.

Bye for now.

2005-08-27T04:22:00.000+01:00

Affirming the Firmament!

In this post, the SAB offer the following objection under the scientific/historical absurdity category:

(Gen. 1:6-8) The Firmament (Heaven)

"God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters."

This objection seems to consist of three parts:

The 'strange, solid' structure of the firmament.
The fact that it is called heaven.
Its function of separating the higher and lower waters.

The 'strange, solid' structure of the firmament.

This objection commonly hinges on the use of the Hebrew word for firmament (raqiya') found in these verses of Genesis. To answer this objection we need only say that the Genesis text contains no indication whatsoever that the firmament is a solid object; one can only read a solid firmament into the text by assuming that it is there in the first place. For a more detailed discussion of this point, see the following article:

Is the raqiya'('firmament') a solid dome?

The fact that it is called heaven.

The original Hebrew word used for 'Heaven' in verse 8 of Genesis 1 is 'shamayim'. This word has at least 3 meanings in the Bible:

Heaven, where God lives.
The heavens, or the universe.
The local heavens or the sky.

The appropriate usage in a particular instance is determined by the context in which it is used. It is clear from the context in verse 8 that the Bible is describing some kind of space or expanse which God placed between two bodies of water, one of which was on earth and the other above and around the earth, and therefore in verse 8 the Heaven mentioned there takes the third meaning listed above. For a more detailed discussion of this see the following article:

Linguistics, Genesis and evolution.

Its function of separating the higher and lower waters.

The function of the firmament described in verse 7 is to separate the lower waters (the oceans) from the higher waters, which is exactly what the local heavens, or sky does.

The Higher Waters

There is some difference of opinion between commentators as to what the higher waters actually are; Calvin and Poole take them to be the clouds, which are, as we know, water vapour. Others, such as creation science expert James Patrick Holding say that they were the originally-created, basic building blocks of matter that the earth was made from:

"What, then, are these ‘waters’? We agree with Seely, against a number of commentators, that these are not clouds. Rather, it is our suggestion that these ‘waters’ were the originally-created, basic building blocks of matter that the earth was made from, and otherwise became all that was created outside of our atmosphere and/or our solar system. We would hardly expect the author of Genesis to make distinctions between things like stellar matter, methane gas, asteroids, comets, etc. A simple elemental term, ‘waters,’ would be sufficient, especially in light of the fact that these same waters were made into ‘Seas’ below the raqiya‘, and even so after the primordial ‘waters’ had been coalesced into different forms. The term ‘waters’ would serve in the minds of the pre-scientific just as ‘blood’ stood for whatever actual substance the Nile became.
We are not told what becomes of these ‘waters’ above the raqiya‘ in Genesis. This is not surprising, and in fact accords with the biblical record, for as Seely rightly observes, citing Steck:
'…(B)y not naming the waters above the firmament as he named the waters below (Gen. 1:9-10) God signified that he excluded them from the world made for man.’
This clue is more significant than Seely realizes. No further revelation is given about the nature of these waters; nor is it said what has happened to them. As far as the inspired writers knew, these waters were still ‘up there,’ and if they started with the conception of an ocean, they would continue with that conception. At the same time, as long as they referred only to the ‘waters’ without any further description, they were not inspired to error. The ‘waters’ were still there, but God had made further use of them in His creation, and the terminology was hardly available to say that things were any different. (Hence, it is appropriate that Psalms 148:4 only refers to these ‘waters’ and says nothing else about them.)
With that, we are only left with some figurative language associated with the Flood account. Seely reports:
‘In Genesis 7:11–12 water above the firmament is allowed to fall as rain by opening the floodgates of the firmament; and in 8:2 the water is restrained from falling by closing those same floodgates.’
This works well as long as it is assumed proven that raqiya‘ and shamayim are not equal in the mind of the Genesis writer, but as we have shown, this is not proven at all. This water that came from above could have come from any point in the expanse. It is not my place here to offer any speculations on the mechanisms of the Flood, but it is worth noting that this term ‘floodgates of heaven’ is used elsewhere in the OT in the context of heavy rain (2 Kings 7:2, 19; Mal. 3:10). Perhaps the ancient readers of this text did envision a solid dome with an ocean above it, but if so, they read things into the inspired and equivocal language of the text every bit as much as Seely or I have."(James Patrick Holding, Is the raqiya‘ (‘firmament’) a solid dome?Equivocal language in the cosmology of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H. Seely, Online).

Whatever these higher waters are, the firmament still provides a valid and logical function that cannot be shown to be in opposition to modern science.

Again, the SAB have failed to give a convincing argument in support of their claims about the unreliability of God's Word, and the Sacred Scriptures remain unmoved. Ironically and tragically their claims confirm the truth of the Scriptures time after time (Romans 1: 18-22).

Bye for now.

2005-08-25T09:20:00.000+01:00

Some Light Relief!
What is the ultimate source of light?

In this relatively short installment, the SAB make the following objection:

(Gen. 1:3-5, 14-19) "Let there be light"God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Gen. 1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

They place this objection under the categories of an absurdity, symbolised by:

and a scientific/historical contradiction, symbolised by:

Suffice it to say in answer to this that it is absurd for the SAB to claim that the God who can create the sun, moon and stars is unable to create and emanate light before He creates these light producing/reflecting objects. I'll leave a more detailed explanation of this in more capable hands:

The next episode deals with the firmament of Genesis 1: 6-8, which the SAB claim is another historical/scientific absurdity, but which will be shown to be, as in this installment, nothing of the kind, and perfectly explainable in scientific and biblical terms.

Bye for now.

2005-08-19T20:16:00.000+01:00

Happy Birthday to U!
How old is the universe?

In today's installment, the SAB provide us with the following quotations:

When was the universe created?

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis 1:1

Archbishop James Ussher: 22 October 4004 BCE
The universes birthday party
The full chronology

Young-Earth Creationists: 6000 - 10,000 years ago
"...the Biblical chronology is about a million times shorter than the evolutionary chronology. A million-fold mistake is no small matter, and Biblical scholars surely need to give primary attention to resolving this tremendous discrepancy right at the very foundation of our entire Biblical cosmology. This is not a peripheral issue that can be dismissed with some exegetical twist, but is central to the very integrity of scriptural theology." -- Henry Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, Baker,(1984), Page 115.

Jehovah's Witnesses: 46,026 BCE
The JW book "Let God Be True" (1946) says that each of the seven days of creation was 7,000 years long. And that since Adam was "created toward the close of the sixth day, he was put on earth toward the end of 42,000 years of earth's preparation." (p. 155) And since "[a]ccording to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation" (April 1, 1968, Watchtower), we know that the universe was created in 46,026 BCE.

Old-Earth Creationists: Somewhere between 10,000 and 20 billion years
It's hard to pin these folks down, but they generally accept some form of day-age interpretation for the creation days of Genesis 1.

Catholic Church: The date cannot be determined from the bible
"At least 200 dates have been suggested, varying from 3483 to 6934 years B.C., all based on the supposition that the Bible enables us to settle the point. But it does nothing of the sort. ... The literal interpretation has now been entirely abandoned; and the world is admitted to be of immense antiquity. ... On such questions we have no Biblical evidence, and the Catholic is quite free to follow the teaching of science." -- Catholic Encyclopedia: Biblical Chronology

The SAB's motivation for these quotations is that they all disagree with what is according to them the correct age of the earth, as given by secular evolutionist scientists. I spoke in the last post about the degree to which secular science can be sure about its theories, and its theory about the age of the earth is no exception.

Taking each quotation in turn:

The 'The Full Chronology' link above is not Bishop Ussher's work, but the work of whoever the link is referencing. Bishop Ussher's work only gives the chronology up until 70 A.D. There is some reliable Bishop Ussher information here.
The quotation from Henry M Morris has been ripped out of context; it was not meant as a way to encourage compromise with secular theories.
The Watchtower organisation (Jehovahs Witnesses) are notorious for making false predictions about various events, and this is no exception. See here for a catalogue of Watchtower false prophecies and erroneous dating information.
The old age creationists are a group who seek to reconcile the age of the earth given by secular science with the Biblical record. They do this by some kind of re-interpretation of the Biblical data, thereby compromising the Biblical record and undermining the authority of Scripture. What they are doing here is regarding the word of men as more authoritative than the Word of God; we think they should get their priorities straight. The following are some links to articles covering various aspects of the age of the earth controversy from a young earth perspective:
Helium Evidence for a young earth
The moon Evidence for a young earth
Geology and the young earth
The truth about the dating methods
Radiometric dating questions and answers
Historically, the Roman Catholic church is an example of the wholesale abandonment of the authority of Scripture (in fact, it sets itself in authority over Scripture), and it is therefore no surprise that they disagree with the scriptural account of creation. For more information on the multitude of non Biblical Roman Catholic doctrines see here.

The common factor in all the above quotations (except for the Bishop Ussher and Henry M Morris quotations, which have been misused), is that they have all compromised the Biblical position in favour of secular evolutionistic theory. This is not surprising for the Jehovahs Witness and Roman Catholic cases, as these are non Christian, unbiblical cult movements.

It seems that the purpose of the SAB authors in using these quotations was to show the disagreement between Christians as to the age of the earth; however, as mentioned above, the majority of the quotations used come from either non Christian cult movements, or those who have compromised Biblical authority. This issue aside, the SAB speak as though the whole of secular science is in complete harmony regarding the age of the earth. This is certainly not the case, as some of the links above illustrate.

The bottom line in all this is this, secular science has no more 'evidence' and is no more 'sure' about the age of the earth than are Biblical creationists, and so the SAB have again failed to prove the unreliability of the Bible or discredit it in any way.

Well, that's all for this episode, join me next time for the Sun and Stars controversy. Bye for now.

2005-08-18T22:08:00.000+01:00

Innocent Ignorance or Pernicious Deceit!
Is evolution established fact or religious faith?

In this installment, the writers at the SAB make the following claim:

Gen. 1:1 - 2:3
The creation account in Genesis 1 conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite. (emphasis added).

Simply put, what the SAB writers are saying here is that evolutionary theory, which they correctly say is totally opposed to the biblical creation account, has been scientifically proven as the true account of the origin of the universe and everything in it.

I don't have the space here to deal with this subject exhaustively. What I will say though is that for the SAB writers to make a claim like this, they are either completely unaware of current scientific developments in the area of intelligent design and origins, or they are being deliberately deceitful and misleading about the 'facts' of evolutionary theory.

The following links provide some factual material on various issues at the heart of the evolution/creation debate:

These articles (and many others) help to illustrate that the 'facts' of evolutionary theory just don't stack up, and that evolution is as much a religion as any other worldview or system of beliefs (which, incidentally requires a much larger leap of faith than belief in the Bible does). The claim that evolutionary theory is objectively scientific is nonsense; it is as much based on presuppositions as religious belief is; for the one (evolution) the underlying supposition is that God does not exist, while for the other, the supposition is that He does.

A fitting conclusion to this post is a quotation from the father of evolutionary theory:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."(Darwin, C. (1872) Origin Of Species, 6th ed. (1988), New York University Press, New York, p. 154)

Bearing this quotation in mind, I would like to recommend two books that deal with this issue:

A very well written (though slightly technical in places) explanation of the intelligent design issue, and the problems it presents for evolutionary theory.

Another excellent, and slightly less technical explanation of intelligent design, using examples such as the human knee joint, the ecosystem, bird flight and others.

That's all for this installment, I trust that there is enough info here to at least convince you that the theory of evolution is not as certain as its proponents would like to think it is. Tune in soon for further episodes. Bye for now.

2005-08-16T22:35:00.000+01:00

The Created Order
The two 'contradictory' creation accounts

Before we start with this series, a preliminary comment is in order:

If a case is proposed in which the Bible contradicts itself, secular history or science, and a solution is here proposed which serves to explain and reconcile the contradiction; then unless our proposed solution can be proven untrue or irrational, then our solution stands; the burden of proof then lies with the objector.

The SAB website proposes the following:

The two 'contradictory' creation accounts

First Account (Genesis 1:1 - 2:3)	Second Account(Genesis 2:4 - 25)
Gen.1:25 - 27 (Humans were created after the other animals.) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image....So God created man in his own image.	Gen.2:18 - 19 (Humans were created before the other animals.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen.1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.	Gen.2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

First Account (Genesis 1:1 - 2:3)

Second Account(Genesis 2:4 - 25)

Gen.1:25 - 27

(Humans were created after the other animals.)

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image....So God created man in his own image.

Gen.2:18 - 19

(Humans were created before the other animals.)

Gen.1:27

(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen.2:18-22

(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Firstly, it cannot be assumed when reading the Scripture that each event described from Genesis to Revelation is described in sequential, chronological order. This is simply not the case, some parts are but others are not. This alleged contradiction has at its heart this very error.

In summary, the above 'contradiction' is that in the first chapter the man and the woman seem to be represented as created together, after the lower animals; in the second chapter the man appears to be created first, then the beasts, lastly the woman.

Simply, these differences arise from the compression of the narrative in the first chapter, and from the disregard of chronological order in the second. The first chapter gives a general, concise account of the six days' work; while in the second a review is given, along with some additional details, and without following the order of time. The narrative in the second chapter is totally unchronological, the near and the remote being brought together without the regard to the order of time. Everything in chapter one is described in its relation to time, whereas everything in chapter two is not, but is described in its relation to the man.

So, the chronological interpretation of chapter two should be governed by the chronological order of chapter one, as it is clearly the intention of the writer to describe things in chapter one chronologically.

Taking each verse individually, the correct interpretation is a follows:

1. Gen.1:25-27 sets the true chronological order.

2. In interpreting Gen.2:18-19, a number of observations can be made:

The help meet for the man in verse 18 is not the animals of verse 19, but is the woman.
If read carefully verse 19 does not actually say that the beasts were created after man, "...And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast...". Now, if the emphasised 'AND' in verse 19 had been a 'then', maybe we could interpret it chronologically, but it isn't and so we can't.

Therefore the correct interpretation of the passage is as follows:

Prior to verse 19 God creates the animals and then Adam. God decrees that he will create Eve as a companion for the man in verse 19. God then brings the animals that He has already created to Adam in order that he might name them, and to demonstrate to Adam that there is no suitable companion for Adam out of the animals. God creates Eve out of Adam's body.

The mistake generally made here is that the help meet for Adam is taken as referring to the animals, and that Eve was created as an afterthought because God was unable to make a suitable companion for Adam from the animals. Are we really to suppose that the creator God seen in chapter one is unable to successfully create a suitable companion for Adam instantly. We think not!

3. Gen.1:27 gives no indication of in which order the male and female were created, or the time period between their creation, it simply states that they were created male and female.

So, according to logic and common sense, the alleged 'contradictions' have been shown to dissolve, and leave the unity and integrity of the Scriptures unimpaired.

Don't forget to tune in for my next installment, where the SAB team inform us that, "The creation account in Genesis 1 conflicts with the order of events that are known to science." (emphasis added). Yeah right!

2005-08-15T18:16:00.000+01:00

Before I Start!

Before I start my dissection of the SAB website's drivel, I'd like to recommend a book to you:

This book is an excellent treatment of most of the alleged discrepancies found in the Bible. I say most and not all for two reasons:

1. The book only deals with alleged 'internal' discrepancies, i.e. those in which the Bible appears inconsistent with itself; cases in which it appears inconsistent with secular history or science are not dealt with (I will deal with those myself separately).

2. Not all the alleged discrepancies that appear on the SAB site are dealt with by the book (other sources will be referred to for these cases

That said, this is an excellent book; well worth a read and is also well indexed for easy reference.

I will be starting this over the next couple of days, beginning at Genesis and working through each case as quickly and thoroughly as my time permits.

Some Light Relief

Allow me to introduce you to some of the undeserved blessings that our Lord has gracefully bestowed upon me:

Mrs Ephemeral Mortal (a.k.a 'my rib' or Annette)

Been married 'lots' of years now. Started courting in high school, but known each other since we were about 10 years old.

Ephemeral Mortal Junior (a.k.a Damien)
He's an (almost) 13 year old Playstation addict.

Ephemeral Mortal Canine (a.k.a. Milo)
He's a 4 year old, very placid (with people) Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

And finally...

Ephemeral Site of natural beauty (a.k.a Pontsticill Reservoir)

This is my favorite tranquil retreat, and is only a 5 - 10 minute drive from my house. I enjoy taking in this breathtaking beauty, and then realising that some day all this will be dissolved and reconstituted to make an even better new heavens and a new earth.

2005-08-14T20:17:00.000+01:00

Hello Blog World!

This post is just a few words of introduction and to just state what my intentions are for starting this blog.
I have had numerous conversations and debates with fellow mortals who are of the atheist/humanist/evolutionist persuasion, during which, after having explained to them their need of salvation, and after them having almost exhausted their stock of excuses for their unbelief, they hit me with what they think is the 'knock out blow'; the old 'the Bible is full of contradictions, absurdities and inconsistencies' excuse. They then proceed (they think) to add weight to their blow by directing me to the following website:

This nauseous website contains a long list of apparent 'contradictions' and 'absurdities' taken from every book from Genesis to Revelation. To accomplish this the author makes no attempt to intelligently understand any of the text and decontextualises everything. Some of the entries are so blatantly ridiculous that a child could answer the objections raised and they barely warrant an explanation. Nevertheless, I think that this website has, can and will be used to place stumbling blocks in the way of genuine seekers of the Lord, to hinder the growth of the weaker brother or sister in the faith and serves to furnish unbelievers with much material with which they can silence their consciences.

This brings me back to my intentions for this blog. I intend, over a period of time (don't know how long, may be months, but could be years) to answer each objection listed on the aforementioned website. I realise that the answers to these objections and more have been published in various works, but my aim is to gather together into a single unit simple explanations that are accessible to all.

P.S. I am no theologian, and don't pretend to be one, (and realise that there are a number of theological 'big hitters' in the blogsphere e.g. Phil Johnson, Steve Camp and others of their ilk) so if anyone objects to any of my explanations, and have the credentials to do so, please feel free to comment on or correct anything that I publish.