I recently wrote a post about Baptism, and I received many questions about the topic of infant Baptism. The practice of infant baptism is nothing new, in fact it was first recorded around 220 A.D. and was widely used by the Catholic Church by the 7th century. The reason given was the doctrine of original sin (which I wrote about in an earlier post), which is the thought that we are all born sinners, and that sin is passed down, going all the way back to Adam. The Catholic Church points to Psalms 51:5 as their reasoning, which in their translation (Catholic Holy Bible Version), written and published in the 1950's reads "Truly, I was born a sinner, for in sin did my mother conceive me." Many modern versions have followed suit, saying much the same thing, but in truth, the authors switched a few words from the original texts to fit their doctrine.
You see, this is what men have done since the Bible was put into written form and published. False teachers who are not happy for whatever reason with a certain doctrine, are able to rewrite God's Word to fit their needs. Here is what the verse says in the original Hebrew, and see for yourself if there is a perversion of the texts: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Can you see the difference in the two? In the modern version, David is saying he was born a sinner, but in the Hebrew and American Standard (1901) text, it reads that he was born out of his MOTHER'S sin. Furthermore, if the Catholic version is correct, and now many Protestant Churches, their versions of the Bible failed to change in other passages that would lead to a contradiction. Such as Ezekiel 18:20, which reads that the son will not bare the iniquity of the father! We are held accountable for our own sins, not that of people from the past. So from the very start, the reasoning for infant Baptism is man-made, not from God. Let's look in detail the whole purpose of Baptism, and see if infants fit into what God, not myself, has said.
Mark 16:16 tells us much of what needs to be known. "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, he that believeth not, shall be condemned." This is the second part in this that can't involve babies. Before we can even believe, we must be able to understand either what we read, or what is being taught to us. Romans 10:17: "So believing comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Can a baby understand what is being taught? Can an infant read for himself the words of Christ? Of course not! Since it cannot understand, or read, why then does it have the need for baptism as Christ commanded? But what is the reason for Baptism to begin with? Peter showed us in Acts 2:38 the reasoning. After his sermon to the Jewish leaders, many of whom were the ones who condemned Christ, they cried and asked what they can do to be right with God? Peter answered them: "Repent and be baptized". What about what was said in Acts 17:30? "The times of ignorance God overlooked: but now He commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent." Or finally, in Luke 13:3: "I tell you nay, but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." In order to repent, we must have the ability to sin, since we are not born of sin as has already been said. Does anyone truly believe that a child can sin?
Jesus saw children as perfect and pure, as He stated in Matthew 18:3: "And said, verily I say unto you, except ye turn and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of Heaven." Children can enter into the kingdom because they have no sin. With no sin, there is no need for repentance or baptism! And Romans 14:12 echoes what Ezekiel 18:20 stated, "So then each one of us shall give an account of himself to God." Truly, if an infant or young child dies, what account could they possibly give to the Lord? From all of these passages, how can one teach that it is necessary for an infant to be baptized? However, many people claim that since the Bible doesn't say you can't, then it can't be wrong. Here is my issue with that.
God has given us His revelation by the Holy Spirit through the Bible, and has told us everything we need to know to have salvation. If we didn't believe this, why do we bother reading the Bible to start with? So God has told us everything He wants us to do, but if the Bible also included everything He doesn't want us to do, it would contain hundreds of volumes. It isn't necessary though, since He has given us explicit instructions. If you give your child twenty dollars and tell them to go buy a loaf bread, and he comes back with a loaf of bread, and 18 dollars worth of candy, did he obey you? Should you have to tell him everything in the store NOT to buy? Of course not. So why doesn't the same apply to what God has told us? He tells us why we should be Baptized, and that is all we need to know.
Some people also ask me, 'So it is a sin to Baptize a baby?' Baptizing a baby is nothing more than getting a child wet, but by not following God's explicit commands, THAT is the sin. It is also dangerous in that, as the child grows into adulthood, he/she believes that they are saved because they are baptized, especially if they have not heard the truth of God's words. Baptism is for those who wish to accept Christ as their savior and obey God. An infant obviously does not fall into that category, and again, since we know we are not born sinners, or that God does not create anything evil, babies are safe and secure in the arms of the Lord. If your ministers and preachers tell you different, please ask them to look at and explain what God has said and meant by His Words, for as we have seen, we are judged by what We do in our lives, not by what someone such as a preacher has told us. As always, if you have any further questions, please let me know, for I am more than happy to discuss it with anyone. Thank you for taking the time read and consider, and please, continue studying the Word of God.
A Christian Blog that uses the Bible as it's only source of doctrine.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Friday, August 19, 2016
Questions About Baptism
Baptism is one of the most debated and discussed topics of the Bible. There are those that believe Baptism is essential to salvation, while others believe it is just to show your faith. Some claim it is commanded, others say it is recommended. Many say full immersion is the only way, while others prefer sprinkling and pouring of water. Honestly, the differences are numerous, and there is no way to have enough room on post to touch on all the issues, but let's discuss some of these questions. And, as always, since there are so many opinions, the statements in my blog will always be given with the backing of scripture and God's Word. This is what God has told us, and not my personal, or any man's decision.
Is Baptism essential for our salvation? Today, many church organizations have changed their doctrine from one of Baptism IS essential, to it is just a sign of faithfulness. When we read scriptures though, it is clear that Baptism is indeed, essential. Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." Now many claim that because baptize is left out of the second part of the verse, this means it is not essential. However, if you don't believe, you will not be baptized, so therefore there is no need to say it twice. Look at what Peter said on the Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 after he had given his sermon about what had happened to Christ. The Jews were "pricked in their hearts" and wanted to know what they must do to be saved. Peter answers in 2:38, saying "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Notice that Peter didn't give any other option such as, just believe, or ask forgiveness. The same goes for Paul, the Eunuch, and every other example we find in the Bible. It is essential!
Who needs to be Baptized? Every example we are given in the Bible (with the exception of Christ Himself), we see that one must be able to choose to be baptized to wash away his/her sins. Sin is a choice that a person chooses to do (1 John 3:4), and since sin separates us from God, we must be baptized to wash those sins away. The sinful person must be able to accept the Grace of God by hearing and believing (Heb. 11:6, John 8:24, etc.) the teachings of Christ. One must have faith in the Lord, for without it, you cannot submit to it (Mark 16:16). Also, one must be able to repent of the sins they committed in their past (Acts 2:38). There are many in the religious world today who argue that a child must be baptized, but since a child (infant) cannot confess Christ, commit sin, or be able to repent, an infant needs not to be baptized. They are innocent, and if something tragic happens to them, they are safe with Christ. Also notice, in all of the accounts given in the Bible of Baptism, there is not one instance of an infant! Jesus could have been baptized while a youth, but even He waited to give us the perfect example. I know many argue form original sin, but these instances should counter that, but even so, another post will cover that in the future.
How is Baptism to be done? For the first few centuries after Christ, there was only way that baptism was done, by full immersion. Why? First of all, full immersion was the only way it was done in the Bible. In fact, the word Baptize comes from the Greek word 'baptizo', which literally means 'to go under' or 'fully immerse'. So in the original writings of the Bible, when one saw the word baptize, they were actually seeing, 'to go into the water'. In every account of a Baptism in the Bible, it was always by the person who is being baptized, going fully under the water. When Philip was travelling with the Eunuch in Acts 8:34ff, the Eunuch saw a pool of water and chose that spot. Surely they had water in their chariot, so why didn't they just use it to pour over his head? Also, when one is Baptized, they are buried with Christ, and raised up to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4, Col. 2:12). When you rise up out of the water, you are a new person. Sprinkling and pouring is not burying, and there is no rising up. Sprinkling and pouring was a man-made institution to make things easier for some, and does not follow either the commands, nor the examples as set forth in the Bible. How was Jesus baptized to show His example to us? That is the way to follow.
When should Baptism be done? This should easily be seen by studying the scriptures. As soon as one hears the Word, believes in Christ as savior, repents of their sins and confirms Christ, they should be baptized. Since we have seen that you cannot be saved until Baptism (Mark 16:16 Acts 2:38), it should be done immediately! Why wait? What if something happens while you are waiting? There are some organizations who wait to do baptisms once or twice a year, but where do they get their authority to do that? That is not found in God's Word at all! Besides, why would you want to wait to walk with God?
Where should one be Baptized? In the accounts found in the Bible, there is no special location to do this, other than a spot with enough water for someone to be fully immersed. The Eunuch did it in the first body of water he came across. Many churches today use rivers or creeks, while some have a baptistery in the building to perform them. There are many people who wish to wait to be Baptized in the Jordan River itself, but there is no passage found that says you must be baptized in the Jordan. Any body of water will do.
Finally, who is to do the baptizing? Many people believe that only a Christian or the Minister is to perform the baptizing. The truth is, the Bible does not give any qualifications as to who can do it. The importance is in the one who is being Baptized. Some people believe that only an 'ordained' Minister or Priest must be allowed, but again, there is no authorization of this in the Bible, but something man has decided later on.
There are of course many more questions to be gone through, and each of these questions that we just discussed we could do its own post on. But as you can see for yourself, I only used what the scriptures said to try to prove the truth of Baptism, and why/how it should be done. As always, I'm sure everyone has their own opinion of it, so please let me know in the comments or by Face Book, and I would love to discuss it with you further. I do not do these posts to try to debate, or put down anyone's belief's, but am just trying show people the truth of God's Word, and to show that there are many people out there who try to twist the scriptures to fit their own false beliefs. The danger is always in listening to others before what God has told us. The Truth is in His Word!
Is Baptism essential for our salvation? Today, many church organizations have changed their doctrine from one of Baptism IS essential, to it is just a sign of faithfulness. When we read scriptures though, it is clear that Baptism is indeed, essential. Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." Now many claim that because baptize is left out of the second part of the verse, this means it is not essential. However, if you don't believe, you will not be baptized, so therefore there is no need to say it twice. Look at what Peter said on the Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 after he had given his sermon about what had happened to Christ. The Jews were "pricked in their hearts" and wanted to know what they must do to be saved. Peter answers in 2:38, saying "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Notice that Peter didn't give any other option such as, just believe, or ask forgiveness. The same goes for Paul, the Eunuch, and every other example we find in the Bible. It is essential!
Who needs to be Baptized? Every example we are given in the Bible (with the exception of Christ Himself), we see that one must be able to choose to be baptized to wash away his/her sins. Sin is a choice that a person chooses to do (1 John 3:4), and since sin separates us from God, we must be baptized to wash those sins away. The sinful person must be able to accept the Grace of God by hearing and believing (Heb. 11:6, John 8:24, etc.) the teachings of Christ. One must have faith in the Lord, for without it, you cannot submit to it (Mark 16:16). Also, one must be able to repent of the sins they committed in their past (Acts 2:38). There are many in the religious world today who argue that a child must be baptized, but since a child (infant) cannot confess Christ, commit sin, or be able to repent, an infant needs not to be baptized. They are innocent, and if something tragic happens to them, they are safe with Christ. Also notice, in all of the accounts given in the Bible of Baptism, there is not one instance of an infant! Jesus could have been baptized while a youth, but even He waited to give us the perfect example. I know many argue form original sin, but these instances should counter that, but even so, another post will cover that in the future.
How is Baptism to be done? For the first few centuries after Christ, there was only way that baptism was done, by full immersion. Why? First of all, full immersion was the only way it was done in the Bible. In fact, the word Baptize comes from the Greek word 'baptizo', which literally means 'to go under' or 'fully immerse'. So in the original writings of the Bible, when one saw the word baptize, they were actually seeing, 'to go into the water'. In every account of a Baptism in the Bible, it was always by the person who is being baptized, going fully under the water. When Philip was travelling with the Eunuch in Acts 8:34ff, the Eunuch saw a pool of water and chose that spot. Surely they had water in their chariot, so why didn't they just use it to pour over his head? Also, when one is Baptized, they are buried with Christ, and raised up to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4, Col. 2:12). When you rise up out of the water, you are a new person. Sprinkling and pouring is not burying, and there is no rising up. Sprinkling and pouring was a man-made institution to make things easier for some, and does not follow either the commands, nor the examples as set forth in the Bible. How was Jesus baptized to show His example to us? That is the way to follow.
When should Baptism be done? This should easily be seen by studying the scriptures. As soon as one hears the Word, believes in Christ as savior, repents of their sins and confirms Christ, they should be baptized. Since we have seen that you cannot be saved until Baptism (Mark 16:16 Acts 2:38), it should be done immediately! Why wait? What if something happens while you are waiting? There are some organizations who wait to do baptisms once or twice a year, but where do they get their authority to do that? That is not found in God's Word at all! Besides, why would you want to wait to walk with God?
Where should one be Baptized? In the accounts found in the Bible, there is no special location to do this, other than a spot with enough water for someone to be fully immersed. The Eunuch did it in the first body of water he came across. Many churches today use rivers or creeks, while some have a baptistery in the building to perform them. There are many people who wish to wait to be Baptized in the Jordan River itself, but there is no passage found that says you must be baptized in the Jordan. Any body of water will do.
Finally, who is to do the baptizing? Many people believe that only a Christian or the Minister is to perform the baptizing. The truth is, the Bible does not give any qualifications as to who can do it. The importance is in the one who is being Baptized. Some people believe that only an 'ordained' Minister or Priest must be allowed, but again, there is no authorization of this in the Bible, but something man has decided later on.
There are of course many more questions to be gone through, and each of these questions that we just discussed we could do its own post on. But as you can see for yourself, I only used what the scriptures said to try to prove the truth of Baptism, and why/how it should be done. As always, I'm sure everyone has their own opinion of it, so please let me know in the comments or by Face Book, and I would love to discuss it with you further. I do not do these posts to try to debate, or put down anyone's belief's, but am just trying show people the truth of God's Word, and to show that there are many people out there who try to twist the scriptures to fit their own false beliefs. The danger is always in listening to others before what God has told us. The Truth is in His Word!
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
The Anti-Christ Revealed
In the early 1990's a set of books was written called "The Left Behind" series that was a fictional story about the events leading up to the second coming of Christ. Though many found the books to be exciting and fast-paced, they were written by the author's personal beliefs, and should be viewed as fictional. Especially when considering the twisting of scriptures involving the so-called antichrist that many believe is found in the book of Revelation. As is quite often the case, the truth is much different than the story.
In the books, and in the beliefs of many people, the antichrist is a person, who might be alive today, who comes to power as a world savior after the disappearance of countless people. The world descends into chaos, and this man convinces the people to make him a dictator to take care of them. Of course, in the process, he turns as many people against Christ as he can before Christ returns to save those left behind. The authors claim, and many people agree, that all of this will be the fulfillment of prophecy from the Bible. But the Bible reveals what the antichrist truly is, and the truth is much different.
First of all, the antichrist as described in the last paragraph, is not found or supported anywhere in scripture. The word antichrist comes from the Greek word 'Antikristos', and is found five times in the New Testament, all of them in the epistles of John, never once in Revelation. In John's explanation of the antichrist, it never describes a specific person, but anyone who fights against the belief of Christ and His teachings. 1 John 2:18 reads "Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists: whereby we know it is the last hour." Later, in verse 22, the best description of what an antichrist is, can be seen. "Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the son." This is the simple, and only definition that can be found.
Unfortunately, far too many people today will read fictional stories and believe anything that sounds good, or that a religious "leader" tells them without studying for themselves. There are also false claims that historical or political figures of the past were two of the antichrists, with the last one being the one mentioned earlier. It is often said that Napoleon and Adolph Hitler were the first two, setting the stage for the final one. While it may be true that Napoleon and Hitler were antichrists, they (according to the Bible) have nothing to do with any prophecy in the Bible. This is simply a false claim, something for people to talk about. And this is what makes this such a sad commentary.
For whatever reason, many people want to believe any fantastical story involving anything to do with God and/or Christ, without simply studying the Bible and the Truth of God's Word. Nowhere in scripture is there support for a powerful man being an ultimate antichrist, able to put the 'mark of the beast' on people, thus losing them from salvation forever. Christ has the ultimate power over everything and everyone on earth, including those who deny Him. These are the people who the Bible has revealed to be the real, and only antichrist.
In the books, and in the beliefs of many people, the antichrist is a person, who might be alive today, who comes to power as a world savior after the disappearance of countless people. The world descends into chaos, and this man convinces the people to make him a dictator to take care of them. Of course, in the process, he turns as many people against Christ as he can before Christ returns to save those left behind. The authors claim, and many people agree, that all of this will be the fulfillment of prophecy from the Bible. But the Bible reveals what the antichrist truly is, and the truth is much different.
First of all, the antichrist as described in the last paragraph, is not found or supported anywhere in scripture. The word antichrist comes from the Greek word 'Antikristos', and is found five times in the New Testament, all of them in the epistles of John, never once in Revelation. In John's explanation of the antichrist, it never describes a specific person, but anyone who fights against the belief of Christ and His teachings. 1 John 2:18 reads "Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists: whereby we know it is the last hour." Later, in verse 22, the best description of what an antichrist is, can be seen. "Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the son." This is the simple, and only definition that can be found.
Unfortunately, far too many people today will read fictional stories and believe anything that sounds good, or that a religious "leader" tells them without studying for themselves. There are also false claims that historical or political figures of the past were two of the antichrists, with the last one being the one mentioned earlier. It is often said that Napoleon and Adolph Hitler were the first two, setting the stage for the final one. While it may be true that Napoleon and Hitler were antichrists, they (according to the Bible) have nothing to do with any prophecy in the Bible. This is simply a false claim, something for people to talk about. And this is what makes this such a sad commentary.
For whatever reason, many people want to believe any fantastical story involving anything to do with God and/or Christ, without simply studying the Bible and the Truth of God's Word. Nowhere in scripture is there support for a powerful man being an ultimate antichrist, able to put the 'mark of the beast' on people, thus losing them from salvation forever. Christ has the ultimate power over everything and everyone on earth, including those who deny Him. These are the people who the Bible has revealed to be the real, and only antichrist.
Friday, August 5, 2016
The Bible and Ghosts
Let's be real for a minute. Most of us like a good spooky story, especially while sitting around a fireplace or while camping with family and friends. Many of us like a good movie or television program with ghosts or something supernatural in it. And of course, we have all heard of or know someone who has seen something weird or who have heard bumps in the night that we just 'can't explain'. So what are ghosts, if they even truly exist? If they do, shouldn't the Bible have something to say about them, since they are spirits of dead people? Well, the Bible actually says very little about actual 'ghosts' (except for the Holy Ghost of course), but has much to say about what happens to us when we die. And therein lies the answer.
The biggest fear that man faces in life, is of course, death. Many people, especially those who are not Christians, are afraid of dying and the unknown of what happens after. The author of Psalms 55:4-5 describes death as 'terror'. Job describes death as "The king of terror" in Job 18:14. This is the way most people view death, and many try to combat this fear with the possibility of remaining here on earth, communicating with our loved ones. The Bible though tells us what happens upon our death, and never once mentions our spirit still roaming around here.
In 1 Thess. 4:14 and Daniel 12:2, scripture says that the body sleeps in death. The word sleep is from the Greek word 'Koimaomi', which simply means to lie down, not sleep as we know it. Now since these two verses do not mention the spirit after death, some will want to say the spirit continues on, maybe being trapped here for some reason. Of course, if we only would read other verses on this topic, it would help us understand.
James tells us in James 2:26 that the spirit leaves the body upon death, they are separated. So what happens to it? At death, the spirit returns to God who gave it (Ecc. 12:7) and will be assigned its final disposition, according to the way we lived our lives. Upon death, the righteous will be with Christ. Philippians 1:23 says "But I am in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ." In Luke 23:43, Jesus tells the thief on the cross that he would be with Christ in Paradise, where all the righteous go upon death. Nothing is said about any roaming the earth.
So what happens to the wicked upon death? Couldn't they possibly be stuck here, scaring all of us forever? Not even close. Psalms 116:3 tells of the wicked going to Sheol, and being in complete agony. In Matthew 22:13, the wicked will be met with weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 25:46 might describe what happens in the simplest of terms. It reads "And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life". The evil spirits will not walk the earth, nor remain in a place called purgatory, trying to improve their standing with God. We have one chance here on earth to get it right with God.
Upon death, if we are right with God, there will be a blissful reunion with the other righteous. Gen. 25:8 tells us that Abraham was gathered with his people upon his death. Since he was a very long way from his home when he died, he was gathered with them after his death, in Paradise. In Matthew 8:11, Jesus says that many would sit with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Again, nothing is ever spoken about spirits being trapped here on earth. So though the Bible doesn't speak of ghosts, it doesn't need to, because they don't exist.
So, if they don't exist, what is it that so many people have seen or heard? What about so called 'reality' shows such as Ghost Hunters or Ghost Adventures? Remember, they are just shows that can be manipulated to show whatever they want us to see. And for those who think they have seen something? I can't explain away everything that people have witnessed, but we should keep in mind that our brains quite often can play tricks on us. If you believe in ghosts, and go into a place that is supposedly haunted, every shadow you see or noise you hear, will of course be a ghost. We also have a problem with letting loved ones go who have passed away, and our minds will lead us to believe that the shadow we see, or a certain smell, is that of our loved one. If you believe in God, and that the Bible is His Word, you must believe that upon death, our spirits return to Him.
There have been stories of ghosts for as long as recorded history has been around. There have also been stories of vampires, goblins, zombies, fairies and other creatures that the vast majority of people know don't exist, yet for some reason, ghosts took hold of our imagination and won't let go. As a Christian, the thought of being trapped here on earth for eternity is not even a pleasant thought. We are just pilgrims passing through in our lives, hopefully living righteously so we can spend eternity with God in Heaven. Ghost stories are fun to try to scare each other with, but they are simply no more than myths.
The biggest fear that man faces in life, is of course, death. Many people, especially those who are not Christians, are afraid of dying and the unknown of what happens after. The author of Psalms 55:4-5 describes death as 'terror'. Job describes death as "The king of terror" in Job 18:14. This is the way most people view death, and many try to combat this fear with the possibility of remaining here on earth, communicating with our loved ones. The Bible though tells us what happens upon our death, and never once mentions our spirit still roaming around here.
In 1 Thess. 4:14 and Daniel 12:2, scripture says that the body sleeps in death. The word sleep is from the Greek word 'Koimaomi', which simply means to lie down, not sleep as we know it. Now since these two verses do not mention the spirit after death, some will want to say the spirit continues on, maybe being trapped here for some reason. Of course, if we only would read other verses on this topic, it would help us understand.
James tells us in James 2:26 that the spirit leaves the body upon death, they are separated. So what happens to it? At death, the spirit returns to God who gave it (Ecc. 12:7) and will be assigned its final disposition, according to the way we lived our lives. Upon death, the righteous will be with Christ. Philippians 1:23 says "But I am in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ." In Luke 23:43, Jesus tells the thief on the cross that he would be with Christ in Paradise, where all the righteous go upon death. Nothing is said about any roaming the earth.
So what happens to the wicked upon death? Couldn't they possibly be stuck here, scaring all of us forever? Not even close. Psalms 116:3 tells of the wicked going to Sheol, and being in complete agony. In Matthew 22:13, the wicked will be met with weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 25:46 might describe what happens in the simplest of terms. It reads "And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life". The evil spirits will not walk the earth, nor remain in a place called purgatory, trying to improve their standing with God. We have one chance here on earth to get it right with God.
Upon death, if we are right with God, there will be a blissful reunion with the other righteous. Gen. 25:8 tells us that Abraham was gathered with his people upon his death. Since he was a very long way from his home when he died, he was gathered with them after his death, in Paradise. In Matthew 8:11, Jesus says that many would sit with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Again, nothing is ever spoken about spirits being trapped here on earth. So though the Bible doesn't speak of ghosts, it doesn't need to, because they don't exist.
So, if they don't exist, what is it that so many people have seen or heard? What about so called 'reality' shows such as Ghost Hunters or Ghost Adventures? Remember, they are just shows that can be manipulated to show whatever they want us to see. And for those who think they have seen something? I can't explain away everything that people have witnessed, but we should keep in mind that our brains quite often can play tricks on us. If you believe in ghosts, and go into a place that is supposedly haunted, every shadow you see or noise you hear, will of course be a ghost. We also have a problem with letting loved ones go who have passed away, and our minds will lead us to believe that the shadow we see, or a certain smell, is that of our loved one. If you believe in God, and that the Bible is His Word, you must believe that upon death, our spirits return to Him.
There have been stories of ghosts for as long as recorded history has been around. There have also been stories of vampires, goblins, zombies, fairies and other creatures that the vast majority of people know don't exist, yet for some reason, ghosts took hold of our imagination and won't let go. As a Christian, the thought of being trapped here on earth for eternity is not even a pleasant thought. We are just pilgrims passing through in our lives, hopefully living righteously so we can spend eternity with God in Heaven. Ghost stories are fun to try to scare each other with, but they are simply no more than myths.
Thursday, July 21, 2016
The Day Age Theory Debunked
For over a century now, many in the science community have done all they could to disprove anything dealing with God. In the distant past, more often than not, their most popular plan of attack was archeological finds, or lack thereof. However, as time has gone on and more sites are found, (Jericho, Uz, Solomon's Mines), they realized that every find always coincides with Biblical record. So a new strategy had to be made, and one that they could not only twist scriptures to help prove their point, but one that could be taught in schools to every child, thus twisting our children's minds from the start. This of course, is the theory of evolution and the age of the earth.
Science has taught us in schools that the earth is billions of years old, and they prove this by using methods such as radiocarbon dating, which has been proven to be extremely flawed (more on this topic in a future post). However, they teach this as a proven fact, and all children must buy into this if they want to receive a passing grade. Even sadder, is that many of these children have grown up as Christians believing this theory, even when the Bible makes it clear in Genesis that God created the earth in just six days, some six or seven thousand years ago. How can they believe this? Many point to 2 Peter 3:8 which says, "But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." They claim this is proof that a day in Genesis is not a twenty-four period, but could be eons, thus allowing both science AND the Bible to be correct. The Day Age Theory was born.
First of all, we need to examine the verse in 2 Peter. Though many people believe this to mean that when God said a day in Genesis, it could mean eons, this is not the context of this verse. What Peter is saying here is that God, who is Omni existent, does not count time the way we do. This verse in Peter is not talking about the days of creation at all, as other verses in scripture do, each time speaking of it as a twenty four hour period. But couldn't this mean that there is a translation issues in the Bible, and the translators simply wrote this or the other verses wrong? That could always be a possibility, so we must look at ALL of the evidence around this topic.
First of all, if the author of Genesis (Moses), want to convey the message that the days were actually long periods of time, couldn't he have done so in more understandable fashion? The Hebrew word used in Genesis was Yom, which always means a twenty four period, and has never meant anything different. It is found some 14 times in Genesis alone, and appears some 1,200 times in the Old Testament, always referring to a literal day as we know it. Even more interesting is the fact that there are Hebrew words used for ages, or long periods of time, such as 'olam', but yet Moses chose to use the only recognizable word for an actual day, 'yom'. Also, if Day-Age theorists are willing to turn 'yom' in Genesis to a long period of time, why didn't they choose to change it elsewhere in the Bible? This is the only occurrence they choose to change the meaning of this word. Keep this in mind as well, could the ancient Israelites have been able to understand this term as meaning millions or billions of years? Definitely not, especially when Moses used this term here. Why would God, or Moses try to mislead us, or the ancient Israelites?
If we study the creation story in Genesis, we can also see how the author divides the end of one day and the start of the next as night and day. In Genesis 1:5, God separated the light from the dark, and called it day and night. So if the Day-Age theory is correct, this would mean that it was dark for possibly millions of years, and then light for millions of years. But at the end of the verse, it clearly states that there was an evening and a morning in one day. This only becomes a contradiction when modern man changed the definition. Has anyone ever seen an eon of time, separated by a morning and evening?
Another problem that Day-Age theorists must contend with, is the issue of botany, or plant life. Plant life came into existence on the third day, according to Genesis. If the days were actually eons, that would mean that plants, which must have sunlight to survive, actually survived for millions of years without the sun. Also, we know that plants are pollinated by many different types of animals, which of course were not created until days five and six, so that would mean that plants had to thrive for millions of years without any way to reproduce. Science has told us this would be impossible, yet want us to believe this?
Another piece of evidence to consider, comes from scripture itself. God told the Israelites to work for six days and rest on the seventh, just as He had done when He created the earth (Exodus 20:8-11). If He had taken millions or billions of years to create everything, did He mean Israel could not rest for that length of time? Of course the Israelites understood this to mean a literal 24 hour period, as we do today. Jesus also spoke of the creation in Matthew, and He never used the term day as meaning anything other than a 24 hour period. Maybe He didn't know? Even when He was there (John 1:1)? Or was He also trying to mislead us? If so, for what purpose?
One last thing to ponder. How old was Adam if a day was actually eons of time? Adam was created on the sixth day, and god rested on the seventh. Adam, we can read, lived for a long time after the seventh day. If a day, was say, just a million years (which theorists say is far too short), Adam would have to have been, at the least, millions of years old. So far, I have found nothing of anyone explaining this problem away either. There is simply no explanation they can find for it, without shredding the Word of God even further.
Too many people take what either scientists or theistic-evolutionists teach without question, and without considering that God, may have actually done EXACTLY what He said He did. We are told to blindly believe theories that science has come up with, and then twist the scriptures to fit these unproven (and never can be proven) theories. God is more than capable of creating, and destroying, anything He puts His mind to. He does not need billions of years to create the earth, and we know this if for no other reason than God said so, and can not lie. If you are a Christian, then believe not only in God, but what He has told us, for why would He mislead when He can't? Creation from God, or Day-Age Theory from man. You must decide for yourself, because we all must answer to God for our decisions.
Science has taught us in schools that the earth is billions of years old, and they prove this by using methods such as radiocarbon dating, which has been proven to be extremely flawed (more on this topic in a future post). However, they teach this as a proven fact, and all children must buy into this if they want to receive a passing grade. Even sadder, is that many of these children have grown up as Christians believing this theory, even when the Bible makes it clear in Genesis that God created the earth in just six days, some six or seven thousand years ago. How can they believe this? Many point to 2 Peter 3:8 which says, "But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." They claim this is proof that a day in Genesis is not a twenty-four period, but could be eons, thus allowing both science AND the Bible to be correct. The Day Age Theory was born.
First of all, we need to examine the verse in 2 Peter. Though many people believe this to mean that when God said a day in Genesis, it could mean eons, this is not the context of this verse. What Peter is saying here is that God, who is Omni existent, does not count time the way we do. This verse in Peter is not talking about the days of creation at all, as other verses in scripture do, each time speaking of it as a twenty four hour period. But couldn't this mean that there is a translation issues in the Bible, and the translators simply wrote this or the other verses wrong? That could always be a possibility, so we must look at ALL of the evidence around this topic.
First of all, if the author of Genesis (Moses), want to convey the message that the days were actually long periods of time, couldn't he have done so in more understandable fashion? The Hebrew word used in Genesis was Yom, which always means a twenty four period, and has never meant anything different. It is found some 14 times in Genesis alone, and appears some 1,200 times in the Old Testament, always referring to a literal day as we know it. Even more interesting is the fact that there are Hebrew words used for ages, or long periods of time, such as 'olam', but yet Moses chose to use the only recognizable word for an actual day, 'yom'. Also, if Day-Age theorists are willing to turn 'yom' in Genesis to a long period of time, why didn't they choose to change it elsewhere in the Bible? This is the only occurrence they choose to change the meaning of this word. Keep this in mind as well, could the ancient Israelites have been able to understand this term as meaning millions or billions of years? Definitely not, especially when Moses used this term here. Why would God, or Moses try to mislead us, or the ancient Israelites?
If we study the creation story in Genesis, we can also see how the author divides the end of one day and the start of the next as night and day. In Genesis 1:5, God separated the light from the dark, and called it day and night. So if the Day-Age theory is correct, this would mean that it was dark for possibly millions of years, and then light for millions of years. But at the end of the verse, it clearly states that there was an evening and a morning in one day. This only becomes a contradiction when modern man changed the definition. Has anyone ever seen an eon of time, separated by a morning and evening?
Another problem that Day-Age theorists must contend with, is the issue of botany, or plant life. Plant life came into existence on the third day, according to Genesis. If the days were actually eons, that would mean that plants, which must have sunlight to survive, actually survived for millions of years without the sun. Also, we know that plants are pollinated by many different types of animals, which of course were not created until days five and six, so that would mean that plants had to thrive for millions of years without any way to reproduce. Science has told us this would be impossible, yet want us to believe this?
Another piece of evidence to consider, comes from scripture itself. God told the Israelites to work for six days and rest on the seventh, just as He had done when He created the earth (Exodus 20:8-11). If He had taken millions or billions of years to create everything, did He mean Israel could not rest for that length of time? Of course the Israelites understood this to mean a literal 24 hour period, as we do today. Jesus also spoke of the creation in Matthew, and He never used the term day as meaning anything other than a 24 hour period. Maybe He didn't know? Even when He was there (John 1:1)? Or was He also trying to mislead us? If so, for what purpose?
One last thing to ponder. How old was Adam if a day was actually eons of time? Adam was created on the sixth day, and god rested on the seventh. Adam, we can read, lived for a long time after the seventh day. If a day, was say, just a million years (which theorists say is far too short), Adam would have to have been, at the least, millions of years old. So far, I have found nothing of anyone explaining this problem away either. There is simply no explanation they can find for it, without shredding the Word of God even further.
Too many people take what either scientists or theistic-evolutionists teach without question, and without considering that God, may have actually done EXACTLY what He said He did. We are told to blindly believe theories that science has come up with, and then twist the scriptures to fit these unproven (and never can be proven) theories. God is more than capable of creating, and destroying, anything He puts His mind to. He does not need billions of years to create the earth, and we know this if for no other reason than God said so, and can not lie. If you are a Christian, then believe not only in God, but what He has told us, for why would He mislead when He can't? Creation from God, or Day-Age Theory from man. You must decide for yourself, because we all must answer to God for our decisions.
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Original Sin?
A topic that many people in the religious world debate over, is the subject of original sin. Many people believe that we are born sinners, and that sin is carried over from not only our parents, but as far back as Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. However, if this were true, there would be many contradictions in the scriptures themselves as we will see. This issue has often been so heatedly argued, that some have even gone as far as changing the words of verses in many of the new translations of the Bible.
In Psalm 51:5, the KJV, ASV (1901) reads as follows: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me." Now in this translation which was taken from the ancient Koine Greek, we can see that the author is saying he was born by the result of his mother's sin. However, the author's of some of the modern day versions such as the NIV and NEB have rewritten this to say: "Surely I was born in sin.", clearly the opposite of the King James version. Which one is the correct translation though? Well, if you can read the Koine Greek, you can decide for yourself, but if your like me, we can either rely on what someone else says, or look for more evidence of the matter in the Holy Scriptures themselves.
The first verse we need to look at is found in Ezekiel 18:20 which reads: "The soul that sinneth shall die, the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son...". This verse is quite clear in its meaning, in fact so clear, that the NIV and other versions left this in, even though it clearly contradicts their own translation of Psalm 51:5. The only way to understand this is that sin does not carry over.
The next verse is found in Romans 14:12, which again can only be translated in one way. "So then each one of us shall give an account of himself before God." If we are born with original sin, or sin carried over from our fathers, why would Paul write that we will have to give an account of...ourselves? Now some might say that Christ died to forgive us of our sins, which is absolutely true. He died for OUR sins, not for others. Each person will sit before God on the Day of Judgment and explain themselves. Would it be fair to have defend the actions of others? Of course not, and the Bible does not say anywhere that we do.
In Genesis 8:21, God let's us know the truth in another way. The verse clearly states that we begin sin in our youth, not as infants. Granted, some might consider infancy as part of our youth, but this is not the context here. In Isaiah 7:15-16, this becomes clearer as we read that a child must reach a level of maturity before he CHOOSES between good and evil. Can an infant choose anything? If no, then how can he choose to be evil, or sin? If yes, he still must choose, not be born with it already on board, at least if we are to believe the scriptures.
So now let's take a look at this subject from a different angle. How does God and Christ view children in comparison with the Kingdom? In Matthew 18:3, Jesus says this, "Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." We must turn and become like children. This doesn't mean we are to act like children and be immature, it means we are to be innocent like children, for God cannot allow anything unrighteous into heaven. So if children are born with sin, why should we become like them if they can't enter into heaven due to their sin? Again, another contradiction that modern versions cannot explain away.
Finally, we have to take into consideration the following passages in Ecclesiastes 12:7 and Hebrews 12:9. Here, we can see that it is God who gives us our spirit, NOT our parents. If it is God, why would He give us something that is tainted with sin, especially when we know He does not create anything evil, but everything is created in its perfect, purest form. If this is true, our spirit is created the same way, without sin. Besides, if we can believe that we get our sins from our parents, what about Jesus who had an earthly mother? Would He have sin at His birth as well?
The authors of the modern day translations have misinterpreted the Bible, and try to push their beliefs by rewriting scriptures to better fit their needs. In doing so, they failed to rewrite all the passages that pertain to this subject, creating many contradictions in their Bible. By reading all the passages that deal with this subject, I think it is pretty clear that no, we are not born with sin, but born innocent and unfortunately become sinners once we are old enough to choose between good and evil. This of course, is why baptism is essential for our salvation. Jesus died for our sins, but we must do something to attain that salvation, which is to choose to obey all that God has said. An infant cannot choose, as the scriptures have shown us, because they are born innocent, and are perfect and pure. We spend the rest of our lives trying to be as little children, just as Jesus said.
In Psalm 51:5, the KJV, ASV (1901) reads as follows: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me." Now in this translation which was taken from the ancient Koine Greek, we can see that the author is saying he was born by the result of his mother's sin. However, the author's of some of the modern day versions such as the NIV and NEB have rewritten this to say: "Surely I was born in sin.", clearly the opposite of the King James version. Which one is the correct translation though? Well, if you can read the Koine Greek, you can decide for yourself, but if your like me, we can either rely on what someone else says, or look for more evidence of the matter in the Holy Scriptures themselves.
The first verse we need to look at is found in Ezekiel 18:20 which reads: "The soul that sinneth shall die, the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son...". This verse is quite clear in its meaning, in fact so clear, that the NIV and other versions left this in, even though it clearly contradicts their own translation of Psalm 51:5. The only way to understand this is that sin does not carry over.
The next verse is found in Romans 14:12, which again can only be translated in one way. "So then each one of us shall give an account of himself before God." If we are born with original sin, or sin carried over from our fathers, why would Paul write that we will have to give an account of...ourselves? Now some might say that Christ died to forgive us of our sins, which is absolutely true. He died for OUR sins, not for others. Each person will sit before God on the Day of Judgment and explain themselves. Would it be fair to have defend the actions of others? Of course not, and the Bible does not say anywhere that we do.
In Genesis 8:21, God let's us know the truth in another way. The verse clearly states that we begin sin in our youth, not as infants. Granted, some might consider infancy as part of our youth, but this is not the context here. In Isaiah 7:15-16, this becomes clearer as we read that a child must reach a level of maturity before he CHOOSES between good and evil. Can an infant choose anything? If no, then how can he choose to be evil, or sin? If yes, he still must choose, not be born with it already on board, at least if we are to believe the scriptures.
So now let's take a look at this subject from a different angle. How does God and Christ view children in comparison with the Kingdom? In Matthew 18:3, Jesus says this, "Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." We must turn and become like children. This doesn't mean we are to act like children and be immature, it means we are to be innocent like children, for God cannot allow anything unrighteous into heaven. So if children are born with sin, why should we become like them if they can't enter into heaven due to their sin? Again, another contradiction that modern versions cannot explain away.
Finally, we have to take into consideration the following passages in Ecclesiastes 12:7 and Hebrews 12:9. Here, we can see that it is God who gives us our spirit, NOT our parents. If it is God, why would He give us something that is tainted with sin, especially when we know He does not create anything evil, but everything is created in its perfect, purest form. If this is true, our spirit is created the same way, without sin. Besides, if we can believe that we get our sins from our parents, what about Jesus who had an earthly mother? Would He have sin at His birth as well?
The authors of the modern day translations have misinterpreted the Bible, and try to push their beliefs by rewriting scriptures to better fit their needs. In doing so, they failed to rewrite all the passages that pertain to this subject, creating many contradictions in their Bible. By reading all the passages that deal with this subject, I think it is pretty clear that no, we are not born with sin, but born innocent and unfortunately become sinners once we are old enough to choose between good and evil. This of course, is why baptism is essential for our salvation. Jesus died for our sins, but we must do something to attain that salvation, which is to choose to obey all that God has said. An infant cannot choose, as the scriptures have shown us, because they are born innocent, and are perfect and pure. We spend the rest of our lives trying to be as little children, just as Jesus said.
Saturday, May 28, 2016
Explaining Away Miracles
Miracle: A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency. This is how the New Oxford American Dictionary defines miracles. An act that is outside forces of nature! if it is outside natural laws, then it can only come from God. Most Christians will agree on this, as well as claim that God did commit miracles to either prove He was God, or to help His children and punish His enemies. Yet, for some reason, many Christians today try to explain away Biblical miracles by natural occurrences. They try to discredit God and His Word while saying that He just used natural means to get the job done. They don't understand that they are taking the wonder of these miracles away, thus giving Atheists ammunition to fight against Christians! Let's take a look at some of the claims.
There are literally hundreds of websites and Youtube videos that anyone can watch and read with this subject matter, so I could only pick a couple, but feel free to investigate any on your own. The first website I found was Listverse.com. While they are not scientific, they do report on theories drawn from science articles and comments. Right away, we can see a major problem arising. The majority of scientists do not believe in God, so therefore have to come up with a reasonable explanation for miracles. Since we learn everything in school from these "scholars", we immediately tend to believe everything that is spoon fed to us, usually without question.
The first subject that Listverse tackled was the Tower of Babel. They try to explain this away by saying ancient writings were found mentioning King Nebuchadnezzar built a large tower that could be seen from miles away. Here's the problem with this theory: Nebuchadnezzar lived a very long time AFTER the record of the Bible. Coupled with the fact that Babylon during the time of Nebuchadnezzar was united and spoke the same language even after the king's death, how could he be the same person who built the tower? The writings that were found, do not mention how the building fell, or that the population became confounded with different languages. That would be an important piece of information that most likely would not be left out.
The next miracle they want to explain is the parting of the Red Sea. Now I have heard a couple of different theories on this, such as the Sea was emptied by a super low tide and then came back with a massive force. This is similar to what Listverse says. They claim that a hurricane from the Mediterranean caused the sea to empty, allowing the Hebrews to cross on dry land. Of course, it came flooding back at the exact moment the Egyptians tried to cross. The problem? The Bible clearly states that Moses led the Exodus across the Red Sea with a wall of water on each side, which crashed down upon the Egyptians. There was no mention of a storm at all. This does not sound like a super low tide at all, unless of course Moses lied when he wrote this.
What about Sodom and Gomorrah? The explanation for this at first seems plausible. A meteorite crashed down upon the plain and destroyed the cities. Granted, God could have used a meteor to do this, and a meteor could have destroyed the cities if they were close enough, but would that explain Lot's wife turning to a pillar of salt while Lot and his daughters were unharmed? Of course not! Couple that with the fact that no evidence of a meteor has ever been found on the plains, nor any existence of the cities, which is what the Bible said.
Another claim they try to make is about the Plagues of Egypt were caused by...climate change. I have no idea how they even came up with this one, for how does that explain rivers of blood, or complete darkness on everything in the land, except for the Hebrews? That is about as absurd as their explanation of the book of Revelation which was an acid trip. Yet they want us to take them seriously.
Another miracle they try to throw away is the great flood. The claim is the flood was caused by melting glaciers. The problem with this should be obvious. If all the glaciers in the world melted at the same time, scientists say that the oceans would be raised by twenty to thirty feet (NOAA). Not near enough to cover the tallest mountains, not to mention the Bible states that it rained! Also, how would Noah know ahead of time that the glaciers would melt to build the ark?
There are many others as well, such as the burning bush being on top of a volcanic vent. Which wouldn't explain the bush not burning up or God's voice coming from it. Or Jesus actually walked on ice and not water (because there is so much ice found in this region). There are more from this website you can check out and decide for yourself.
A couple of other miracles that men try to explain away is the earthquake and darkness when Christ died. Many try to claim the earthquake is perfectly normal for this region, which it is. However, there was a Greek philosopher who was in Greece at the time, and not a Christian, wrote there was indeed a great earthquake AND the world went dark for three hours. There is also the scientific attempt of explaining creation and the age of the earth. Most of us know this theory from the "scholars" of science, but remember, this is just a theory that even the most famous atheistic scientists say can never be proven. Great minds such as Stephen Hawking, and their champion Charles Darwin both claimed it can never be proven, but just trust us. Would two men who do not believe in God, try to prove God? If not, why would Godly people believe them over God?
In Genesis, the account of the creation is clear in every translation, that the heavens and earth were created in six days. The Hebrew word used here is YOM, which every time it is used in the Old Testament, meant a 24 hour period. The Hebrew language has words for Millennia, Eons, Centuries and Years, but none of these were used here. Why would God use the wrong word? Some try to look to 2 Peter 3:8 as proof that creation was actually done over a long period, but this verse has nothing to do with creation and is taken out of context. Plus why would Jesus, when talking about creation, also said six days? Did He misunderstand the account, even when He was there? Was He trying to mislead us? What is the answer?
Man wants to explain away God's miracles because we can't even come close to understanding the power of God, and so therefore can't grasp the miracles at work. What is troubling, is that many people who believe these falsities, are Christians. Too many want to believe educated men who don't believe in God, instead of believing God and His words. By taking away the miracles of God, we take away the power of God and His glory. As Christians, shouldn't we believe that God has the power to do whatever He wants? Friends, God is not trying to mislead us, or trick us. He has told us exactly what we need to know, and since He cannot lie, everything in the Bible, including the miracles, is complete and absolute truth. If not, how and why can we believe anything? Trust in the great creator, the only true God, and not in men who do not believe in Him. The Israelites failed to trust in God in the Old Testament, and we know how that turned out for them. This shouldn't need to be said, but BELIEVE THE TRUTH! listverse.com
There are literally hundreds of websites and Youtube videos that anyone can watch and read with this subject matter, so I could only pick a couple, but feel free to investigate any on your own. The first website I found was Listverse.com. While they are not scientific, they do report on theories drawn from science articles and comments. Right away, we can see a major problem arising. The majority of scientists do not believe in God, so therefore have to come up with a reasonable explanation for miracles. Since we learn everything in school from these "scholars", we immediately tend to believe everything that is spoon fed to us, usually without question.
The first subject that Listverse tackled was the Tower of Babel. They try to explain this away by saying ancient writings were found mentioning King Nebuchadnezzar built a large tower that could be seen from miles away. Here's the problem with this theory: Nebuchadnezzar lived a very long time AFTER the record of the Bible. Coupled with the fact that Babylon during the time of Nebuchadnezzar was united and spoke the same language even after the king's death, how could he be the same person who built the tower? The writings that were found, do not mention how the building fell, or that the population became confounded with different languages. That would be an important piece of information that most likely would not be left out.
The next miracle they want to explain is the parting of the Red Sea. Now I have heard a couple of different theories on this, such as the Sea was emptied by a super low tide and then came back with a massive force. This is similar to what Listverse says. They claim that a hurricane from the Mediterranean caused the sea to empty, allowing the Hebrews to cross on dry land. Of course, it came flooding back at the exact moment the Egyptians tried to cross. The problem? The Bible clearly states that Moses led the Exodus across the Red Sea with a wall of water on each side, which crashed down upon the Egyptians. There was no mention of a storm at all. This does not sound like a super low tide at all, unless of course Moses lied when he wrote this.
What about Sodom and Gomorrah? The explanation for this at first seems plausible. A meteorite crashed down upon the plain and destroyed the cities. Granted, God could have used a meteor to do this, and a meteor could have destroyed the cities if they were close enough, but would that explain Lot's wife turning to a pillar of salt while Lot and his daughters were unharmed? Of course not! Couple that with the fact that no evidence of a meteor has ever been found on the plains, nor any existence of the cities, which is what the Bible said.
Another claim they try to make is about the Plagues of Egypt were caused by...climate change. I have no idea how they even came up with this one, for how does that explain rivers of blood, or complete darkness on everything in the land, except for the Hebrews? That is about as absurd as their explanation of the book of Revelation which was an acid trip. Yet they want us to take them seriously.
Another miracle they try to throw away is the great flood. The claim is the flood was caused by melting glaciers. The problem with this should be obvious. If all the glaciers in the world melted at the same time, scientists say that the oceans would be raised by twenty to thirty feet (NOAA). Not near enough to cover the tallest mountains, not to mention the Bible states that it rained! Also, how would Noah know ahead of time that the glaciers would melt to build the ark?
There are many others as well, such as the burning bush being on top of a volcanic vent. Which wouldn't explain the bush not burning up or God's voice coming from it. Or Jesus actually walked on ice and not water (because there is so much ice found in this region). There are more from this website you can check out and decide for yourself.
A couple of other miracles that men try to explain away is the earthquake and darkness when Christ died. Many try to claim the earthquake is perfectly normal for this region, which it is. However, there was a Greek philosopher who was in Greece at the time, and not a Christian, wrote there was indeed a great earthquake AND the world went dark for three hours. There is also the scientific attempt of explaining creation and the age of the earth. Most of us know this theory from the "scholars" of science, but remember, this is just a theory that even the most famous atheistic scientists say can never be proven. Great minds such as Stephen Hawking, and their champion Charles Darwin both claimed it can never be proven, but just trust us. Would two men who do not believe in God, try to prove God? If not, why would Godly people believe them over God?
In Genesis, the account of the creation is clear in every translation, that the heavens and earth were created in six days. The Hebrew word used here is YOM, which every time it is used in the Old Testament, meant a 24 hour period. The Hebrew language has words for Millennia, Eons, Centuries and Years, but none of these were used here. Why would God use the wrong word? Some try to look to 2 Peter 3:8 as proof that creation was actually done over a long period, but this verse has nothing to do with creation and is taken out of context. Plus why would Jesus, when talking about creation, also said six days? Did He misunderstand the account, even when He was there? Was He trying to mislead us? What is the answer?
Man wants to explain away God's miracles because we can't even come close to understanding the power of God, and so therefore can't grasp the miracles at work. What is troubling, is that many people who believe these falsities, are Christians. Too many want to believe educated men who don't believe in God, instead of believing God and His words. By taking away the miracles of God, we take away the power of God and His glory. As Christians, shouldn't we believe that God has the power to do whatever He wants? Friends, God is not trying to mislead us, or trick us. He has told us exactly what we need to know, and since He cannot lie, everything in the Bible, including the miracles, is complete and absolute truth. If not, how and why can we believe anything? Trust in the great creator, the only true God, and not in men who do not believe in Him. The Israelites failed to trust in God in the Old Testament, and we know how that turned out for them. This shouldn't need to be said, but BELIEVE THE TRUTH! listverse.com
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Johnny and Mrs. Crabtree
Let's try a little something different. Johnny is a bright 8th grader who has his entire future ahead of him. He is an exceptional student, making straight A's and has shown he can handle any assignment or problem given to him, and do so with great success. He is also one of Mrs. Crabtree's favorite students. Mrs. Crabtree teaches history, which Johnny enjoys, but not near as much as Science. Science is what he lives for, everything he wants to be and do with all of his time. History was something that dead people have already done, events that had already occurred, things that were not going to happen again. History was, well, boring. The only thing that made him pay attention in History was his respect for Mrs. Crabtree.
In class, Mrs. Crabtree has a very exciting assignment for her class. That is, at least to her. The project she has chosen for her students is a Civil War model of the battle of Gettysburg. All of the students must build a scaled down model, using plastic toy soldiers, canons, and horses, and then put them in correct order as the battle was fought. They must use cardboard, plastic, and make their own bushes and trees, using simple things such as pipe cleaners and brushes. Johnny rolls his eyes at the simplicity of the project, but like the rest of the class agrees to have it done by the next week.
Johnny goes home and complains to his mother about the stupid project that Mrs. Crabtree wants them to do. His mother just shrugs, not really paying him any mind, and says "Well then, just do what you want to do. You should be teaching that class anyway. You're just as smart as any of them." Johnny thought about that and decided to do just that. Besides, Mrs. Crabtree only told him what she wanted done, she never asked his opinion on what he wanted to do. He was going to create a much more exciting project that would impress all the students, and Mrs. Crabtree as well. So he sets out to do what he always dreamed of doing.
On the due date of the projects, all the students brought their models in. Most were exactly what Mrs. Crabtree expected. Not exactly Picasso, but she could tell they had grasped the information of the battle, and followed her instructions. She was excited to see what Johnny was going to bring, because she just knew he would bring his best. That was why she was so shocked at what she saw. Johnny's project was simply amazing! It was a volcano model, with spouting lava, electronic dinosaurs that moved and roared, and even lights that flashed with the sound of thunder. It was the most amazing volcano project she had ever seen. Which of course why it was so disappointing to her.
"Uhm, Johnny, what is that?"
Johnny, beaming proudly, replied, "Why, it's the best volcano model this school has ever seen. Don't you like it?"
Mrs. Crabtree looked at the model, smiled, then slowly shook her head no. "Johnny, that is a beautiful volcano, but nothing that I asked for. I asked for a model of the Battle of Gettysburg, and gave precise instructions. Why did you do a volcano?"
Johnny shrugged. "Well, I wanted to learn more about volcano's and dinosaurs, since science is my favorite subject. And I wanted to show this to you to prove how much I like science. Besides, you know I know all about the Civil War, so I wanted to impress you with this. You never said I couldn't do it!"
Mrs. Crabtree sat Johnny down, and smiled at him. "Johnny, you are correct that I never said you couldn't do that project, but, by telling you exactly what I wanted, that excludes anything else that you may have wanted. I shouldn't have to tell you everything under the sun that you shouldn't do. Let me ask you something, do you believe that I'm the teacher?"
"Of course."
"And as the student, what is your responsibility?"
Johnny sat and thought for a minute. "Do what you tell me to do?"
"Exactly what I tell you to do. Anything else is, such as doing what you want, is not following directions, it is being disobedient. If you believe that I am the teacher, and the directions I give you are the only way to pass, what should you do?"
"Do everything just as you taught me."
"Exactly."
Isn't it amazing how we all can understand this simple rule when it comes to school, or laws, but yet when it comes to being a Christian, many of us would rather do things our way, or the way someone else has taught us. We often forget that our teacher has already taught us everything we need to know, and He left nothing out. If we do not do everything the teacher tells us, which includes doing nothing when He says nothing, why should He give us a passing grade?
In class, Mrs. Crabtree has a very exciting assignment for her class. That is, at least to her. The project she has chosen for her students is a Civil War model of the battle of Gettysburg. All of the students must build a scaled down model, using plastic toy soldiers, canons, and horses, and then put them in correct order as the battle was fought. They must use cardboard, plastic, and make their own bushes and trees, using simple things such as pipe cleaners and brushes. Johnny rolls his eyes at the simplicity of the project, but like the rest of the class agrees to have it done by the next week.
Johnny goes home and complains to his mother about the stupid project that Mrs. Crabtree wants them to do. His mother just shrugs, not really paying him any mind, and says "Well then, just do what you want to do. You should be teaching that class anyway. You're just as smart as any of them." Johnny thought about that and decided to do just that. Besides, Mrs. Crabtree only told him what she wanted done, she never asked his opinion on what he wanted to do. He was going to create a much more exciting project that would impress all the students, and Mrs. Crabtree as well. So he sets out to do what he always dreamed of doing.
On the due date of the projects, all the students brought their models in. Most were exactly what Mrs. Crabtree expected. Not exactly Picasso, but she could tell they had grasped the information of the battle, and followed her instructions. She was excited to see what Johnny was going to bring, because she just knew he would bring his best. That was why she was so shocked at what she saw. Johnny's project was simply amazing! It was a volcano model, with spouting lava, electronic dinosaurs that moved and roared, and even lights that flashed with the sound of thunder. It was the most amazing volcano project she had ever seen. Which of course why it was so disappointing to her.
"Uhm, Johnny, what is that?"
Johnny, beaming proudly, replied, "Why, it's the best volcano model this school has ever seen. Don't you like it?"
Mrs. Crabtree looked at the model, smiled, then slowly shook her head no. "Johnny, that is a beautiful volcano, but nothing that I asked for. I asked for a model of the Battle of Gettysburg, and gave precise instructions. Why did you do a volcano?"
Johnny shrugged. "Well, I wanted to learn more about volcano's and dinosaurs, since science is my favorite subject. And I wanted to show this to you to prove how much I like science. Besides, you know I know all about the Civil War, so I wanted to impress you with this. You never said I couldn't do it!"
Mrs. Crabtree sat Johnny down, and smiled at him. "Johnny, you are correct that I never said you couldn't do that project, but, by telling you exactly what I wanted, that excludes anything else that you may have wanted. I shouldn't have to tell you everything under the sun that you shouldn't do. Let me ask you something, do you believe that I'm the teacher?"
"Of course."
"And as the student, what is your responsibility?"
Johnny sat and thought for a minute. "Do what you tell me to do?"
"Exactly what I tell you to do. Anything else is, such as doing what you want, is not following directions, it is being disobedient. If you believe that I am the teacher, and the directions I give you are the only way to pass, what should you do?"
"Do everything just as you taught me."
"Exactly."
Isn't it amazing how we all can understand this simple rule when it comes to school, or laws, but yet when it comes to being a Christian, many of us would rather do things our way, or the way someone else has taught us. We often forget that our teacher has already taught us everything we need to know, and He left nothing out. If we do not do everything the teacher tells us, which includes doing nothing when He says nothing, why should He give us a passing grade?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)