My Perspective

The Dawn of a New Blogging Season

2010-08-06T14:57:00.003-05:00

It's been ages... but I think it's time to start posting again. So, what I want to know is, what topics would YOU like to discuss here on My Perspective? I'm up for just about any topics you can think of, so throw me some ideas and we'll get started on a new blogging season!

For His Glory,
Matthew

How'd THAT Happen?!

2009-09-11T09:43:00.007-05:00

I just made a somewhat amusing, and slightly disturbing, discovery: my previous post "A New Church For a New Age" has been featured on the Open Source Theology "Emerging Church/Theology Blog Feed." Open Source Theology is an Emerging Church website which says of itself: "The purpose of this site is to assist the development of an emerging theology for the emerging church," among other things. I'm not angry about being listed under their blog feed, by any means; I'm just surprised by it! I'm almost positive the posting in question wasn't reviewed before being listed, as I'm confident that had it been, it would have been excluded. After all, I'm fairly certain that I'm not the best source of "theology for the emerging church."

Well guys, that's my news for this morning... and who knows? Maybe THIS post will be featured as well!

In Christ,
Matthew

A New Church for a New Age: The Depth and Breadth of the New Age Movement’s Influence on Modern Christianity

2009-09-09T15:02:00.012-05:00

A research paper I wrote a few years ago -- it could have gone on much longer than this, but by the time it reached the point it is at now, it had already exceeded it's maximum length. In other words, there is a lot more I wish I could have included.

During the 1980s terms such as “The New Age Movement” and “Age of Aquarius,” though popular in secular culture, invoked a deep-rooted sense of fear and dread among many Christians, who felt that there was something distinctly evil and mysterious about the increasingly popular movement. Interestingly, however, the same phrases which were once nearly synonymous with standing up in church and announcing that the antichrist had arrived mean absolutely nothing to most twenty-first century Christians. It would appear that the New Age Movement, which seemed to be thriving a mere twenty years ago, has now all but completely disappeared. Interestingly, the opposite is true. One may be surprised by the new way in which New Agers have chosen to infiltrate modern culture more effectively than twenty years ago. Ironically, the Christian church, which once so radically opposed the Movement, is now the device being used by the Movement most enthusiastically.

Before exploring the Movement’s more recent shift into mainstream Christianity, it is important that one fully understands the convictions, doctrines, and motives of the New Age Movement itself, which in fact is not genuinely “new” at all. The New Age Movement is essentially a combination of Theosophy, Panentheism, and Eastern Mysticism. New Agers pick up where Darwin left off, studying the mystical, rather than physical, evolution of mankind (Yungen 21). Theosophy, in particular, has had a large influence on the Movement and the two philosophies, though separate, are most often accepted simultaneously by their followers. The Founder of the Theosophical Society, Madame Blavatsky, taught in The Secret Doctrine that the various races of humanity can all be traced back to Atlantis, that there were seven Atlantean races including the “Aryans,” and that the Aryans were the superior or “Master Race.” The same teaching is prevalent within the New Age Movement. While the Aryans were the most highly evolved of the Atlantean races, it was believed that in the process of advancing physically and mentally, the Aryans lost many of their “mystical” abilities. To counteract this, many mystical practices were put in place to reconnect the Aryans with their “higher selves” (Cumbey 102-103). Alice Bailey, a well known New Age author who wrote The Externalization of the Hierarchy, openly promotes the doctrine of Aryanism in her books (90).

The most common way in which New Agers attempt to connect with their higher selves is through the practice of meditation. Unlike meditating upon thoughts or ideas, New Age meditation is done by emptying the mind in order to open oneself up to certain “mystical faculties.” It is imperative in meditation that one ceases to think, without doing so the higher self can never be attained. However, this state of non-thought, referred to as “the Silence,” is only a means, not an end. The ultimate goal is absolute, genuine interaction with what would seem to be a form of divine presence (Yungen 21-23).

The “New Age” is not in fact the official name of the coming period in mankind’s evolution that is being referred to. The “Age of Aquarius” is the New Age which is being alluded to. What makes the Aquarian Age unique to New Agers? As Ray Yungen puts it, “The Age of Aquarius is when we are all supposed to realize that man is God.” The panentheistic teaching that God “is all and is in all” is a foundational teaching of the New Age Movement (Yungen 20). But one need not worry; we will not be left to discover this incredible truth all on our own. We will have the help of Lord Maitreya, the name given to the coming “Messiah” of the New Age Movement, who will be a “world teacher for all humanity.” Interestingly, the arrival of Maitreya is not believed to be the second coming of Jesus Christ, but rather the “fifth reincarnation of Buddha” (Cumbey 19).

This increasingly popular movement has had plans for many years to expand its circle of influence beyond secular culture. New Age teacher Alice Bailey said in The Externalization of the Hierarchy, published 30 years ago in 1976, “The Christian church in its many branches can serve as a St. John the Baptist, as a voice crying in the wilderness, and as a nucleus through which the world illumination may be accomplished” (510). On an ironic side-note, www.lucistrust.org openly states that the publishing company founded by Alice and Foster Bailey, Lucis Publishing Company, was originally known as the Lucifer Publishing Company before the name was changed in 1925. The reason for the name change is not hard to guess. The site further expounds that Alice and Foster Bailey were both “serious students” of Theosophy and that as such they “sought to elicit a deeper understanding of the sacrifice [of falling from Heaven] made by Lucifer.” The point is further clarified in this revealing statement: “In the theosophical perspective, the descent of [Lucifer] was not a fall into sin or disgrace but rather an act of great sacrifice, as is suggested in the name ‘Lucifer’ which means light-bearer” (Esoteric). It is strange to consider the possibility that a belief system which paints such a blatant reverse image of the Genesis account could ever be embraced by Biblical Christianity.

A new movement has recently surfaced in many Protestant churches, calling itself “The Emerging Church.” This movement places a large emphasis on making the church more “relevant” for the world we live in and tends to abandon the strictly Biblical doctrine of traditional Christianity in favor of finding its own truths through experience-based faith. Surprisingly, to the dismay of a select few watchful Christians, there has been a “growing cooperation of emergent church leaders with New Spirituality/New Age leaders” (Emergent). In fact, emerging leaders for the most part consider traditional, Biblical Christianity to be “outdated, irrelevant, and ineffective” (Oakland 17). Further more, Roger Oakland, founder of “Understand the Times International,” observes a trend particularly contrary to Biblical doctrine, saying “some emerging church leaders have already said the God who judges and requires penal substitution for sin (i.e., the Cross) does not exist.” (19). While many Christians do not agree with Emerging Church values, they often deem the movement rather innocent, as it only intends to make the church more interesting, not to actually change any doctrines of the faith. If this is the case, then it would seem that many emergent leaders were never informed of this. Doug Pagitt, an Emergent leader and pastor of the church “Solomon’s Porch,” says this in regards to the changes he believes need to take place in the traditional church: “Perhaps we as Christians today are not only to consider what it means to be a 21st century church, but also and perhaps more importantly – what it means to have a 21st century faith.” There may be multiple ways to interpret that statement, but Pagitt makes sure that his readers know exactly what he means by it when he goes on to describe his sermons, saying, “At Solomon’s Porch, sermons are not primarily my extracting truth from the Bible to apply to people’s lives. In many ways the sermon is less a lecture or motivational speech than it is an act of poetry – of putting words around people’s experiences to allow them to find deeper connection in their lives… So our sermons are not lessons that precisely define belief so much as stories that welcome our hopes and ideas and participation” (17-19).

Another prominent Emerging Church advocate is author Donald Miller, whose books are so popular among Protestants that they are even quoted from the pulpit in some churches. Miller explains the mood of many emergents toward the traditional church when he says in his best-seller Blue Like Jazz “In the churches I used to go to, I felt like I didn’t fit in. I always felt like the adopted kid… I was accepted but not understood. There was room at the table for me, but I wasn’t in the family… I started asking God to help me find a church where I would fit” (130-133). This emphasis on comfort and “fitting in” is the cornerstone of the Emerging Church movement, a stark contrast considering that the convictions of the Protestant reformation were focused on Biblical truth, not feeling comfortable in a church setting or becoming more “relevant.” Miller makes the focus of his faith clear when he states in his closing comments “Ask [Jesus] to become real to you. Ask Him to forgive you of self-addiction, ask Him to put a song in your heart. I can’t think of anything better that could happen to you than this” (240). Most Christians would consider salvation the most important thing that can happen to a person, so one can’t help but inquire as to why this was not mentioned. The reason salvation is not mentioned is simple: salvation is not an essential doctrine in the Emerging Church. “Repentance and faith” are replaced with “Become a follower of Jesus.” Brian McLaren, founder of “Emergent Village,” states in his book A Generous Orthodoxy “I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts” (260). McLaren also refers to the cross as “false advertising for God” while speaking of the doctrine of Salvation (deemed the “doctrine of hell” in this article) in one interview: “[I]n an ironic way the doctrine of hell basically says no, that’s not really true. At the end God gets His way through coercion and violence and intimidation and uh domination just like every other kingdom does. The Cross isn’t the center then, the Cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God” (Hansen).

Perhaps the strongest tie the Emerging Church has to New Age spirituality, however, is its emphasis on “contemplative prayer.” While contemplative prayer plays a large role in the Emerging Church, its influence reaches far beyond it, influencing even churches which initially rejected Emergent philosophy. In fact, the Contemplative Movement is far older than the Emerging Church, finding its roots in a group known as the “desert fathers,” monks living in isolated communities in the wilderness regions of the Middle East. The desert fathers were also “the ones who first promoted the mantra as a prayer tool” (Yungen 44-45). The mantra is a New Age practice with its roots in both Hinduism and Buddhism.

While the desert fathers may have been the first to promote the use of mantras in prayer, they certainly were not the last. The real “elephant in the room” is pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven Church.” When Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Life went on sale in 2002, copies flew off shelves across the nation as millions of churches participated in his “Forty Days of Purpose.” However, Warren says something very interesting in The Purpose Driven Life: “The Bible tells us to ‘pray all the time.’ How is it possible to do this? One way is to use ‘breath prayers’ throughout the day… You choose a brief sentence or a simple phrase that can be repeated to Jesus in one breath” (89). Remove the word “Jesus” from the equation and one has a near perfect definition of a mantra. While this can easily be dismissed as mere coincidence or simply a poor choice in words, Warren doesn’t stop here. One page 248 of The Purpose Driven Life Warren quotes Aldous Huxley. This is significant when one considers that Huxley is a “former mystic and New Age pioneer” as well as being the single most quoted individual in Marilyn Ferguson’s The Aquarian Conspiracy, a “best-selling New Age book” (Smith 108). Not only does Warren promote a prayer method which is nearly synonymous with a key New Age practice and draw inspiration from New Age leader Aldous Huxley, but incredibly Warren also provides a quote from Theosophist George Bernard Shaw without even so much as an explanation (33).What is the “purpose” of the “Purpose Driven Church,” as Rick Warren calls it? Warren believes that in order to usher in God’s kingdom on earth, an “all inclusive church” must be established. He believes that peace on earth can be achieved by Christians joining hands with Muslims, Catholics, homosexuals, and others (Oakland 145-147).

The notion that it is the job of the church to usher in God’s kingdom is not a Biblical one. The question which logically follows, then, is “what are Warren’s views on the Second Coming of Christ?” With New Age and Theosophical leaders being quoted in his books, it is within reason to look to these groups for answers. Messiah and the Second Coming, by John Davis and Naomi Rice, says of Christ: “Jesus was one soul who reached the state of Christ Consciousness; there have been many others. He symbolized the blueprint we must follow… The way is open to everyone to become a Christ by achieving the Christ Consciousness through walking the same path He walked. He simply and beautifully demonstrated the pattern” (Davis 49). The “Christ Consciousness” is a common New Age teaching. If Rick Warren believes that Christ will not return until mankind has realized certain goals, then is the Christ Rick Warren awaits Jesus, or something else? While the answer to this particular question may never be known for sure, there can be no doubt that Rick Warren has certainly drawn inspiration from New Age and Theosophical leaders.

Another best-selling book that has filled the shelves of many Christian bookstores is the ever popular Chicken Soup for the Soul, written by Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen. Interestingly, these books seem even less likely to belong on the Evangelical reading list.. Jack Canfield was a teacher of the “occultic ‘psychosynthesis’ method developed by a direct disciple of Alice Bailey.” Mark Victor Hansen, on the other hand, wrote the forward to Arielle Ford’s Hot Chocolate for the Mystical Soul, a book which has identical formatting to the “Chicken Soup” books, but “permeates with Eastern and New Age metaphysical content.” All things considered, the book was not originally intended to be a Christian book (Yungen 87).

Perhaps the most surprising revelation, however, comes when one takes a closer look at best-selling Christian author Max Lucado. In Cure for the Common Life Lucado quotes mystic Martin Buber as saying “a divine spark lives in every being and thing” (3, 215). This is a quote from Martin Buber’s The Way of Man. In The Way of Man Buber also states “All men can have access to God, but each man has a different access” and “God does not say: ‘This way leads to me that does not,’ but he says: ‘Whatever you do may be a way to me’” (17). It is strange to consider that such a well-known Christian author would sympathize with these New Age teachings.

The New Age Movement’s influence on modern Christianity reaches even beyond that of the Protestant Church, however. The Movement has managed to have a sizable impact on Roman Catholicism through Contemplative Prayer. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states “Contemplative prayer is hearing the word of God… Contemplative prayer is silence” (Catholic 652). If referring to Contemplative Prayer as “silence” sounds familiar, this is because “silence” is the same term used to describe the goal of transcendental meditation (Yungen 21-23). Considering that Contemplative Prayer was first practiced by Catholic monks, it is not particularly surprising that it has had the incredible impact on the Catholic Church that it has.

It is difficult to grasp how the New Age Movement has been so successful in infiltrating the Christian church when one considers the stark contrast that exists between New Age beliefs and Biblical doctrine. Where the New Age Movement says that all paths lead to God, the Bible says that Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (King James Version, John 14.6). Where the Movement says that the return of the Messiah will bring a time of peace on earth, Jesus says “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10.34). Where the Movement says that there is a certain “Master Race” which is supreme to all others, the Bible says there is no longer any difference between Jews and Gentiles, saying “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith” (Acts 15.9). Where the Movement says that Jesus was not the Christ, but a Christ, the Bible says “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2.22). Where the Movement says that the dead will not be judged for their deeds in life, the Bible says “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9.27). Where the Movement says that Lucifer came to earth from the planet Venus to help mankind in his spiritual evolution, the Bible says “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit” (Isa. 14.12-15). Clearly, the Bible and the teachings of the New Age Movement can never be truly reconciled, one or the other will ultimately be thrown out when the transformation of the Christian church is complete.

Works Cited

Bailey, Alice. The Externalization of the Hierarchy. New York: Lucis Publishing Company, 1976.

Buber, Martin. The Way of Man. New York: Citadel Press/Kensington, 2006.

Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. New Hope, Kentucky: Urbi et Orbi Communications, 1994.

Cumbey, Constance E. Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow: The New Age Movement and Our Coming Age of Barbarism. Shreveport, Louisiana: Huntington House, Inc., 1983.

Davis, John, and Naomi Rice. Messiah and the Second Coming. Wyoming, Michigan: Coptic Press, 1982.

“The Esoteric Meaning of Lucifer.”
http://www.lucistrust.org/en/arcane_school/talks_and_articles/the_esoteric_meaning_of_lucifer.

Hansen, Leif. “Interview With Brian McLaren.” 28 Apr. 2008.
http://www.understandthetimes.org/mclarentrans.shtml.

The Holy Bible, King James Version. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Lucado, Max. Cure for the Common Life. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005.

McLaren, Brian. A Generous Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004.

Miller, Donald. Blue Like Jazz. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2003.

Oakland, Roger. Faith Undone. Silverton, Oregon: Lighthouse Trails Publishing Company, 2007.

Pagitt, Doug. Church Re-imagined. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.

“Emergent Church Leaders' InterSpirituality Talks Raise Flags.” 28 Apr. 2008.http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080417/31980_Emergent_Church_Leaders'_InterSpirituality_Talks_Raise_Flags.htm.

Smith, Warren. Deceived On Purpose: The New Age Implications of the Purpose-Driven Church. Magalia, California: Mountain Stream Press, 2005.

Warren, Rick. The Purpose Driven Life. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2002.

Yungen, Ray. A Time of Departing. Silverton, Oregon: Lighthouse Trails Publishing Company, 2002.

Don't Worry, I'm Not Dead

2009-09-08T11:30:00.004-05:00

I realize I haven't posted in nearly 9 months now (and my posts were growing farther and farther apart all the time before then), but to quell any excited rumors that may be circulating among my most faithful/hateful reader base (just kidding, you guys know who you are), I figured I'd re-launch (if that's a word) this site by first making the point quite clear that I am alive and well (though conspiracy theories may still swirl, particularly since I mysteriously stopped posting two posts after discussing our current president's birth certificate).

So in conclusion, it is in the hopes of relieving some of my readers (and disgusting the rest of them), that I have made this admittedly abbreviated post.

In Christ,
Matthew

The Prophet Daniel Foretells the Crucifixion of Christ 560 Years In Advance

2008-12-19T20:30:00.007-06:00

The Book of Daniel, written approximately 530 B.C. (though some dispute this, a few even claiming it to have been written as late as 165 B.C.), holds many incredible prophecies in its pages. One of the most amazing of all can be found in chapter 9:

Daniel 9:24-27
²⁴Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. ²⁵Know therefore and understand , that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again , and the wall, even in troublous times. ²⁶And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off , but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined . ²⁷And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease , and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate , even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate .

This central prophecy in the Book of Daniel is commonly referred to as The Vision of the 70 Weeks. The prophetic "week" referred to is composed of seven years (i.e. One "day" equals one year, two "days" equals two years, etc.). The "commandment" referred to in verse 25 is decree given by Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem in 445 B.C. (see Nehemiah 2:1-8). The period of seven weeks recorded in verse 25 spans forty-nine years (the period of rebuilding) and brings us to approximately 406 B.C.* This period is followed by a sixty-two week period (434 years) leading up to "Messiah the Prince," who will be "cut off, but not for himself" (verse 26). This refers to the crucifixion of Christ, which took place in approximately 30 A.D.* Finally, the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. is noted in verse 26.

In this incredible prophecy, the Prophet Daniel foretold the crucifixion of Jesus Christ approximately 560 years in advance! This wonderful book records many other amazingly accurate prophecies, and I strongly encourage anyone who doubts the authenticity of God's Word to read this book cover to cover.

For those of you keeping track, these events account for only 69 of the prophetic weeks. The 70^th Week of Daniel is believed by most to refer to the coming seven year Tribulation period foretold in the Book of Revelation.

*Note that the Jewish Calendar was composed of 360 days, thus the math doesn't work out as would initially be expected.

In Christ,
Matthew

A Challenge For Atheists

2008-11-21T21:34:00.005-06:00

Christians are often accused of being close-minded for not conforming to the naturalistic belief system which is so prevalent in the U.S. So for this little experiment, I would like to see if atheists practice the same open-mindedness they preach.

If you are an atheist, what I want to know is: If God did exist, what would it take to convince you? Give me a hypothetical example of evidence that you would not reject.

I'll be pleasantly surprised to receive any response to this query at all.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

P.S. - Mudskipper requested a prize for his latest comments on this post. I guess it's only fair! So, Mudskipper, here it is:

The Obama Birth-Certificate Controversy: An Update

2008-11-13T20:53:00.008-06:00

An excellent article from World Net Daily was passed along to me last night. It is an all-inclusive compilation of the multiple reasons why such skepticism has been incited in regards to the United States' President-Elect Barack Obama. The article can be found here. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80710)

The article, written by Faith2Action President Janet Porter, highlights the 5 major concerns in regards to the eligibility of Barack Obama to be elected President of the United States. Here they are:

Barack's Grandmother Claims he was Born in Kenya

here

He Does Not Appear to Possess a Birth Certificate

(From the article) "Experts have called the Certificate of Live Birth posted online a forgery. Phil Berg reported on my Faith2Action radio program yesterday, 'It's clearly been altered,' which invalidates it, according to the document itself. Berg added that there is no indication even on this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place. And it turns out that Hawaiian law at the time allowed people to register for this non-hospital short form certificate (without a doctor's signature) up to one year from the date of the child's birth."

An Indonesian Citizen?

(From the article) "Only Indonesian citizens could attend Indonesian schools at the time Barack Obama attended school in Indonesia where [he] was registered as Barry Soetoro. His citizenship was listed as Indonesian and his religion as Islam... If he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he would have forfeited any U.S. citizenship he may have had"

A Visit to Pakistan

(From the article) "U.S. citizens were prohibited from traveling to Pakistan in 1981 when Barack Obama made his visit - likely with a passport other than a U.S. passport."

Returning to the States

(From the article) "According to Phillip Berg on my radio program yesterday, if Barack Obama went through immigration as he re-entered the United States, he would have become 'naturalized,' which also would not qualify him to become President. If he did not, said Berg, there is a likelihood that he is now an illegal alien - not even eligible to serve in the U.S. Senate. In fact, Berg suggested there has been no evidence that Barack Obama legally changed his name from Barry Soetoro."

The article also addresses the issue of Barack's mother only being 18 at the time of his birth, which would disqualify him as a "natural-born citizen" (since in order to qualify his mother would have needed to have resided in the U.S. for ten years, five of which being after the age of 18).

In addition to the above, I was surprised earlier when I came across an article on FighttheSmears.com, a site launched by the Obama campaign, featuring a graphic which it labels, "Barack Obama's Official Birth Certificate" which I discovered, to my surprise, was not in fact a birth certificate at all! The title of the document itself reads: "CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH" - hardly the same thing. You can view this article here. (http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate?source=source=sem-pm-fts-bc-search-us)

Draw your own conclusions.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Election '08: 'It Ain't Over 'til it's Over'

2008-11-10T17:04:00.008-06:00

For those of you who thought that one of the most heated elections in the history of the United States had finally come to a close on November 4^th, you may be interested to hear about this startling new development.

I've gone to a good deal of trouble to verify the authenticity of this story (you might be suprised by the amount of trouble I had in attempting to navigate through the U.S. Supreme Court's website), as most bloggers have simply referenced each-other as sources in this matter. Apparently on October 30^th, 2008, Philip J. Berg, lawyer and supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton, filed a Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court requesting the review of a lower court's dismissal of Berg's lawsuit "against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants" (source). Why? Philip Berg, along with others, feels that the state of Barack Obama's natural-born citizenship may be in question (the significance of which being that if Obama is not a natural-born citizen, then he is not eligible to run for president of the United States). The buzz seems to be that he may have been born in Kenya. While many have questioned the authenticity of the entire story, the United States Supreme Court authenticates it here. Here's what the docket says:

No. 08-570
Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.

Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oct 30 2008 - Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)

Oct 31 2008 - Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.

Nov 3 2008 - Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.

Nov 3 2008 - Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.

Note that it states that the response to the Writ of Certiorari is due December 1^st, 2008. This means that President-Elect Barack Obama will need to provide a legitimate birth-certificate to the Court by that date. The docket also states that Berg's request for an injunction to delay the November 4^th elections was denied by Justice Souter. What can we expect in the coming weeks? It's hard to say, but one thing's for sure: the Supreme Court wouldn't take too well to resistance on the part of the President-Elect. If he doesn't produce the certificate by December 1^st, Obama's name may not appear on the ballot on December 13^th (the day the Electoral College votes).

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

My Perspective: Election '08

2008-11-03T16:32:00.004-06:00

This year's election has been one of the most heated America has ever seen, and with the media discussing the election 24/7, election ads running on television and being sent both in the mail and through e-mail, as well as some pastors even being so bold as to proclaim from the pulpit the candidate they support, many Christians are struggling over who they should vote for tomorrow when the polls open. The question being asked across the board seems to be: What is the Christian way to vote? And many authors and televangelists are quick to offer their responses. For this reason, I would like to make just a short note concerning this year's elections and attempt to offer a reality check as to what a Christian's priorities ought to be concerning politics.

The bottom line is, it isn't our job as Christians to change the world through politics. Just look at the government Israel was under in the New Testament - believe it or not, Rome was far worse than anything we're facing today. Yet Jesus still never once told his disciples to overthrow the government and establish a new, more biblical one. That being said, it's still good to do what we can to keep our country from declining morally even more than it already has. But rather than throw my support behind a particular candidate (as I'm not particularly impressed with any of them, Democrat, Republican, or Independent), I'm proposing a different focus. I propose that we as Christians pray not for change in Washington, but for salvation in Washington. Pray that whoever wins the elections on November 4th will come to know Christ, and that He will change him into a man after His own heart - that would be a far better influence than simply voting for whoever you deem to be the "lesser of evils" out of the current pool of candidates.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Pray for Salvation in Washington

Discovering the New Age Movement - Constance Cumbey Tells Her Story

2008-10-05T20:56:00.023-05:00

Constance Cumbey, author of The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, and A Planned Deception, as well as host of the internet radio show My Perspective (Radio Liberty), explains how she first discovered the New Age Movement and its surprising (and overwhelming) influence on modern society and the modern church as well as the Movement's agenda for a 'One World Order.'

I would strongly encourage you to check out her books if you ever get the chance - they're getting harder and harder to find all the time, so I wouldn't get my hopes up for finding them at the local library. If you know me personally, I have them both and should be able to loan them to you for a while - just ask!

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

God is Not a Force of Nature - Why Evolutionists Don't Understand

2008-09-26T15:38:00.005-05:00

Understandably, most atheists tend to take a very scientific approach to every issue they attempt to tackle. Whether it be deciding which medicines will treat a disease best, or which pair of socks will be least likely to get them funny looks in the workplace, atheists will almost always resort to conducting multiple trials and comparing the results, searching for consistency. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this approach and, in fact, it is often-times the best approach in a dilemma. The problem, however, manifests itself most clearly when this same logic is applied to the existence of God in relation to the personal accounts and experiences of theists. You see, while it is perfectly acceptable to test the existence of a natural force, such as gravity, by simply conducting trials and seeing if multiple trials yield consistent results, the same cannot be said for God. Why is this? Allow me to offer you a couple of hypothetical situations and perhaps you'll begin to understand:

Christian: "When I was 12 my grandmother was dying and I prayed to God to heal her, and, even though the doctor had said there was no hope, she was healed that same day. That's how I know God is real and that He hears my prayers."

Atheist: "Plenty of 12-year-old kids have prayed for God to heal their relatives before, and He didn't. Therefore, your 'evidence' isn't really evidence at all."

Christian: "After I became a Christian, God helped me to overcome my drug-addiction. I must have tried hundreds of times before, but I just couldn't do it. Only God could have done something like that."

Atheist: "Plenty of non-Christians have overcome drug-addictions, any psychiatrist can do what you claim your God did. Not to mention all the Christians who struggle with drug-addictions that they could never overcome - no matter how many times they prayed."

Notice how atheists often-times find themselves incapable of accepting a Christian's personal experiences as genuine simply because they can't reproduce the results multiple times. Now, I need to make a distinction, if God were simply a force of nature then such refutations would be quite impressive. However, if we apply the same arguments to the existence of an intelligent being, we realize that they are, of course, absurd. If someone were to say: "I know Matthew exists, because I ran into him at the mall once, and he bought me a milk-shake," would an acceptable refutation be: "That doesn't mean anything, you silly, irrational fool. If that were really true, then Matthew would buy everyone he ran into at the mall a milk-shake. Because, as you freely admit, he probably doesn't, I can only assume that your entire story is meaningless and you have no good reason to believe Matthew exists." Of course not, that would be ridiculous. While this logic applies well to the predictable forces of nature, which are assumed to respond in exactly the same way when introduced to the exact same circumstances multiple times, the same cannot be said for intelligent, decision-making entities.

So why does this issue come up so frequently? Ironically, it's our own fault. We as Christians will often try so hard to present an appealing argument for God's existence that we will subconsciously begin to treat Him more as a concept, idea, or natural force, than as the Omnipotent God of the universe who possesses both the ability and the right to make His own decisions based upon information which may, or may not, be available even to us. We paint an inaccurate picture, then complain of the unfortunate results.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Empirical Proof That God Rules and I'm an Idiot...

2008-09-18T23:22:00.003-05:00

Hey guys, I don't usually write about personal stuff, so I'll make this short and sweet. God has once again shown how incredible He is, how stupid I am, and how infinite His grace truly is by picking me up, dusting me off, and putting me back on the right path again. And what instrument did He use to do it? Simple. He used the notes from the sermon that I gave two months ago. This just proves, once again, that Jesus rules... and I'm an idiot.

For those of you who already suspected that I was an idiotic fool only pretending to have all the answers, you've proven far wiser than I, and while I still may not agree with you on every topic, I have finally come around to your end of the table on this one.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Is Evolution Unfalsifiable?

2008-09-10T21:36:00.006-05:00

While I'm contemplating my next full-length post (and please don't point out how long it's been, I'm quite aware of the recent lull), I thought I'd just throw my latest gripe out there for you guys to look over...

After giving the issue much thought, I've concluded that the theory of evolution must be one of two things:

1. Entirely unfalsifiable

2. Very close to being entirely unfalsifiable

So, since I'm sure you're wondering, here's the question that sparked this train of thought (this is a question for evolutionists, obviously):

"If, hypothetically, evolution were false, what evidence would you need to see in order to convince you of it?"

Or perhaps more specifically:

"What hypothetical evidence in opposition to evolution could exist that the theory would not be able to offer an explanation for?"

Try looking at it this way:

1. Take a piece of "evidence" in favor of evolution.

2. Reverse it (i.e. suppose the exact opposite had been discovered instead).

3. Ask yourself if, coming at it from a new angle, this new piece of evidence would have any negative impact on the theory whatsoever.

Let's take a look at this formula in action:

1. The fossil record is considered evidence for evolution, because creatures appear in the fossil record in the same order in which they are believed to have evolved.

2. Suppose the fossil record was jumbled (not in the correct order)

3. While it would no longer technically be 'evidence,' evolutionists would remain unphased (ironically, the fossil record is jumbled, by the way, that's how I know they would remain unphased).

So, if any evolutionists out there are up to a challenge, I challenge you to give a specific (hypothetical, of course) example of how evolution could potentially be falsified.

In Christ's Love,

Matthew

Your Thoughts?

2008-09-04T18:13:00.005-05:00

Hey guys, sorry for the stunning lack of activity lately... I've been running low on material and inspiration. So... I figured I'd ask YOU what you want to talk about! You can submit your topics in the 'comments' section of this post, or in the 'Your Thoughts' form in the right column.

In Christ's Love,

Matthew

A Simple Faith Test

2008-07-23T20:30:00.004-05:00

Do you have enough faith to be an atheist? Take this simple quiz and add up your score to find out:

1. (T/F) Matter can sponaneously arise from non-matter.

True: +1
False: +0

2. (T/F) Living matter can arise from non-living matter.

True: +1
False: +0

3. (T/F) Order can spontaneously (i.e. without assistance) arise from non-order.

True: +1
False: +0

4. (T/F) If the letters from the word "artichoke" are jumbled up every 30 seconds (forming gibberish such as cartohike, etc.), then, given enough time, the words "zebra," "apricot," and "fountain" will inevitably be formed eventually.

True: +1
False: +0

5. (T/F) It is possible to reach the end of an infinity.

True: +1
False: +0

Scoring:

5 = Hardened Atheistic Evolutionist
4 = Common Atheistic Evolutionist
3 = Agnostic
2 = Theistic Evolutionist
1 = (Unsure) Creationist
0 = (Confident) Creationist

Why Do We Pray?

2008-07-04T11:52:00.001-05:00

MudSkipper asked:

"Why do Christians pray? I mean, God is omniscient, and pretty much knows what you are thinking before you even think of it. Every time I go over to a Christian person's house for dinner, which is fairly often, I often ask myself that question when we pause to pray. "We" being the 3rd person way of being polite, since it is really "They" who pause ( With a curious look on my face as I look at the somber lot talking to someone who isn't there). What could you possibly say, or ask for, that God in his omniscience, doesn't already know? What do they hope to accomplish? Do they want to change God's mind? . . . . He even knows that you would ask him, and has already issued a response before you even asked!"

? ? ? ? ?

Why do we pray if God already knows what we are going to say? Steve (MudSkipper) has deemed this a "Silly Question" on his blog, but I think it's a rather good one. I'm going to open this one up to reader-response.

Comment Away!

In Christ's Love,

Matthew

Why Did God Send Bears to Maul Innocent Children?

2008-07-03T15:28:00.001-05:00

MudSkipper said:

OK, so here's my hardest question:

Why does God maul children with bears?
For example, why did God kill 42 children for saying to Elisha to "Go on up baldhead"?

He could have just spanked them, but mauling them with bears was somehow necessary.

So tell me, why does God kill children like that?

If you can somehow convince me that mauling children with bears is justified, then I will become a Christian, I give you my word.

Read the story here:

2 Kings 2:23-25 (KJV)

23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

25 And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.

First off, a few things to consider about this verse:

1. The word translated “children” (‏נַעַר‎) would more accurately be deemed “young men.”

2. The fact that an incredible 42 were killed suggests that this was more than simply a small group of individuals making fun of a man’s baldness. This was organized and possibly premeditated.

3. The term “bald head” (‏קֵרֵחַ‎) was most likely a reference to leprosy (Leviticus 13:40-44), not merely a comment on physical appearance.

4. The phrase “go up” (‏עָלָה‎) is likely a reference to Elijah having been caught up to Heaven (2 Kings 2:11-12), thus we see here that this was specifically a case of religious persecution, not simple ridicule.

In conclusion, they were most likely not “children” in the sense your question suggests, they were not simply mocking Elisha’s physical appearance, and it was organized religious persecution, not coincidental ridicule. Furthermore…

You specifically challenged to me prove that this action was “justified.” Justifying it is in fact the simplest part of your inquiry. You see, the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). It is not that the children were very unfortunate, but rather that we are extremely fortunate that we haven’t been mauled by bears ourselves. We should praise God for having the mercy to withhold His wrath from us for a season, and, for those who embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for eternity.

I’m sure you’ll find several things to disagree with here, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that your key complaint will be that you don’t agree with God’s standards. That, of course, is your opinion and you are free to feel that way, but surely you know that if there is a God then He has every right to be the one who sets the standards.

In Christ’s Love,
Matthew

P.S. - For the rest of my readers, Steve didn't post this part on my blog but he put it on his. You might find it interesting: I'm going to do like Jesus said, sell all my possessions and follow Him if mauling children is justified. I'm waiting, with anticipation of the answer to this question...

All the more reason why I'm sure this answer won't be good enough for him... he's staked too much on this issue.

By the way, I promised Steve a prize if I ever created a post based off one of his questions, so... here it is!

Our Most Important Duty

2008-06-07T15:12:00.001-05:00

John 1:43-46

"The day following Jesus went forth into Galilee, and found Philip, and said to him, Follow me. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said to him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip said to him, Come and see."

Notice the very first thing Philip did after being called by Jesus. Did he say, "Wait, Lord, this sounds like a lot of work, let me get back to you when I'm about to die," or immediately rush off to write a soul-stirring song our heart-warming, best-selling book about the experience? No, of course not, because Philip understood what it really meant to follow Christ and that there were more important things at stake. So what did he do? He immediately went off to tell others about the Saviour - a radical idea in today's church. Throughout the New Testament we see the same attitude exhibited over and over again by those who come to Christ, they immediately feel the need to tell everyone they can. Take the woman at the well in John 4:7-30, verses 28 and 29 say, "The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and said to the men, Come, see a man, which told me all the things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?" Then there's the man at the pool of Bethesda in John 5:5-15, verse 15 states, "The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole."

It is our duty as Christians to seek and save the lost, it is non-negotiable. The Great Commission applies to all of us, not just the "evangelists." Yet what do we see today? According to The Barna Group, only 54% of Christians feel the need to share their faith, and worse still, only 36% of protestants actually do share their faith (and only 10% of Catholics). How can we claim to know Christ if we do not wish to see others brought to Christ? It is the most important duty of the Christian to share his faith with as many as he can, and notice Philip didn't wait until he had been discipled for 12 months, been baptized, joined a church, studied apologetics, and taken an evangelism course before he started sharing his faith. One of the most common excuses for not sharing our faith is "What if I'm asked a question I can't answer?" But this didn't seem to bother Philip. When a skeptical Nathanael said, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip replied with just what Jesus had told him: "Come and see."

"Oh, my friends, we are loaded down with countless church activities, while the real work of the Church, that of evangelizing and winning the lost, is almost entirely neglected." - Oswald J. Smith

In Christ's Love,

Matthew

Miraculous Healings? Todd Bentley's 'Lakeland Revival'

2008-06-05T15:07:00.001-05:00

The 'Lakeland Revival' in Lakeland, Florida is an ongoing revival hosted by minister Todd Bentley, and began on April 3, 2008 (yes, as of today it is still in progress). Bentley claims multitudes of 'miraculous healings' have taken place at this revival, including individuals being healed of terminal diseases as well as a claim of at least 18 people (the number keeps changing, so this may not be current) being raised from the dead. Bentley claims these 'great signs and wonders' are evidence of his authenticity.

Unfortunately for Mr. Bentley, if these healings are any reflections on his authenticity, then he is about as authentic as the 'leather' jackets at Wal-Mart. Pastor Larry Reed, Washington State, had terminal bone cancer and attended the Lakeland Revival last week. Mr. Bentley 'healed' him and he stood from his wheel-chair in triumph as the crowd cheered. Tragically, Reed died last Tuesday.

Watch this video and take a closer look at Todd Bentley's testimony.

You decide.

In Christ's Love,

Matthew

The Age Old Question...

2008-05-28T22:36:00.001-05:00

Can God create a rock so heavy He can't lift it? This and other paradoxical (and somewhat ridiculous) questions are repeated so many times they are quickly passed off as simply unanswerable just to make the matter easier to deal with. Which is sad, considering how easy the answer is to come by: Yes, if He imposes limitations upon Himself to do it. Not only is this answer simple, but, surprisingly, it is Biblical. Just as God created a cross so burdensome He needed help to carry it (Matthew 27:32), God can impose limitations upon Himself.

A few other silly questions atheists throw our way:

1. Can God create a spherical triangle?

2. Could God think of a time when He was not omnipotent? If He can't think of it, He isn't omnipotent, but if He does think of it then there was a time when He wasn't omnipotent?

3. If God can do anything, does that mean He can fail?

By asking these self-cancelling questions, atheists hope to "prove" God doesn't exist simply because they were able to hopelessly confuse a Christian. In the future, don't fall for it. If the atheist has any common sense He knows none of these questions can resolve the question of whether or not God exists.

In Christ's Love,

Matthew

Useless Limbs?

2008-05-27T10:15:00.001-05:00

A recent article from Live Science provides a list of the top ten "useless limbs," two of which caught my eye. The article includes the human tail-bone among its other "useless limbs," which, contrary to popular belief, does indeed have a function. There are nine muscles attached to the tail-bone in humans which are extremely important for certain activities, including: sitting, certain bowel movements, labor movements, and supporting certain internal organs. Why are these functions so often ignored? Because the "useless" tail-bone in humans is often used as evidence to support the theory of Darwinian evolution.

Another "useless" organ mentioned in the Live Science article is the pelvis and "thigh bones" found in whales, another alleged evidence for evolution. I won't delve too deep into the details here, but I did find this one rather amusing as the pelvis and "thigh bones" (trust me, that's not what they are) are vital to the structure of the whale and if they were to be removed, the whales would be incapable of reproduction.

A couple other "useless" organs cited by evolutionists as evidence:

Human Tonsils: The tonsils are important both to antibody production and cell mediated immunity, as well as being an important lymphoid organ in the upper respiratory tract.

Human Appendix: The appendix filters and removes bacteria and protects the intestines from infection. The appendix also produces antibodies.

This information is not difficult to come by, it would seem that evolutionists would rather continue to cite false evidence than admit they may have been wrong.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Vatican Celebrates Charles Darwin

2008-05-26T22:39:00.001-05:00

The Vatican is planning a conference in 2009 to honor the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species. Cardinal Paul Poupard, former president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, says Darwinian evolution and the book of Genesis are "perfectly compatible" so long as one reads the Bible correctly, also stating, "The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," and that the true meaning of the Genesis account was in fact quite simply that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator."

Are the Bible and Darwinian evolution compatible? Let's examine the facts...

1. According to the Bible, man brought death into the world through his sin. According to evolution, death brought man into the world through natural selection.

2. According to the Bible, the oceans were created before the dry land. According to evolution, the dry land came first, then the oceans.

3. According to the Bible, light was created before the sun. According to evolution, the sun came first, then the light.

4. According to the Bible, plants were created before the sun. According to evolution, the sun came first, then the plants.

5. According to the Bible, birds were created before reptiles. According to evolution, reptiles came before birds.

Does that sound compatible to you? Somewhere along the line, some brilliant genius came up with the idea of "Theistic Evolution," easily one of the most absurd theories ever introduced. In an attempt to please everyone by saying that God created the universe over billions of years through evolution and the Big Bang, ultimately no one is pleased as it leaves evolutionists having to believe in God and Christians completely throwing out the Genesis account of creation.

Let me leave you with one last chilling thought: The Bible says man was created in God's image. If you say man evolved from apes and that he was created in God's image, then what are you saying about God? This is a dangerous theory to try and reconcile your faith with...

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Answering 8 Silly Questions Skeptics Ask...

2008-05-26T18:59:00.002-05:00

Here are eight of the many strange and less than well-thought-out questions/objections you are probably tired of hearing while sharing your faith:

Q. "If there is a God who loves us, then why is there suffering in the world?"

A. Where does suffering come from? Suffering is caused by sin. If your home is broken into and your belongings are missing, that's suffering. Who caused it? A fellow human being who broke God's moral law, so your suffering was caused by man, not God. God gives us all a choice, the God you are proposing would force us all to adhere to His standards... that isn't very loving, is it?
Q. "Don't all paths lead to the same place?"

A. Most paths lead to the same place, so you're almost right. Truth is not relative, we don't get to decide what the truth is. If you step off the edge of a cliff and proclaim, "I don't believe in gravity," you will still suffer the consequences of breaking the law of gravity, regardless of whether you believe in it or not. Likewise, when you choose to violate God's moral law, you run the risk of suffering the consequences of breaking that law, regardless of whether you believe in it or not.

Q. "Why should I go to church when those people are nothing but hypocrites?"

A. True Christians don't claim to be perfect (which would violate 1 John 1:8), only forgiven.

Q. "Isn't the Bible full of contradictions?"

A. See Contradictions In the Bible?

Q. "If I'm a good person, God wouldn't send me to Hell, would He?"

A. If you were a good person, then you might be on to something. But the Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

Q. "Can't I just worry about all this religious stuff in the next life?"

A. Trust me, you will be worrying about it in "the next life," but by then it will be too late to do anything about it. "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).

Q. "If I became a Christian, wouldn't I have to give up all the things I like to do?"

A. Why would you have to give them up? If you think that coming to God would mean giving up the things you enjoy, then doesn't that mean that you know those things are wrong? The choice is yours: Risk misery now, or guarantee misery for eternity.

Q. "I want to remain open-minded, so why would I want to become a Christian?"

A. If you know you will never become a Christian because you are too open-minded, then in reality you are being very close-minded.

More often than not, the sort of person who will ask any of these questions will probably ask them all (and in rapid succession). When this happens, you need not worry: you probably aren't going to get anywhere with this person no matter what you say, at least not in an intellectual argument. Try and direct the discussion toward one's personal sin and need of forgiveness, the true problem at the heart of the issue.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

In the Beginning...

2008-05-24T20:36:00.001-05:00

Where did the universe come from? From a strictly analytical perspective, it would seem that there are only three options:

1. The universe found its beginning within itself (natural processes - i.e. created itself)

2. The universe found its beginning without itself (God - or other super-natural phenomenon [to be debated in a religious setting] taking place outside the universe)

3. The universe found its beginning neither within nor without itself (no beginning at all - i.e. always existed)

Now, let's examine these three possibilities in light of what we know from science:

1. The universe found its beginning within itself

This one, to the surprise of some, is actually rather ridiculous in light of our current scientific knowledge. (Note: Do NOT misinterpret this as a critique of the "Big Bang Theory," which never claims to explain the origin of the universe, only how the universe came upon its current arrangement.) One of the most basic laws of science is the Conservation of Matter, which tells us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Since the laws of the universe make such a creative act impossible, no process within the universe could bring the universe into existence as in so doing the universe would violate its very own laws.

Conclusion: Self-Contradictory (The "natural processes" required are unnatural and impossible)

2. The universe found its beginning without itself

It is impossible to measure the feasibility of this option with science, as the natural/scientific laws of the universe would not (obviously) apply to super-natural events originating outside of the universe.

Conclusion: Plausible, but unprovable (not within the jurisdiction of science)

3. The universe found its beginning neither within nor without itself (no beginning)

This one gets a little tricky, not because the answer is unclear, but rather because the answer is rather difficult to explain. In essence, the answer is as follows: It is impossible to traverse an infinite period of time. You see, if the universe has no beginning, then we would never traverse a large enough space of time to reach the moment we are at now. While an infinity forward is plausible, to suggest the same in the opposite direction is simply impossible. In other words, time itself must have a beginning. You can't have matter before time, it is simply impossible.

Conclusion: Impossible

So here are the scores:

Option #1 - Self-Contradictory
Option #2 - Plausible
Option #3 - Impossible

Inside, outside, or neither? Those are the only options, there can be no middle-ground. While none of these options can be proven true by themselves, process of elimination provides us with only one possibility: Special Creation.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Transitional Species Found?

2008-05-23T09:59:00.001-05:00

Has one of the many long sought-after "transitional species" finally been found? According to this article from Live Science, a transitional species between the salamander and the frog was discovered in Baylor County, Texas a few years ago, though it was only recently looked over by paleontologists. According to the article:

Called Gerobatrachus hottoni after its discoverer Nicholas Hotton, a
paleontologist at the Smithsonian Institution, the creature represents a transitional amphibian, sporting features of both frogs and salamanders.

So is this indeed evidence of macro-evolution? Some evolutionists certainly think so. One in particular stated that the next Christian who claimed there was no evidence for macro-evolution would now officially be a "liar for Christ." It is at this point that I feel the need to stress a very important (and not too difficult to figure out) point: If you dig up a bone in the dirt which looks similar to that of both frogs and salamanders, this does not prove that humans evolved from apes! In fact, it doesn't even support "the idea that frogs and salamanders evolved from one ancient amphibian group called temnospondyls" as the article claims. While the find is compatible with the theory, it isn't evidence because we still have not been provided with any reason to believe that any creature was ever capable of doing something that the creatures of today are incapable of: to reproduce something other than it's own kind. The only "evidence" for this that the evolutionists continually proclaim from the mountain-tops is genetic mutation, and there has never in known history been even one documented "beneficial mutation."

Take, for instance, the "four winged fly" once featured in many text-books as a "beneficial mutation." What they often-times will not tell you is that the mutation was caused by human interference in the development of the fly (i.e. this was not a naturally occurring mutation). And more importantly, the mutation wasn't beneficial because the "fly" was incapable of flying.

It would seem to me that all which has been discovered is a new species of amphibian, and that to insinuate it is anything other than what it is would be folly.

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." - Sir Arthur Keith.

In Christ’s Love,
Matthew

Adam Walked With God?

2008-05-21T22:41:00.001-05:00

I would have began this post with a scripture citation, but there don't seem to be any! This would seem to be yet another case of needing to discern the difference between what we think we know, and what we really know. It occurred to me recently that we always use the example "Adam walked and talked with God in the Garden every day before the Fall," as an example of the relationship God wants to have with us, but I didn't know where the verse was that said it. So I decided it would be better to find out than to have someone question me on it later and leave me with no explanation. So I looked... and looked... and looked... and this looking went on for quite some time before in my frustration I exclaimed "IT'S JUST NOT HERE!!!" If you know where the Bible says this, then by all means correct my understanding, but I have yet to find anywhere where the Bible actually says that Adam walked and talked with God in the Garden on a daily basis (or at all, unfortunately). Please understand that I'm not saying that this wasn't the case, merely that the Bible doesn't actually say that it happened.

I know it's not much, but this is basically what I've been studying for the past couple days and sadly this is all I came up with... i.e. nothing.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Matthew 22:1-14

2008-05-06T21:51:00.001-05:00

Matthew Chapter 22
1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, 2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, 3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. 4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. 5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: 6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. 7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. 9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. 10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. 11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: 12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

When I first read this parable, I was troubled deeply by it. I had no problem understanding verses 1-9, as they seemed to clearly refer to the nation of Israel's rejection of Jesus as their Messiah. It was the state of the man in verse 11 that concerned me. After considering this passage more closely, I found myself asking a question I had not previously thought necessary: Who is at fault here? Let's consider a few things...

1. The servants were told to go out into the streets and invite to the wedding "as many as ye shall find" (verse 9).

2. The servants gathered as many as they found in the streets, "both bad and good" (verse 10).

3. At least one of these individuals came lacking the proper attire for a wedding (verse 11).

4. When questioned as to why he had come unprepared, the man was "speechless" (verse 12).

If this parable is meant to draw a parallel with the church, then surely we want to avoid situations such as the one described in verse 11, correct? Surprisingly, after reading this passage a few times through, I have drawn the conclusion that the servants must share the blame for this man's lack of preparation. While they had done exactly what they had been bidden to do (to bring as many to the wedding as they could), they do not seem to have done so in the proper manner. In their zeal to bring as many to the wedding as possible, some of the servants may have failed to inform those they were speaking with as to what exactly they were being invited to. When confronted by the king as to the state of his apparel, the man has no pre-conceived reply or excuse, but rather is "speechless" (verse 12), the mark of a man confused (I know this as I was "speechless" the first time I read this parable). This man apparently either 1.) was not aware that the event he had been invited to was the wedding of the king's son, or 2.) had not been informed as to the attire required for the occasion. In either case, the man's unpreparedness is as much the fault of the servant who invited him as it is his own.

What does this mean for us? It is our job as the "servants" to inform potential converts of what they are getting into (i.e. "count the cost" - Luke 14:28). Rather than simply trying to "get them in the door," we must be certaint that sinners see their guilt and their need for God's grace, and that it is only by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ that we are brought to a point of reconciliation with God and are saved from eternal damnation in hell. This parable may also suggest that if we fail in this task, we will personally witness the results of our failure. Verse 13 says that the servants were told to bind the man hand and foot and cast him into outer darkness. God holds us personally accountable if we give false testimony concerning the gift of God grace. Read this chilling e-mail from one pastor (read it in context here):

Dear Brother Ray,
I have been a pastor for 25 years. I always thought I was doing a reasonably good job. Kind of like the folks that tell you they consider themselves "good people." I had tried to preach, what I thought, was the whole counsel of God. I prayed, over the years, with many people to accept Jesus and make Him Lord of their lives.
My wife Judy and I moved to Ruidoso, New Mexico about six years ago to plant a church. Shortly after arriving I was convicted that something was horribly wrong with my ministry. I read the scriptures and prayed earnestly that God would show me what was wrong. The feeling continued to grow and I became depressed and moody. I asked Judy to pray for me and explained my problem. I didn't know if this was the Holy Spirit convicting or Satan attacking. She prayed that God would reveal the cause of my depression and make Himself clear as He revealed any problem with my ministry for Him.
That night I had the most terrifying, realistic, blood chilling nightmare any man has ever had. I am a Vietnam veteran and I know a little about nightmares. Nothing in my experience has ever come close, nor do I ever want it to, to the horror of that night!
I dreamed that it was judgment day and I was standing right next to the throne of God. I noticed that to my left and my right were pastors as far as I could see. I thought this was odd that the Lord would reserve this front row space for pastors only.
I looked out across a space of only a few yards and there were millions, maybe billions, of people, yet I could see each one of their eyes staring at me. As I studied this group I noticed that I knew many of them from times at the altar or ones who had sat under my teaching. I was pleased to see that they had made it to heaven, but confused because they didn't look happy. They looked very angry and hateful.
Then I heard the voice of the Lord say, "Away, I never knew you." I was suddenly frightened that what I was seeing was those who "thought" that they were saved. Then I saw all of them pointing a finger at each of us pastors and together, in one voice that shook my soul, "WE SAT IN YOUR CHURCH AND THOUGHT WE WERE SAVED. WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL US WE WERE LOST?"
Tears were pouring down my face and the faces of all of those pastors. I watched as one by one those people were cast into hell. One and then another, and another, and another......., until they were all gone. I died inside as each one screamed in agony and gnashed their teeth, cursing us as they went into the lake of fire.
Then I was looking into the face of Jesus and He said to me, "Is this the part where I'm supposed to say, ' Well done my good and faithful servant?" I woke up with a scream and my heart pounding and I was begging Jesus to forgive me.
I died a million deaths that night. Since that night I have done two things on a daily bases. I do everything I can to preach the law before grace in the hope that conviction of sin will bring a sinner to true salvation. The other thing that I do is pray for every person I have ever preached to asking God to repair any damage I have done. I also never believe anyone when they tell me they are saved. It is my duty to challenge them and search out the solidness of their salvation.

We can't afford to lie to the lost just to get them in the door, in the end we aren't doing them any favors. They will still be "bound hand and foot" and cast into outer darkness, where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth." We all must seriously consider our motives in evangelism if we are preaching anything short of the whole, untainted truth of God's justice, man's sinfulness, the reality of Hell, and the need of repentance and faith, without which there can be no salvation.

In Christ’s Love,
Matthew

Something's Not Right Here...

2008-05-04T17:52:00.001-05:00

Something's been bothering me for quite a while now... Why are so many "Christian" authors quoting Theosophists and New Agers in their books as though they're reputable sources? Don't know who I'm referring to? Allow me to explain...

In Cure for the Common Life Max Lucado quotes mystic Martin Buber as saying “a divine spark lives in every being and thing” (pgs. 3, 215). This is a quote from Buber’s The Way of Man. In The Way of Man Buber also states “All men can have access to God, but each man has a different access” and “God does not say: ‘This way leads to me that does not,’ but he says: ‘Whatever you do may be a way to me’” (pg. 17). It is strange to consider that such a well-known Christian author would sympathize with these New Age teachings.

Another best-selling book that has filled the shelves of many Christian bookstores is the ever popular Chicken Soup for the Soul written by Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen. Disturbingly, I later discovered that Jack Canfield is a 'psychosynthesis' teacher and Mark Victor Hansen wrote the forward to Arielle Ford’s Hot Chocolate for the Mystical Soul, a book filled with New Age and Eastern principles (coincidentally, Hot Chocolate for the Mystical Soul is also written in an identical format to Chicken Soup for the Soul, interpret that however you choose).

On page 248 of The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren quotes New Ager and mystic Aldous Huxley, the single most quoted individual in Marilyn Ferguson's The Aquarian Conspiracy. Also, on page 33 of the The Purpose Driven Life, Warren provides a quote from Theosophist George Bernard Shaw with no explanation whatsoever.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." - 2nd Timothy 4:3-4

What's wrong with this picture? If you can't see, then I can't help you. Christian authors shouldn't need to draw inspiration from New Age, mystical, occultic, and Theosophical leaders. Whether or not this is any indication as to the authors' true attitudes toward spirituality is yet to be seen, but these and several others are certainly some to watch...

Authors to keep an eye on:

Erwin McManus
Brian McLaren
Max Lucado
Rick Warren
Jack Canfield & Mark Victor Hansen
Donald Miller
Neale Donald Walsch

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

John 5:1-9

2008-04-01T16:58:00.001-05:00

1 After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in
the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt,
withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled
the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was
made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight
years.
6 When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that
case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?
7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is
troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down
before me.
8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked:
and on the same day was the sabbath.

Notice that this is a man who needs to be (physically) healed, not unlike we needed (spiritual) healing before we came to Christ. And he knew the way to be healed (by being the first to step in the water of the pool after it was 'troubled'), but, ironically, he was so thoroughly sick that he couldn't do what was required of him to be healed. This is a perfect parallel to those who are without Christ. They need salvation from their sins, but the way to earn salvation is through righteousness, the irony being that they (like we once were) are so thoroughly sinful that it is literally impossible for them to do what is required of them to be healed.

Jesus asks the man if he wants to be healed. Notice the man's response, I think it's extremely important. Rather than saying "no", and having Jesus leave him, or saying "yes", and asking Jesus to help him down into the water the next time there is an opportunity for healing, the man's response reveals his total and complete resignation to the fact that he will never be able to accomplish what is required for him to be healed. I believe that this is exactly the response Jesus was looking for and that it was for this reason that He chose to speak to this particular man out of the "great multitude" who were present. You see, it is impossible for us to be healed by Christ until we recognize that we can't do it on our own.

Question: Did Jesus heal the man by helping him down into the pool when the waters were troubled? No. He didn't need to, He had the authority to do it on His own. The pool represents man's ability to heal himself, and for this reason Jesus chose to speak with a man who had no hope of ever reaching it (just like us, we can never attain righteous on our own). And He didn't help the man down into the water because Jesus didn't come to help us to heal ourselves, He came to do the healing for us. Salvation is not by works, nor is it by Christ's grace assisting us in our works (if it was, then Jesus would have helped the man down into the water), but by the grace of God alone. He came to offer us a new way to be healed, outside of our own righteousness. There's so much more that can be found in this passage, but I don't wanna do it all for you! Then there wouldn't be any reason for you to read it yourself...

In Christ's Love,
Matt

Contradictions In the Bible?

2008-02-23T10:59:00.001-06:00

A Response to A List of Biblical Contradictions [1]

God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

This is only a contradiction to one who considers "good" to be synonymous with "friendly" or "nice", which it is not. We cannot afford to assume that a "good" God would never do such a thing. Would a "good" judge let criminals run free and escape punishment? A "good" God executes justice when it is necessary.

War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Well, it would probably help to check the context before you tack something up as a "contradiction"... Notice the present tense "is" in Exodus 15:3, this was a description of how the Lord saved the Israelites from the Egyptians by bringing the pharaoh's army to its demise. God has many attributes, after all He's God... don't try to limit Him to just one. If someone said you were a loving man, and then someone else said that they saw you attack a man to protect your wife from him, I could take those comments about your character out of context and say that the two contradicted each other because a "loving" man would never attack someone. Also, peace is brought about by war. It has always been this way. Name one time in all of human history where peace came about without war coming first.

Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Heli was the father of Mary. He was only the father of Joseph by marriage. The entire passage is describing the genealogy of Mary, not Joseph.

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Hmm... again, let's try reading in context before labeling something a "contradiction". Mark 16:9-10 (only 9 verses after having said that all three went to the tomb) tells us that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first and that it was she who went and told the disciples. Notice none of the above verses claim that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, they simply don't all make mention of the other two women. As Mary was the one who told the disciples of the event, it makes perfect sense for a writer to say that it was Mary who went and neglect to mention the others, particularly Salome, considering that she is a very minor character in the gospels and we know practically nothing about her anyway. This is the only place in the Bible I know of where Salome is mentioned at all.

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

First, I'll state the obvious in pointing out that John 10:30 does not say that Jesus is equal to the Father, it says that they are one. There's a difference. Jesus is God wrapped in a cloak of flesh. He willingly restrained much of His power during His earthly ministry (for instance, He could have easily come down off of the cross had He chosen to, but He didn't). The Father did not restrain Himself. The two are one and the same, but Jesus was also fully human, the Father was not. Jesus gave up the glory of heaven for a short time, the Father did not.

Which first--beasts or man?
GEN 1:25 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.
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.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
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.

Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 do not contradict each other. If you actually read the book of Genesis, it is clear that Genesis chapter 1 is describing the events of the creation and Genesis chapter 2 is not. Chapter 2 is describing only the events which occurred in the Garden of Eden, which was created later. There was no reason for God to need to place the creatures in the Garden of Eden in the same order that He created them.

The number of beasts in the ark
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Verse 8 is simply stating that "the male and his female (vs. 2)" entered the ark together. Two at a time does not equal two of each kind. Nice try though, that was clever.

How many stalls and horsemen?
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Read the two verses again, this time more carefully. 1 Kings 4:26 states that Solomon had forty thousand "stalls of horses for his chariots" and 2 Chronicles 9:25 says that Solomon had "four thousand stalls for horses and chariots". There were 10 horses per chariot. You don't even have to check the context on this one to figure out where the misunderstanding is... the answer is in the question.

Is it folly to be wise or not?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Ecclesiastes 1:18 speaks of "too much of a good thing", so to speak. The preceding verses speak of Solomon's mounting pride at his growing wisdom, and the folly of that pride. 1 Corinthians 1:19 speaks of the same, saying that God will put those in their place who would worship their wisdom more than their God.

Human vs. ghostly impregnation
ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:29 tells us that the verse following is referring to David, and that Jesus would descend from the "fruit of his loins" (his children). Mary is a descendant of David. Had the verse been referring to Joseph, you might have been on to something.

The sins of the father
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Isaiah 14:21 speaks of the Babylonians, Deuteronomy 24:16 speaks of the Israelites. Read the chapter, not just the verse.

The bat is not a bird
LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

According to modern biologists, bats are not birds. Today our definition of "bird" is different, we have different qualifications. During the particular time period in which the book of Deuteronomy was written, a "bird" was any creature with wings which was not an insect. God was speaking to them on their level, if He had said "and also, do not eat any flying mammal" they would not have understood, because to them there was no such thing. To say that a bat is not a bird is a matter of opinion and depends entirely upon your definition of "bird". While we use the same word now as they did then, the definition is entirely different. To them, if a mammal could fly then it was no longer a mammal. The Biblical animal classification system is based off of different criteria.

Rabbits do not chew their cud
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
"Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

Well yes, I would agree that shekels have nothing to do with this. But that's the only thing I agree with here. I would like to point out that the word which was translated "cheweth" was עלה (‛âlâh), which is used all over the Old Testament to refer to many things other than just "bringing up" things, so there is very obviously an idiomatic meaning to this word as well.

Insects do NOT have four feet
LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

The hind legs of the grasshopper and locust were not considered to be the same type of legs as the other four. Notice the fact that the four legs which they "goeth upon" are listed separately from the legs which are "above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth", they were not considered to have six legs, but rather to have four legs used only for walking, and two legs for leaping. They would not have said that they had six legs, because they differentiated between the different types of legs.

Snails do not melt
PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

Interesting that you chose not to employ the original Hebrew meaning this time... and for obvious reasons. The word translated "melteth" was תּמס (temes) which primarily refers to liquefaction. Of course snails don't "melt" (you've got to be kidding me)... they do, however, leave a trail of slime behind them as they move, which does cause them to lose moisture. And if that moisture isn't replaced, then they will dry out and die.

Fowl from waters or ground?
GEN 1:20 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.
GEN 1:21 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.

See Which First--Beasts or Man?

Odd genetic engineering
GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

Well it certainly is odd, I'll give you that... but notice, the passage never indicates that the rods caused the cattle to be brought forth ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. Merely that the two coincided and that Jacob probably thought that the rods were the cause of it. However, if you read chapter 31 you see that it was not this "odd genetic engineering" that Jacob attempted to employ which caused this phenomenon, but God Himself. Jacob only thought that the rods would make a difference, it was God who worked the miracle, the rods had nothing to do with it. And even if they did, there's quite a difference between something being "odd" and something being contradictory... so why on earth is this even on this list?

The shape of the earth
ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Astromical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.

Let's look at the parallel verse in Luke 4:5 to shed a little more light on this: "And the devil, taking him up into a high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time." This was clearly a supernatural viewing, not a literal looking out onto the horizon and seeing, say, Alexandria. I'm pretty sure that Matthew was aware that there were no mountains out in the wilderness that were tall enough to see Carthage from anyway, so saying that he fabricated this seems even more far-fetched than believing it.

Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt
GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

True, it would have been more accurate to say that the serpent licks the dirt, as they take in particles with their tongues as their taste of smell. The terminology "eat" was used here, however, as an irony to the tempting of Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit.

Earth supported?
JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Heaven supported too
JOB 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

The word יסד (yâsad) can be interpreted as a literal foundation, or as a figurative (beginning of) foundation. "Where were you when I founded the earth?" No different from founding a business or organization, which has a very clearly figurative "foundation". As to heaven having pillars, who's to say that it doesn't?

The hydrological cycle
ECC 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
JOB 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
Storehouses are not part of the cycle

Clouds are storehouses. Also, if you read the verse in context, the symbolic nature of this portion of scripture isn't hard to see, so even if you don't buy the "clouds=storehouses" theory, it shouldn't be an issue.

Order of creation
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:
Day 1: Sky, Earth, lightDay 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)Day 3: PlantsDay 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."
The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
Earth and heavens (misty)Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)PlantsAnimalsEve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)
How orderly were things created?#1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days."#2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)
How satisfied with creation was he?#1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.#2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

Again, Genesis 1 and 2 do NOT describe the same event (see Which First--Beasts or Man?). As to there being days before sun, moon, and stars, an omniscient God would know how long a day was without the sun, and even though the sun had not been created yet light had, so it wouldn't have matter. God Himself is light, this is why there will be no need of a sun in heaven, and hell will be dark (absence of God). And as for everything being "good" when Adam and Eve had been disobedient, you've mixed up the order of events. God did not say that things were good after Adam and Eve sinned, but before. God made it abundantly clear that things were not "good" after they disobeyed His commandment.

Moses' personality
Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."
Num.31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."

Meek people lose their tempers all the time, this is an incredible stretch... in fact, the meek are usually the ones who lose their tempers the most incredibly, because they so often say anything that once they finally get started they have quite a bit to say. Also, "meek" doesn't necessarily mean "nice".

Righteous live?
Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

"Flourish" doesn't mean "live forever without ever encountering problems", I think you're confusing this verse with the "prosperity gospel". God never promises that the righteous will live a perfect life without problems, only that they will have His comfort in the face of troubles. Also, Psalm 92 is written in praise to God and describes the author's hopes, not actual events as Isaiah 57 does.

Potters Field (untitled in the original list)
Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."
Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."

The priests bought the field with silver which belonged to Judas. They only handled the transaction, it was not actually their field, they purchased it under Judas' name. And after Judas killed himself in the same field, the land would have been defiled and it is unsurprising that it would then be made into a cemetery, as it wasn't good for anything else.

Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?
Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

Not all mountains are shaped like triangles, in fact most are not. Most have large areas of flat ground part way up with fields, woods, and lakes. Don't assume that they were sitting on top of some jagged peak, they were on a plain in the mountains. This is further supported by the structure of the particular mountain itself, which has since been identified.

Jesus' last words
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

None of these verses actually claim that the phrase cited is in fact Christ's "last words". The three writers all had different perspectives of this event and as some of them were closer to Jesus than others, it would make sense that one would hear what the others had not (a dying man doesn't usually speak very loud, particularly over the shouting and jeering crowd). All of these things were spoken by Jesus, and probably in fairly quick succession.

Years of famine
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

Notice that in both of the above passages a choice is put forth, so clearly nothing was set in stone. The number of the years of the famine may have been reduced. Also, it is of course possible that there was simply a copyist error, though I'm reluctant to ever put anything down to that.

Moved David to anger?
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.

Who moved David to number Israel, God or Satan? The answer is simple. Both. God uses Satan to accomplish His goals all the time. Just read the book of Job, where God uses Satan to test the faith of Job. God did the same here, using Satan to provoke David to number Israel, so that David would realize that he must put his faith in God, not the number of soldiers he possesses.

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

See Who is the father of Joseph?

God be seen?
Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9 God CAN be seen:"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

None of these verses specify which member of the trinity is referred to, and for a good reason. God the Father cannot be seen, as anyone who sees Him will die. However, God the Son (Jesus) can be seen. Any time, Old or New Testament, that God is seen, it is Jesus, as God the Father is spirit and does not possess a physical body (John 4:24), but Jesus does (John 1:14).

CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11)"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34)"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9)"God is love." (1 John 4:16)

See War or Peace?

Tempts?
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

The Hebrew word נסה (nâsâh) used in Genesis 22:1, translated as "tempt", is primarily defined as "to test". God was testing Abraham, not tempting him to sin.

Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

Judas died on the Passover. No one could come and clean up the mess that day without being defiled. The body hung there a long time, not at all surprising that the rope eventually gave way and the body fell to the ground and burst asunder. Read it again with that in mind, and it makes perfect sense.

Ascend to heaven
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)
"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13)

While many will assert here that Elijah was simply not taken up to the third heaven (the abode of God, which admittedly is not directly referred to), I believe that it is pretty well implied both here and in the case of Enoch (Hebrews 11:5). There may be a better answer here. The Hebrew word έἰ μή (ei mē) which is interpreted "but" in John 3:13 can also be interpreted as "except that" or "save that". Replacing "but" with either of these equally plausible phrases suggests now that it is because of Jesus' willingness to descend from Heaven that it is possible for humans to ascend into Heaven.

What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
Before the cock crow - Matthew 26:34
Before the cock crow twice - Mark 14:30

If a cock crows a second time, then that would indicate that it had crowed once already. Nowhere does Jesus say that the cock will crow only one time. Let's use a little common sense.

How many times did the cock crow?
MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.
LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.
JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew

See What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?

Who killed Saul
SA1 31:4 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.SA1 31:5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.SA1 31:6 So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.SA2 1:15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.

Well, first off, you've listed the wrong scripture. 2 Samuel 1:15 refers to David commanding that the Amalekite be killed, not Saul. However, I can see the point that you're attempting to make, you've simply jumped a few verses ahead of the more incriminating ones that you should have used (2 Samuel 1:8-10). Notice here the account given in 1 Samuel is what actually happened, whereas the account in 2 Samuel is merely what the Amalekite said happened (he was prideful and wanted everyone to think that he himself had slain Saul, rather then Saul slaying himself - read the verse in context... and pick the right one next time! If you're going to attack God's Word, at least have the sense to do it right...)

How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount
MAT 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
MAT 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
MAT 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
MAT 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
MAT 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
LUK 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
LUK 6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
LUK 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
LUK 6:23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

It is important here to observe the differing writing styles of Matthew and Luke. Matthew's intent was to teach, Luke's to inform. As Jesus taught the same principles over and over again in multiple locations, Matthew may not have remembered the exact verbatim content of this particular sermon, but was able to keep the basic message which Jesus taught in general intact. Luke's style is most likely the more historically accurate, however Matthew's offers additional teachings which may not have been involved in this particular sermon, but which were certainly taught by Jesus at one point or another. Matthew's version does not distort the message of Christ, but may not be technically historically accurate to this particular sermon.

Does every man sin?
KI1 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;
CH2 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;
PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?
ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

To be "born of God" does not refer to physical birth, but spiritual birth. Those who have been "born again" will not continue to sin (1 Peter 1:23)

Who bought potter's field
ACT 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
MAT 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

See Potters Field

Who prophesied the potter's field?
Matthew 27:9-10 (mentions Jeremy but no such verse in Jeremiah) is in Zechariah 11:12-13

Jeremiah, while not the author of this prophecy, was the collector of many of the writings of the prophets. It is the equivalent of citing a text book author as a source for your facts in an essay, even though the author of course retrieved the information from somewhere else.

Who bears guilt?
GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

First and foremost, I feel the need to point out that these two quotations are only THREE VERSES APART. There is clearly a collective point being made here. Secondly, in the original Greek we can see that these two verses do not refer to the same type of burden. 6:2 uses the word βάρος (baros), while 6:5 uses φορτίον (phortion). Verse two refers to burdens which can be shared, such as misery and sorrow. Verse five refers to burdens which must be bore alone, such as physical ailments and difficult tasks.

Do you answer a fool?
PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Again, a collective point is clearly being made. This time the verses are in immediate succession. This verse presents a difficult situation in which it is almost impossible to win, because fools are, well... foolish. You should not answer a fool on his own level, because he will think that you are agreeing with his foolish presuppositions, thus making you equally foolish (verse four). However, it is wise to answer the fool's idiotic suggestions with a rational response, rather than allow him to take your silence as agreement (verse five).

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

Saul had two daughters, Merab and Michal (1 Samuel 14:49). It is widely held by many scholars that this was an ancient scribal error, and that 2 Samuel 21:8 should have read "Merab", not "Michal". The author of the book contradicting himself (both passages come from the same book of the Bible) seems unlikely, whether you believe the story to be true or fabricated.

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

"The correct age of Jehoiachin was 18, not 8. Obviously, Jehoiachin was 18 when he began his rule since it says he did evil in the site of the Lord which suggests maturity and responsibility. The discrepancy in ages is probably due to a copyist error. We can see that the difference in ages is 10 years. The system of number notation used by the Jews at the time of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that represented values of ten... If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of a papyri, then the dates would be off by values of 10 years. Does this mean the Bible is not trustworthy? Not at all. Inspiration is ascribed to the original writings and not to the copies. Scribes made errors. However, the errors were very infrequent and from other information in the Bible, we can easily ascertain what the correct age is.
Another possible explanation is that the difference of 10 years from the two different texts could be that he began to rule with his father at the age of eight but did not take complete control until the age of 18, a 10-year difference." [source] [2]

Marriage?
Proverbs 18:22 1 Corinthians 7 (whole book. See 1,2,27,39,40)

Proverbs 18:22 refers to finding a wife as "a good thing". 1 Corinthians 7 does not contradict this. What Paul says in this passage is that if it is possible for a man to remain unmarried and still keep himself from fornication, then it is even better for that man, because he can now put all of his focus on God and not on earthly things. Paul never says that it is wrong or sinful to enter into marriage.

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

The NIV interprets Acts 22:9 more accurately, and the NIV reads: "My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me." The companions did indeed hear the voice, but did not comprehend what was spoken.

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
(various trapsing)

In John chapter one, John the Baptist is mentioned as bearing record of having seen the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, but it does not say that he was in fact bearing record of it as it was happening. Most likely this was a separate event from the baptism of Christ recorded in Mark chapter twelve. There is, in fact, no indication that the two speak of "the next day" following the same event.

How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention?
1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)Matthew 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)Acts 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)
MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

While it is possible that Judas was in fact still alive during the period described in 1 Corinthians 15:5, probably a more logical standpoint would be to point out that "the twelve" was merely a phrase used to refer to the apostles, a literal interpretation is not necessarily accurate here anyway. "The Twelve" was what the apostles were known as, if they had been referred to as "the eleven", many would have been left wondering who exactly that was referring to. It was the generally recognized title of the group, not necessarily an accurate description of the exact number of its members. Titles wear out and become inaccurate all the time. I seem to recall a certain time period in literary history commonly known as "modernism". Oddly enough, we still refer to that long passed time period as "modernism" even though it is most certainly not "modern" any more. If we changed the title now, nobody would know what we were talking about.

Judging
1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)
1 Cor 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."

Different type of judging. 1 Corinthians 2:15 uses the term ἀνακρίνω (anakrinō), which means to ask, question, or discern. 1 Corinthians 4:5 uses the term κρίνω (krinō), which carries with it the implication to try, condemn, or punish. The spiritual man questions/tests all things, but does not condemn or punish, as that authority belongs to the Lord.

Good deeds
Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)
Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

The point here is that the believer should be willing to do both of these things, because in both cases it is the motivation behind the good deeds that is being addressed. We should be unashamed of our good works for the Lord's sake (5:16), yet also willing to do the same good works in secret, because we are not to act out of pride (6:3-4). Reading verses in context is usually helpful in discerning the meaning of a passage.

For or against?
MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.(default is against)
MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.(default is for)
LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.(default is for)

If it hadn't been for your parenthetical statements, no one would have thought that these passages contradicted each other. These verses do not contradict each other as to what the default position is, because the whole point of these statements is that there is no middle ground. There is no need of a default position, because everyone has already chosen their sides. Read the verses again with this in mind and you will see that there is clearly no contradiction here. The whole point Jesus was making was that "sitting on the fence", so to speak, wasn't an issue because there was never a fence to sit on to begin with.

Whom did they see at the tomb?
MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

If two angels were present, does that indicate that both of them had to speak? Or that both of them had to roll back the stone? No where is it indicated that there was only one angel present.

God change?
malachi 3:6
james 1:17
1 samuel 15:29
jonah 3:10
genesis 6:6

The first three verses listed suggest that God does not change, the fourth sounds as if He does, and the last… has nothing to do with this subject. Jonah 3:10 states “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.” When God ‘repented’ of the evil He said He would do unto them, did God change? The answer, in a word, is no. The Lord only turned His wrath away from the inhabitants of Nineveh for a short time, because He says that He will forgive those who repent of their sins. When Nineveh once more fell into sin, it was utterly destroyed, just as the Lord said that it would be. The Lord does not change.

Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)
MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
zechariah 11:11-13
(nothing in Jeremiah remotely like)

See Who prophesied the potter's field?

Who's sepulchers
acts 7:16
genesis 23:17,18

Genesis 23 states that Abraham purchased the land from the children of Heth, Acts 7 states that the land was purchased from the sons of Hamor. How is this reconciled? A large amount of time would have passed between the events being described, the land could have been purchased twice. Abraham lived a nomadic lifestyle and abandoned land was often claimed by others after a period of time. Upon return, Abraham may have been required to purchase the land once more.

Strong drink?
proverbs 31:6,7
john 2:11-11

Neither of these verses say that drinking alcohol is good. Proverbs 31:6-7 says to give wine to those who are perishing, doesn’t sound like an activity the righteous ought to partake of now does it?

When second coming?
MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
1 thessalonians 4:15-18

The word translated “generation” in the above verses is γενεά (genea), which means nation or tribe. This is not a failed prophecy, but a miraculously fulfilled prophecy. Forced from their land and held in captivity over and over again throughout history, the Israelite people have still remained a distinct race, rather than disappearing into the global community as so many other ancient civilizations did. You never here about a Babylonian living down the street, do you? Yet the Hebrew race remains forever prominent within the global community.

Solomon's overseers
550 in I Kings 9:23
250 in II Chron 8:10

1 Kings gives us 3300 foremen, when we add 550 to this, we get 3850. 2 Chronicles gives us 3600 foremen, when we add 250 to this, we once more get 3850. As the two accounts agree with each other on the total number of workers, it is clear that there is merely a difference in categorization here as to what the “chief officers” were. “Chief”, after all, is a matter of opinion.

The mother of Abijah:
Maachah the daughter of Absalom 2 Chron 9:20
Michaiah the daughter of Uriel 2 Chron 13:2

Maachah and Michaiah are different spellings of the same name, isn’t hard to see. The difference in parenthood indicates that one is an ancestor and the other is the literal parent as we would now define it. See genealogical information here. [3]

When did Baasha die?
26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8
36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chron 16:1

“In Jewish tradition there was no provision for a queen. Here, the queen-mother, Maachah, takes on an important role when her son Abijam dies after reigning only 3 years. She adopts one of his sons Asa (I Kings 15:10) apparently as a figure-head and actually reigns herself for the first 10 years (see II Chronicles 14:2). After this period, Asa wins a great battle, is encouraged by the prophet in chapter 15, and takes over. He cleans the idols out of Judah AND Benjamin (as noted above) and removes the idolatrous Maachah as queen (I Kings 15:13 and II Chronicles 15:16). Likely this ten-year reign of the Queen mother alongside Asa is the reason for the ten-year discrepancy in dating the Baasha event by how long Asa had ruled.” [source] [4]

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
22 in 2 Kings 8:26
42 in 2 Chron 22:2

Ahaziah only reigned for one year, so it is possible that these are not in fact the same kings. After all, Ahaziah’s father began to reign at age 32 and reigned for 8 years, dying at the age of 40. Clearly his son could not have been 42 at the time, making it entirely possible that this was not in fact the same person.

Who was Josiah's successor?
Jehoahaz - 2 Chron 36:1
Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11

A little historical background ought to shed some light on this apparent contradiction: “Pharaoh Necho took advantage of Assyria's downfall by seizing Palestine. King Josiah of Judah went against him at Megiddo and was defeated and slain. "And his servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo and brought him to Jerusalem" (2 Kings, xxiii, 30). Jehoahaz was selected as Josiah's successor, but Necho deposed him and made him a prisoner...” (2 Kings, xxiii, 34).” [source] [5]

The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ezra was written around 538 B.C. whereas Nehemiah was written around 444 B.C. The difference in census figures is most likely do to the families having grown (and/or families members dying) during the nearly 100 years between the two.

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
scarlet - Matthew 27:28
purple John 19:2

“…we read of “a scarlet robe...faded to resemble purple” (The Wycliffe Bible Commentary). [It is difficult to imagine Pilate arraying Jesus’ bloody body with a new robe. More likely it was one that had been worn and cast off as useless (Barnes).] According to A.T. Robertson, there were various shades of purple and scarlet in the first century and it was not easy to distinguish the colors or tints (1997). In fact, the ancients (especially the Romans) used the term purple when speaking of various shades of red (McGarvey, 1875, p. 361; Barnes, 1997). Consequently, these different colors sometimes would be called by the same name.” [source] [6]

What did they give him to drink?
vinegar - Matthew 27:34
wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23

The “vinegar” in Matthew 27:34 was ὄξος (oxos), which could also be interpreted as a “sour wine”. Myrrh was often included in wine during the period to contribute to the flavor and scent.

How long was Jesus in the tomb?
Depends where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," and Mark 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again." As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days," but the post-Resurrection narratives have "on the third day."

That certainly was a quick look. I'm not sure what Bible translation you were using (you claim to be using the KJV), but when I checked my KJV (the only version I use, so I'm not just picking whatever's convenient) Mark 10:34 didn't say anything about "after three days", what it said was: "And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again." No contradictions here, because neither of these verses say "after three days".

There are, of course, other compilations of Biblical “contradictions” scattered about the web, but this one (put together by Jim Merritt) is the most comprehensive one I’ve found which was worth looking at.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Works Cited

[1] http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

[2] http://www.carm.org/diff/2Chron36_9.htm

[3] http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/names/maachah_854.htm

[4] http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=90

[5] http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/eml/eml40.htm

[6] http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/559

Willingly Ignorant

2008-02-22T17:46:00.002-06:00

2nd Peter 3:3-7 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

Sound familiar? What was once largely undisputed is now largely counted as foolishness: that the Lord formed the earth and all creatures which live upon it. While the Bible tells us that God created us in His own image, it was Charles Darwin (author of The Origin of Species) who said, "We must, however, acknowledge as it seems to me, that a man with all his noble qualities...still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." Lowly origin? Ironically, the great "scientist" Charles Darwin only had a degree in one subject... Theology. So why is this theologian regarded so highly by the atheistic community? Because he told them what they wanted to hear. With or without evidence, evolution will continue to be believed so long as there are those who are desperate to believe it. Ironically, Charles Darwin also once said, "False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long". How many false facts are used to support evolution in public school science textbooks? The list is endless. While not all evidences for evolution can be falsified, the fact that so many long disproven lies are still purported as 'evidence' by the evolutionist community suggests that they have something to hide. What are they trying to hide? Perhaps the lack of any of the thousands of 'transitional species' that Darwin promised would be found...

In Christ's Love,

Matthew

"For men shall be lovers of their own selves..." 2nd Timothy 3:2

2008-02-21T21:01:00.001-06:00

"Love yourself first and everything else falls into line. You really have to love yourself to get anything done in this world." - Lucille Ball (1911 - 1989)

Doesn't it seem like modern society is continually pushing us to do something that would have been at one point unthinkable? To love yourself above all else? Where the self-less were once looked to as role models, they are now pitied as sad, deprived individuals who surely "must have been miserable" and would have been so much happier and more fulfilled if they had just known how to "love themselves". Now the prideful and selfish are seen as secure and full of wisdom, and we all wish we could be more like them.

"I finally realized that being grateful to my body was key to giving more love to myself." - Oprah Winfrey

The Bible warns us of those who love themselves above all else. 2nd Timothy 3:2 begins by stating "For men shall be lovers of their own selves..." The world has nearly accomplished it's ultimate goal of making itself into a god. Ever since Lucifer tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden by telling her that by sinning she could become like God, man has continually strove to commit the same sin which caused Satan himself to fall from Heaven: to exalt ourselves. That thing which you love more than anything else, your top priority, is the god of your life. Whether you call it a god or not. And if that thing is yourself, then you have transgressed the Lord's commandment "you shall have no other gods before Me", you have committed the sin of idolatry. Love is meant to be an outward action, not an inward one. Once you truly know what love is, it is impossible to be a lover of your self more than anyone else and not know that it is wrong. To love yourself is to be selfish, it's as simple as that. Jesus said that the most important commandment is to love the Lord your God, and the second most important commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. We are to love God more than ourselves, and to love others as much as we love ourselves. Why is the world falling apart despite our best efforts? Because we continue to grow in our sinful desire for self-exaltation.

Turn from your self-love towards the One who can save you from your sins and from an eternity in hell. If you place your hope and trust primarily in yourself, then in the end your "god" will not be able to save you from an eternity of misery, because your god will be yourself. No man can save himself from hell.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Which Bible Translation Do You Trust?

2008-02-04T14:38:00.001-06:00

Ever wondered how the Bible can be the infallible word of God when there are so many different versions of it? Can they really all be infallible? Do they all say basically the same thing? There can be no doubt that there are numerous differences between the multitude of different translations of the Bible available in the English-speaking world. We're going to look at just a few of them.

The most popular English translations today include the King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), and New King James Version (NKJV). There are others as well, of course, but these four are considered by many to be the most popular. Now there are two ways we can examine the reliability and authenticity of these versions: 1.) by examining the facts we know about the manuscripts they were translated from, and 2.) by comparing the last three to the KJV and examining any contradiction that arises.

Let's take a look at the manuscripts. As the King James Version was translated from younger manuscripts, particularly a compilation known as the Textus Receptus, than the other three, it is often argued that when there are differences between them it is the KJV which is in error, as older manuscripts are naturally more accurate. This is of course a very sensible assertion, as that is generally how things are done. However, one must account for logic and reasoning as well. There are many verses and/or sections of verses found in the KJV that are simply non-existent in the modern versions. One example of this can be found in Acts 8:37 (assuming you're using a KJV Bible, if on the other hand your Bible is NIV, for instance, you won't find it): "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Here's the whole thing in context, Acts 8:36-38: "36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." Now, many believe that the younger manuscripts used in translating the King James were alterations of the originals which were changed for the purpose of supporting extra-biblical doctrines. Is believing with all your heart before being baptized extra-biblical? I doubt that anyone would draw that conclusion, regardless of what translation you're using. Belief before baptism is a doctrine which can be backed up in other places in the Bible, so why would it be inserted falsely here? Likewise, many believe that 1 John 5:7 in the KJV was inserted later to support extra-biblical doctrine, yet this verse is an explanation of the Trinity, an already Biblical doctrine. In at least one manuscript that did not include 1 John 5:7 in the main text it was included in a marginal note. Is it not logical to assume that this was in fact a marginal note in the original text? And that perhaps some scribes felt it important enough to include in the main text when copying it while others ignored it as it was a marginal note? These are questions we must ask ourselves. And if this is the case then perhaps the verse should be enclosed in parentheses but it should most certainly not be dropped altogether. The bottom line is that as the Trinity doctrine can be backed up Biblically with or without this verse, so adding it in with the intent of perverting the Gospel doesn't quite add up. Perhaps all verses excluded from the modern translations should be re-inserted, if only in parentheses, as they do not pervert the Gospel but in fact clarify it and most likely were present, whether in the body of the text or in the margins, in the original manuscripts.

While this "logical" viewpoint is of course far from being proof that the KJV publication of 1611 is more accurate, there are other more definitive reasons, not the least of which being the location of the older manuscripts from which many modern translations receive their justification. These texts come from a region of northern Africa that is certainly worthy of some skepticism as to their authenticity. The older manuscripts are traced back to Alexandria, the known location of a cult often referred to as the "Alexandrian Cult", founded in part by an Alexandrian by the name of Origen. This cult, which some have compared to the Watchtower Society in modern times, wished to be viewed as legitimately Christian while still holding to its unique and unscriptural teachings. Thus, it had its own unique version of the Bible. Not only can many "modern" Bibles be traced back to these Alexandrian manuscripts, but in fact the Latin Vulgate, later translated into English and currently known as the Douay-Rheims Bible (the translation most commonly accepted and used by the Roman Catholic Church) is also translated from these same manuscripts, as well as the New World Translation used by Jehovah's Witnesses. While some have taken this revelation to the extent of referring to all who use modern translations of the Bible as being members of this same "Alexandrian Cult", it is clear that they are at worst misled and that English-speaking churches are safe from faulty doctrine, if for no other reason than because the King James Version is still present to balance them out. In conclusion, it is reasonable to assert that the more modern versions are perfectly good translations of the wrong text, most likely with the best of intentions, but nonetheless not the original scriptures.

From this viewpoint that the missing verses in modern translations are in fact inspired scripture, let's examine the possible motivation for their more recent omission. If we read Acts 8:36-38 excluding verse 37 it now reads: "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and thy went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." If something doesn't quite seem right here, that's because it isn't. The problem with omitting verse 37 is that now it would appear that baptism is something that can be done upon a simple whim, merely having come across water alongside the road. Philip no longer explains to the eunuch that he must understand the significance of baptism before undergoing it. This leaves an opening for a church to use this passage to justify baptizing members without explaining to them what baptism is, why it's important, and why they must count the cost (Luke 14:28) before going through with it. Like Mark 9:44 and 9:46 are also missing completely. Both are explanations of hell which are entirely Biblical (with or without these verses), yet when you remove them you end up with a less terrifying vision of eternal damnation. Does this leave room to assert that there are certain levels of punishment in hell and that perhaps the "worm that dieth not" and "fire that is not quenched" are only for particularly sinful individuals? Perhaps, or it may be completely innocent. It's impossible to tell, but this could certainly be used as a comfort for those who reject Christ's atonement, and that is far from Biblical. For a more extensive look at the differences between various Bible translations, click here.

Feel free to draw your own conclusions on this one, but I'll be sticking with my KJV until I'm convinced otherwise.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

Are Mormons Christians?

2007-12-16T21:06:00.001-06:00

How do you define "Christianity"? Obviously, there are many sects who refer to themselves as "Christians" who have radically different opinions on crucial doctrines and they can't all be right. So what's the standard? Only a group who worships the true God can be considered Christian. Does that mean any religion who worships a god with the same name as the God in the Bible is really Christian? Of course not, anybody can give a false god a new name, but that doesn't change what it is. Thus, the only way to test a religion is to hold it up next to the God in the Bible. So... does the god of Mormonism (LDS Church) match the description of God in the Bible? I'll list here the differing viewpoints on one aspect of God's nature that the LDS church holds, and then let you decide how important the difference is. Is it a mere technicality? Or does it make all the difference between worship of the supreme God of the universe, and just another "false prophet" proclaiming another "false christ"?

The LDS church holds several doctrines which differ from those held by Biblical Christianity, but perhaps the most concerning is this: IS God the supreme deity of the universe, or just one of countless gods and goddesses speckled throughout space and time?

Here's what LDS church leaders have said:

1.) According to Joseph Smith: "The doctrine of a plurality of Gods is prominent in the Bible. The heads of the Gods appointed our God for us...you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves...the same as all Gods have done before you" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.370-372, 346).

2.) Mormon Prophet Brigham Young wrote: "How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods" (Journal of Discourses v.7, p.333).

3.) Mormon Apostle and apologist Bruce McConkie states: "Three separate personages---Father, Son, and Holy Ghost---comprise the Godhead...As each of these persons is a God, it is evident from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us...these three are the only Gods we worship" (Mormon Doctrine, p.576-577).

4.) Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt wrote "there are more gods than there are particles of matter" (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, p.345).

5.) Joseph Smith describes the creation of the earth: "And they said, 'Let there be light'...And the Gods pronounced the dry land...And the Gods organized the earth...And the Gods planted a garden in Eden" (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 4:3,10,25; 5:8). A reference to a plurality of 'Gods' occurs at least 43 times in the book of Abraham.

Contrary to Joseph Smith’s claim that this doctrine is ever-present in the Bible, however, it seems evident to me that the Bible has always taught that there is ONE God, and only one:

Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me.

Isaiah 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

Isaiah 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

Mark 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Hebrews 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he swore by himself,

Nehemiah 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshipeth thee.

Isaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

The typical response to these verses is 1 Corinthians 8:5:

For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

While this verse, read out of context as it is shown above, would appear to allude to other gods, the so-called “gods” being spoken of in this verse are clearly identified in verse 4 as the false gods of the heathen. Read the verse in context:

1 Corinthians 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
1 Corinthians 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

Your convictions will be stronger if you draw your own conclusions, so I'm not going to spoon-feed them to you. If you want your opinion to remain untainted, then stop reading here, because in the following paragraph I'll offer my perspective.

* * *

The Bible never teaches that there are a "plurality of gods", and to suggest that there is would seem to me to serve only to lower God's stature in the grand scheme of things, but that's just my take on it. As Mormons also deny that Jesus was God in the flesh, deeming him as no more than the first-born of many "spirit children", it would seem to me that the Mormon Jesus is not the same as the Jesus in the Bible. The Jesus in the Bible was prayed to, worshipped, and proclaimed "I and the Father are one". Any Jesus other than the Jesus in the Bible has neither the power nor the right to forgive our sins, and it is for this reason that my sincerest prayers go out to the Mormons... The Bible warns us of false christs in Matthew 24:24 "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." Please remember, members of the LDS church are, for the most part at least, sincere and truly seeking the one whom they have been told is "god", and they really are well-intentioned. Likewise, don't get sidetracked trying to convince a Mormon he isn't a Christian, because based off the definition of Christianity that his church leaders have offered him, he is positive that he is and he has a strong testimony to back it up. I have no doubt that a spirit has come to many of them and affirmed in their hearts the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, but this spirit was not the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)The word "δοκιμάζω", translated "Prove", literally means to "test". We are to test the spirits that come to us by the Word of God. This is comparable to the golden lamp stand and bread which were always to be kept in the same room in the temple (see blog entry: You Are God's Holy Temple) The bread represents the presence of God, and the lampstand represents the Word, and they could never be separated. Mormons have failed to test the spirit which "witnessed" to them of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and without realizing this they will never be willing to reject this false Christ and come to know the true God who knows and loves them and wants to save them from their sin and the eternal destruction they have earned, as we all have, because of it.

In Christ's Love,
Matthew

You Are God's Holy Temple

2007-12-10T19:27:00.001-06:00

I thought this article was pretty awesome and I had to share it with you. (The link is provided at the bottom of the page.)

You Are God’s Holy Temple

I believe that the tabernacle which Moses was commanded to build symbolized God’s favorite dwelling place, which is you. The entire old covenant is symbolic of the reality of the new covenant. We can gain multitudes of revelations and insight from the Old Testament, which applies to the New Testament. The tabernacle had three parts and so do people. The outer court symbolizes a person’s physical body. Inside the outer court is the holy place, which symbolizes a person’s soul or heart. Inside the holy place is the most holy place this symbolizes a person’s spirit, or conscience. There are many examples of the tabernacle, which relate to a person being God’s dwelling place, but I will focus on just a few points here.

The outer court contained the altar and the washbasin. It was the place of sacrifice. This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of meeting before the Lord, where I will meet you to speak with you. (Exodus 29:42) This is where the animals were offered up as sin offerings for the people. This was symbolic of the sacrifice that Jesus was to make on the cross once for all. So also our physical body is the place of sacrifice in our life. I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service (Romans 12:1) Much of our obedience has to do with bringing our physical body under the control of the Holy Spirit.

Inside the outer court just before the entrance to the holy place was the washbasin where the priest would wash before entering. As the priest prepared themselves through sacrifice and washing to enter into the holy place so too do we to enter into God’s presence. Whenever you enter into God’s presence, the first thing that happens is that you are reminded of any sin that has not been dealt with in your life. As you repent and accept the sacrifice Jesus made for your sins, you are moved into a greater manifestation of His presence, you come into the holy place.

The holy place is symbolic of our heart or soul. The tabernacle was called the tent of meeting, meaning it was the place to meet with God. We meet with the Lord in our heart. It is the place of ministry unto the Lord and the place we commune with Him. You must enter through your heart into God’s presence. Since your heart is the place you worship your God it can also be the place where we have idols set up to false gods. God wants us to love Him with all of our heart. That means we must remove anything from our heart that draws our attention away from loving Him fully. This is also where we must make sure that nothing is hindering our love to another person.

Inside the holy place is the table of the bread of the presence, the golden lamp stand, and the altar of incense. The bread represents the Word and we know that Jesus is the Word. Jesus is called the bread of life. Only He can give us the bread that satisfies our spiritual hunger.

The golden lamp stand has seven branches for seven oil lamps. The lamp stand was the only source of light in the holy place. The oil represents the Holy Spirit. The seven lamps may represent seven manifestations and revelations of the Holy Spirit in a believer, love, wisdom, understanding, counsel, power, knowledge, and the fear of the Lord; see Isaiah 11:2. The priests had instruments for trimming and refilling the lamps. They were to keep the lamp burning brightly continuously. In the same way, we must always check our hearts to see if there is any hindrance to the flow of God’s love in our heart. Anything that keeps the fire of God’s love from burning brightly in us hurts our relationship with God and people. Anything that keeps us from experiencing the fullness of God’s love also keeps us from being filled with all the fullness of God. The light also represents revelation. The greater we walk in obedience to God’s love the greater will be our revelation of Him. Allowing God’s love to burn brightly in us will affect the people around us by touching them with light, revelation and love.

Just before the entrance to the most holy place was the altar of incense. The offering of incense represents prayer. Prayer is a ministry that takes place in our heart when we respond to God’s heart. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The most effective prayers are God breathed and come from His desires to manifest His glory on the earth. Just as Jesus spoke God’s words on earth so must we. God has chosen to use us as partners to accomplish His will on earth. We are to pray the Father’s will, to be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Separating the holy place from the most holy place was a veil. When Jesus was crucified the veil in the temple was torn in two. This symbolized that we could now have a restored relationship with our God. Now we have access to the heart of God and He has access to our heart. It could be that the veil in man’s heart came about when Adam sinned, causing a separation between God and man; and soul and spirit.

The most holy place, or holy of holies was where God dwelled in the tabernacle. It is the place of God’s presence in us, our spirit. In the most holy place was the Ark of the Covenant. Inside the Ark of the Covenant was the law that was given to Moses, Aaron’s rod that budded, and some manna. In the new covenant, God writes His laws on our heart, we receive instruction through the Holy Spirit. Live buds and almonds had sprung forth from Aaron’s rod, a dead stick. This represents the power of God as the source of all life, including the source of life in us. Your spirit is what gives life to your soul and body. It is the breath of God in you. The manna represents God’s supernatural provision of all that we need. The testimonies of what God has done for you are stored in your spirit. They are part of His covenant of provision in your life.

On top of the Ark was the mercy seat, this is considered to be the place where God’s presence would rest. This is a very important key in being filled with all the fullness of God because mercy or compassion is God’s love. Mercy is also associated with God’s glory. When God shows His mercy His glory is revealed. As a temple of God you are to carry the glory of God. And there (at the tabernacle) I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by My glory. (Exodus 29:43)

This is God’s desire for you, that His glory fills your spirit, soul and body to overflowing. Then the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (Exodus 40:34). God wants you to be a vessel of His glory shining through you and touching other people. Arise, shine; For your light has come! And the glory of the Lord is risen upon you. For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, And deep darkness the people; But the Lord will arise over you, And His glory will be seen upon you. (Isaiah 60:1 - 2 1)

You can find the full article at:
http://www.seekgod.org/message/fullnessofgod.html

Mitt Romney: America's Next President?

2007-12-03T14:22:00.001-06:00

In a conversation I had recently with a member of the LDS (Latter-Day Saints - a.k.a. "mormon") church, the girl I was speaking with suddenly became very serious. She looked me straight in the eyes and said with surprising confidence "I know who the next president will be." While she didn't disclose the name of the candidate she was referring to, the context of the conversation we were having, dominantly religious, made the implication clear.

Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor and now a semi-dominant candidate for the G.O.P. presidential nomination, has earned much of his popularity, as well as criticism, from his religious stance. As a member of the LDS church, he represents conservative values and, in the eyes of fellow church members, LDS representation in the nation's capital. Is the church's brazen confidence in Romney warranted? In polls of G.O.P. voters, Romney would appear to be steadily maintaining his standing between 3rd and 5th place in the race for the Republican nomination. While considering this things may be looking a little bleak for Romney, the public opinion may shift. He is almost guaranteed the support of the LDS church, a relatively impressive chunk of the U.S. population (as of 2002, mormons made up approx. 2% of the U.S. population). With at least 2 percent of the vote practically handed to him, Romney is bound to continue to build support and may eventually become a more formiddable threat to the prominent G.O.P. candidates such as Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. Will Mitt Romney be the nation's next president? It is not completely out of the question, especially with the enormous financial backing available to him (he raised $23 million in the first quarter, more than any other G.O.P. candidate). Perhaps the better question is "should Mitt Romney be the nation's next president?"

While Romney's mantra throughout his campaign thus far has been that voters should not consider his religion when voting, he also continually seeks, and receives, strong support from his church. The fact of the matter is, religion should NOT be a part of the voters' decisions. In my humble opinion, Romney is an expert at speaking out of both sides of his mouth. I fear that if Romney is elected, it will be because of his religious stance... a point which has been largely undisputed by LDS church members, stating they will vote for Romney because of his membership in the church. If you as a voter wish that Romney be elected, then by all means vote for him. But NOT because of his religious stance. I would implore you to choose which candidate you support based upon political stances, not religious biases (whether for OR against religion). Religion is of course a good indicator of moral perspective, but should only be considered as one of many factors.

Does this mean politicians with religious affiliations shouldn't be president? Of course not! As a Christian myself, I would gladly vote for a Christian candidate, but not simply because he or she is a Christian. I would also encourage members of the LDS church to vote for Romney if they agree with him politically, but NEVER because he is a Latter-Day Saint. Likewise, I am confident that many Democratic voters will vote in favor of Sen. Hilary Clinton, but I also know that a large majority will not do so because they completely agree with her politics, but instead many feminists will vote for Clinton because she is a woman and they are "ready for change". This is a foolish reason to vote for any candidate and these voters will have no one to blame but themselves if they later discover that Clinton varies drastically from their views on key issues.

1 Corinthians 16:22

2007-12-02T15:54:00.001-06:00

I was reading in 1 Corinthians today and I came across Paul's postscript near the end, and it caught my attention. "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." The letter was dictated, but this postscript was written by Paul's own hand, which should give us an idea of how important it is. Anathema means "cast away", and Maranatha means "the Lord cometh". The two together suggest the judgement of unbelievers at the coming of the Lord. Here we see the importance of truly loving Christ, rather than simply praying a "magical prayer" and living our lives in an outwardly righteous fashion. Matthew 7:22-23 states: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy namedone many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." It is our love for the Lord that bears witness to our sincerity, and is of the utmost importance to our own personal assurance that we are truly His.

I don't know about you, but this one really hit home with me. I'd lived for years in what I would now look back on and regard as a "fake" passion for God. I didn't really love God or appreciate what he'd done for me, I had taken it for granted. I can't say for sure what would have happened to me if I'd continued living that way, but judging by this verse, it would most likely have not been pretty. As His word says, we cannot be plucked from our Saviors hand once we are His, but perhaps the question should be, were we ever really His? We must make absolutely sure that we have truly committed to God and made Christ Lord in our lives, it won't be enough to just say it, we have to be genuine.

Any thoughts?