|
Apologetics
READ COMMUNITY RULES BEFORE POSTING
 |
|
The Age of the Earth How old is the Earth? Can anybody really know for sure? Are there any accurate books on the subject? Yes, there is. There is one. Let's look at the evidence that shows us clearly the age of the earth. First of all, how important is the book of Genesis? It is very important, because that is where everything starts. When we look in Genesis, we see IN THE BEGINNING, and that is where this journey must start. ( I have been struggling with this stupid lj-cut ALL DAY. I have had 20 people write paragraphs about cut-cut-cut-cut-cut but nobody can write 3 lines that say how to use it. I went to help, read it, used it in every possible way it could be used and it did not work. I'm bored, but I'm not that bored. If you want to read it come to my page and do it.) ( Read more ) CONCLUSION : In Genesis 1, God, through the 'pen' of Moses, is going out of His way to tell us that the 'days' of creation were literal earth–rotation days. To do this, He used the Hebrew word yôm, combined with a number and the words 'evening and morning'. If God had wanted to tell us it was an ancient creation, then there were several good ways He could have done this. If theistic evolution had been intended, then there were several (text) constructions He could have used. If the time factor had been meant to be ambiguous, then the Hebrew language had ways of saying this. However, God chose not to use any construction which would have communicated a meaning other than a literal solar day. The only meaning which is possible from the Hebrew words used is that the 'days' of creation were 24–hour days. God could not have communicated this meaning more clearly than He did in Genesis 1. The divine confirmation of this, if any is needed, is Exodus 20:9-11, where the same word 'days' is used throughout: “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, not thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED...
and this was about 6,000 years ago. If you want to begin a relationship with Jesus Christ, He will begin one with you. You will have a much greater understanding of His Word when you are actually walking with Him. Jesus said, “If you are not with Me, you are against Me.” If you are against Him, He will not be blessing you with insight into His Word. He died for you and me. He rose again, THREE DAYS LATER, for you and me. He wants to have an intimate, daily, close, personal relationship with you starting RIGHT NOW. This is how to start the relationship: (Ask, and you will receive) Dear Jesus,
I know that you died for me... I know that you rose 3 days later and are alive still. I may not understand it, but I believe it. Please help me to SEE what you want me to see. I know I need you in my heart, and my life. Please come in to me, forgive me of my sins, and wash me. Give me Your Free Gift of eternal life, and show me how you want me to live. I want to turn from this empty life, and live for you, and with you, forever. Thank you God, for saving me, through the blood of Jesus Christ.
Amen.
Current Mood: |
 hopeful | |
|
|
Lately, it's been a burden on my heart to find out for myself in Scripture whether the rapture of the church is pre-tribulation or post-tribulation. The church is extremely divided on this topic and seem to even get hostile about it. I've spent some time researching both sides of the coin. As of right now, I think it's pretty safe to say that I can rule out a pre-tribulation rapture, as scriptural support for this argument has too many holes and renders the argument weak. I'm leaning more towards post-tribulation, but still have some questions that need to be cleared up for me to rule out a mid-tribulation rapture. So, I am hoping I can get these questions answered... ( Mid or post trib rapture? )
Current Mood: |
 I'm determined to understand! | |
|
|
Published on www.tnjn.com on June 8, 2009 “His blood be on us, and on our children.” These chilling words are well known from the account of Jesus’ trial recorded in Matthew 27:25. Throughout history, they have been used (completely out of context) to justify horrendous persecution of Jews all around the world. In spite of the fact that an angry mob can hardly claim the authority to call down a curse upon an entire race of people, this gross distortion of the Scriptures has resulted in unspeakable atrocities which have cast a black shadow over the history of Christianity. To say that “THE Jews killed Jesus” is comparable to saying that “THE Caucasians killed Martin Luther King, Jr.” While it is true that Jesus’ crucifixion was the result of His conflict with the Jewish leadership of the day, the fact remains that Gentiles were just as much involved in Jesus’ death as were Jews. Keep in mind that the actual death sentence was passed down by a cowardly Roman governor, and carried out at the hands of Roman soldiers. Furthermore, we must never lose sight of the fact that Jesus Himself was Jewish, as were all of His original disciples. Both the Old and New Testaments (with the possible exception of Luke), were written by Jewish believers. In fact, for the first 70 years of its existence, Christianity was seen as a sect of Judaism known as "The Way." It was only after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans that the two faiths separated. The tensions grew as Christianity spread through Europe. Gradually, the impression of Jesus evolved from that of a Jewish figure to that of a Greco-Roman figure. The image of a rugged, Mediterranean carpenter was replaced by one of an effeminate blue-eyed blond. Consequentially, this new, Eurocentric Jesus was seen as having little regard for His own people, and His professed followers were happy to do likewise. Perhaps the most infamous examples of this are the venomous tirades of Martin Luther, who denounced Jewish people as “…(a) base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." It is also a matter of historic record that, in spite of his atrocities, Adolf Hitler was never formally excommunicated from the Catholic Church of his day. Even the universally revered Billy Graham was not above indulging in Jew-baiting, famously agreeing with then-president Richard Nixon’s conspiracies about Jews controlling the media. Thankfully, recent decades have seen much vital progress in Jewish-Christian relations. In 1965, the Second Vatican Council declared that “The Church decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone." This principle was seen in action during Pope Benedict XVI’s 2008 visit to New York City, where he became the first Pope in history to visit an American synagogue. Furthermore, Martin Luther’s modern followers have taken great care to distance themselves from their founder’s dark side. To this end, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has issued the following statement: “(W)hile, on the one hand, we are deeply indebted to Luther for his rediscovery and enunciation of the Gospel, on the other hand, we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther's negative statements about the Jewish people…" This is echoed by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, whose statement reads: “(W)e who bear (Luther’s) name and heritage must with pain acknowledge also Luther's anti-Judaic diatribes and the violent recommendations of his later writings against the Jews…We recognize in anti-Semitism a contradiction and an affront to the Gospel, a violation of our hope and calling, and we pledge this church to oppose the deadly working of such bigotry.” Philosopher Blaise Pascal was once asked by King Louis XIV about the primary evidence for the existence of God. Pascal’s response? “The Jews, your Majesty.“ Those of us who are Christians are called to honor the Jewish people as those “first entrusted with the Oracles of God" (Romans 3:2). To those of you who are Jewish, please forgive us for our failure to life up to this ideal. |
|
|
Published on http://tnjn.com/ May 27, 2009 "Fundamentalist" is a specifically Christian term. Consequentially, much modern usage in the media (i.e. attributing the 9-11 attacks to "Islamic Fundamentalists") is a severe misrepresentation of both faiths. In its purist form, Fundamentalism does not directly refer to any specific church, sect or political organization. Rather, it simply describes an inner-denominational movement tracing back to the early 20th century in which Christians responded to the challenges of modernity by codifying their most foundational beliefs. Eventually, these were cataloged in a four-volume set known as The Fundamentals: A Testimony of the Truth (an online version can be read here). Published in 1917, The Fundamentals provide a fascinating, if not somewhat paradoxical, look at the fledgling movement. While some aspects (such as the rather strident anti-Catholic overtones) may be offensive to some, other parts are quite enlightening. For example, in James Orr’s essay “Science and the Christian Faith,” he acknowledges that “there is no violence done to the (creation) narrative in substituting…vast cosmic periods — for "days" on our narrower, sun-measured scale.” These sentiments hardly fit the stereotypes of Fundamentalists in today’s world. The first known use of the term “Fundamentalist” was by religious journalist Curtis Lee Laws, who referred to “those who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal” in their defense. Unfortunately, since Fundamentalism did begin as a defensive movement, the resulting "Fightin’ Fundie" caricatures have often been very much deserved. On occasion, this has led to forays into anti-intellectualism (the Scopes "Monkey Trial" debacle) and in some cases, to outright bigotry (the shameful tactics of the "Reverend" Fred Phelps). This characterization is unfortunate. While it is true that the Fundamentalist label is relatively new, the ideals it represents are as old as the Christian faith itself. As theologian J.I. Packer observes: "Our critics suppose that that what they call 'Fundamentalism' is something as new as its name. But it is not. Nor was sixteenth-century Protestantism, nor seventeenth-century Puritanism, nor eighteenth-century Methodism. These names denote simply particular aspects and episodes of the continuing history of evangelical Christianity." At the core of Fundamentalism is a staunch belief in the message of the Scriptures. Fundamentalists believe in a God who has not only spoken, but has done so in a way that is reliable, understandable and practical. Is this simple faith? Yes, but it has been the historic position of the Christian church from its very beginning. In the words of Dallas Theological Seminary professor P.D. Feinberg: "Biblical inerrancy has been the view of the church throughout its history…(I)n each period of the church's history clear affirmations of the doctrine can be found." With this premise established, the other elements of the Fundamentalist world view are easier to understand. For example, to believe in the authority of the Bible is also to embrace the absolute truth it presents us with. This can be seen in what is perhaps the most visible picture of Fundamentalism, the arena of politics. But before we are too hasty in rejecting these concerns, we must note that in many issues, the Fundamentalists are actually proving to be ahead of their time. For example, given the advances of prenatal medical technology, it has become increasingly difficult to deny that an unborn child is truly a person. Why then is it considered so “extreme” to say that the child deserves legal protection? When we look at the horrendous impact of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, is the Christian sexual ethic (abstinence until marriage) really that unreasonable? Is it wise to cast science and faith as enemies when some of the greatest scientists in history (including Galileo, Copernicus, Keplar and many others) were Bible believers? These issues are not going away, and if our goal is to be a tolerant, understanding people, we must look past our stereotypes and see the real substance that is all too often overlooked. Failure to do so is a “fundamental” mistake. |
|
|
We started from a positive acceptance of the scientific data, or facts, on evolution, so we did not even consider a reading Genesis 1 with any fears for 'contradiction' with science. This approach is of course very different from making up our mind upfront, based on our (often primitive, and interpreted) understanding of the Biblical account. When our views need to change, it is not really science changing biblical views, but our own understanding of our environment that changes - and it changes all the time of course, because "times are changing" as the saying goes. In religion, some things never change - but that is particularly true for the high appreciation of the human being, less so for how we perceive the universe for instance. With this in mind, let us now look at Genesis 1, knowing that we should not treat the Bible as a scientific document. 
What kind of story is Genesis 1?The reading of Genesis 1 may impose a problem if you learned to read it as a literal report on how the creation actually happened, in stead of reading this as a report on more important aspects not covered by science. As we have seen in the former blogs, the Genesis 1 account reads like an allegory of some kind. Saying allegory is taking a shortcut, as Genesis 1 has also often been described as elevated prose, or a theological manifesto, and other descriptions. It is important however, to realize that allegory does not indicate it has no basis in reality. An allegory is not a fiction. Allegories always have a historical basis. Santa Claus is not an allegory. Most of the parables, a narrative style often used by Jesus, clearly had a historical basis. This was the way stories were often handed down in ancient times, for educational purpose. Still, there is history writing behind it in almost all cases (e.g. the naming of genealogy trees: those names were not just invented of course). You cannot exclude historical truth from an account just because the style of an ancient document was different from what we are used to. Accuracy may not always have been the prime purpose - for instance in Jewish genealogy trees we find gaps. That does not make the account untrue - it just makes it inaccurate on certain points (e.g. exact timing) from a modern viewpoint. The modern viewpoint does not allow unqualified judgments about ancient writings of course: all things must be judged against the background of the time of occurrence. So one may have to make corrections to get the timing right - but historians know how to do this. There's nothing that compares with a fantasy story here. Go here to read the complete blog. Feel free to comment on the blog (will never be deleted) or to comment in this group, as you like. It is my wish, not that all Christians accept all about evolution, but that Christians will, at the very least, understand that not all Christians have trouble with evolution. You cannot make christians see conflicts between science and religion if they don't see such a conflict. We have to be able to go on together, not let us be divided on mere 'insights'. If you think I'm stupid, that's fine - but should you reject me as your brother for that reason? That is my major goal with this blog series. 1 or 2 more to follow soon. |
|
|
...A question for those of Catholic/Orthodox persuasion here (or anyone else who wants to jump in). I was just recently exposed (reading Tertullian) to the concept of Traducianism. It's an interesting idea, and I wondered if someone more versed in the Church Fathers might be willing to summarize why the Church has traditionally favoried Creationism over Traducianism. It seems to me to explain some of the things in scripture that have not really set well with me. Thanks,
R |
|
|
A Direct Attack on our Church and Faith
Sunday, March 8th, 2009This past Thursday, March 5, the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor of East Haven, introduced a bill (#1098) that directly attacks the Roman Catholic Church and our Faith. This bill violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It forces a radical reorganization of the legal, financial, and administrative structure of our parishes. This is contrary to the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church because it disconnects parishes from their Pastors and their Bishop. Parishes would be run by boards from which Pastors and the Bishop would be effectively excluded. This bill, moreover, is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence the Catholic Church on the important issues of the day, such as same-sex marriage. The State has no right to interfere in the internal affairs and structure of the Catholic Church. This bill is directed only at the Catholic Church but could someday be forced on other denominations. The State has no business controlling religion. The Pastors of our Diocese are doing an exemplary job of sound stewardship and financial accountability, in full cooperation with their parishioners. For the State Legislature — which has not reversed a $1 billion deficit in this fiscal year — to try to manage the Catholic Church makes no sense. The Catholic Church not only lives within her means but stretches her resources to provide more social, charitable, and educational services than any other private institution in the State. This bill threatens those services at a time when the State is cutting services. The Catholic Church is needed now more than ever. We reject this irrational, unlawful, and bigoted bill that jeopardizes the religious liberty of our Church. It is up to us to stop this unbridled abuse of governmental power. It is time for us to defend our First Amendment rights. It is time for us to defend our Church! We need your support! For more information, to send a protest e-mail, and to learn more about the upcoming hearing in Hartford and how to attend, click here. I apologize in advance for cross-posting this. This hate filled abuse of governmental power has to be nipped in the bud. Please join with your church in Connecticut in opposing this legislation. If we stand by, we can only expect more of this to follow. |
|
|
In my previous blog article (Evolution is fun) we talked about the basic scientific idea behind evolution and why the theories must not be 'injected' into the Biblical account. Theories made up from a naturalistic viewpoint (as is traditionally the case with an atheist point of view) must also be separated from science, a domain Christians must not let hijack by atheists as has happened for far too long. Further on, unlike the atheistic interpretations of the data of evolution, we are interested in the scientific data as it is. Besides all this, we are also interested in the question how we can understand creation in view of evolution. But we first try to understand a little more about what the evolution concept of the human species is really about. We have to talk about Homo Sapiens, and a little bit about the Neanderthal as well. Scientific theory locates our ancestry in Africa. An African origin of mankind may appear to be contradicting with Christian faith, given that the garden of Eden leads us to what is now Iraq - not Africa. But are we talking about the same thing here? Given what we saw in the former blog, it is clearly justified to argue that the scientific outlook may not be the point where the Bible starts talking about Adam & Eve.
Summary of the blog post( Read more... )Link to the original, complete blog article (open to debate). |
|
|
Why is it that the Genesis 1 account makes so many believers feel like they should reject evolution? That is the key question in this article, and I will suggest to stop doing this. Do not instantly fear as if I would necessarily feel uncomfortable with the idea of creation. I believe in the creation as described in Genesis 1. Yet I think evolution is conform to what happened besides the Genesis 1 story. It is my wish that at the end of this series of blogs on creation and evolution, some Christians may become less scared about the whole evolution thing. And I don't mean less scared as in "I'm not scared! God is in control!!"... (which sounds to me like scared anyway). I mean less scared as in "I'm not scared because I see that there's no conflict between science and religion". We may need to rethink our understanding of some key issues. Basically, there can be no real reason to reject scientific data, nor should the idea of 'creation' be considered impossible just because a majority of scientists seems to think so. Some 40% of scientists believes in a God of some kind - that was not supposed to happen if creation would be such a foolish idea. In my opinion, the picture is not that bleak for Christians - not at all. Provided that we can at least see the difference between what was written in Genesis, and how it is interpreted by some, or many, of us. Science itself is on nobody's side. Science is a means of gathering data, categorizing this data, increase our knowledge about the world, the universe, and everything in it. Science is not a panacea against the diseases of mankind, or against religion, or against atheism. Science has its limits, and so has evolution, especially evolution as a theory. Read more...
|
|
|
(X-Posted Elsewhere)
It's that time of the year!
We go Christmas shopping. We go to parties and drink spiked egg nog (if we're old enough). We see our families. We celebrate and remember Jesus Christ's birth in Christmas Eve services around the world! It's debatably the happiest of time of year.
This jubilee is not shared by everyone. There are the lonely (including internationals) without families that we need to bring to our home celebrations; there are soldiers serving around the world that we need to support; and yes, there are slaves.
( Read more... ) |
|
|
...compatibility between science and the Biblical Record. I found this a most interesting Theory, though by no means the only one: Old Earth Creationist Theory |
|
|
Dear Friends,
As some of you already know, my neice, Stephanie Adcox, is being treated for severe eating disorders. You can read more about her at http://www.supportsteph.com/
Please keep Stephanie in your prayers, and please also pass this along to your churches and any prayer chains you are involved in.
Thanks,
James
|
|
|
The book of acts is where we need to be as a the body of Christ. The church needs to be powerful and full of life, not humdrumm, every day attitude of nothing being good enough. The spirit world is as real and more so than this world your in right now. The spirit world was here before, and will be here afterwards, when the sky is rolled up, and the seas are poured out. Dont except anything less than a supernatural church. There is that joke about the skateboader kid who gets saved and goes to church. Sits right in the front row, with his ripped jeans, and raggidy shirt. After the sermon the Pastor approaches the kid, and says "your welcome here, but next week I want you to pray to God about what you should wear." So next week he comes back to church wearing the same old smelly clothes, and after the sermon the pastor says, "did you pray about what clothes to wear," and the kid says, "I did, and God said he didnt know, he had never been to this Church." I think that is sad but true, God has not been to many Churches. Yes, they may be entertaining, and fun, and have lots of activity, but God is not present. God will be there when His speople are seeking His face. You must want God. He is a gentlemen and will not force you to come to Him. He could do many miracles so that everyone would believe. Great signs and wonders, but that is not His style. God wants His people to go after Him, and want Him. That is not too much to ask. People are just generally bound up in sin, and the effects of sin. It is hard to get out of hard places once you are put there. Unfortunatly, that is how we learn, and grow, in patience and faith. God is with us and will help us on our journey. Trust God, Praise the LORD, Amen! |
|
|
I am selling my Hillsong United Conference tickets, for August 22-23 in Houston, Texas. The rates on the website are getting high, but I'm willing to sell my two tickets for 150 altogether, and I won't charge you for shipping or anything like that. Please let me know if you're interested in attending the conference! Thanks,
♥Hali |
|
|
Dr. Ted Baehr http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71219 Quotes from the article: God calls us all to love our neighbor as ourselves, both Jew and Gentile. That entails helping ourselves and our neighbors get over intolerable destructive behavior, such as violence against the innocent, alcoholic stupors and perverting our children's innocent hearts and minds by frankly intervening and correcting such behavior in a manner that brings about significant change or repentance (see Leviticus 19:17,18). True love refuses to tolerate such evil. True love affirms life. True love gives. True love shares. True love does not tolerate evil or sinful behavior, including extra-marital lust. Lust, on the other hand, consumes. It takes without permission. And, it is never satisfied.
|
|
|
Psalm 101:3 says, "I will set no evil before my eyes. " One thing about becoming a better person is that it is only really possible with God. When it comes to negative thinking, and controlling yourself, you can only do it with God's help. The discipline that you have, together with the Spirit that God provides, is what makes a Christian! This requires that we control what we watch, read, and allow ourselves to meditate on. I mean God is a pretty deep guy, and when He says eye, he could also be talking about the inner eye. Phillipians 4:8 tells us to think on good things. Why, because our thoughts direct our words, and our actions. As we focus on the good, we find it easier to control the "dark side" of our personalities. The sinful, fallen nature is taken under control of the Holy Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit should be the dominant features in our attitudes. “But the Fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” Galatians 5:22-23 This is God's part, to give us what we dont have. As we remove the bad, we must allow God toreplace it with the good. I am sorry, but most people are not naturally kind and good, they must be trained to be that way. And only with God's guiding hand is it possible to achieve. This is the problem with self-help philosophy, and many religions, is that they try to make people better. Only God can make you better. You cant even make yourself better. You can only put God first and allow him to make you better. This is a tough concept, especially if your a go getter, but it is better to learn early to rely soley on God, than to try to do it yourself. This allows God to get the majority of the glory, and we can share it with Him, as we pratice our discipline. God wants to share Himself with us, it is a partnership, which is the amazing things about God, is that we get to rule and reign with Him in the new Millienia. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
apologetics