THE HOUSE OF CARDS RELIGION
Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
One well-known pastor has recently stated that, if we ask our young people to believe something, because “The Bible tells me so”, then we are creating a house of cards religion. What happens, he asks, when they go to college and find that the walls of Jericho did not really come down, or that what they have been told about the world being created in 6 days is at odds with the fact that the universe is 14.7 billion years old?
There are many teachers today, who state that they believe every word of Genesis as fact, but that it doesn’t mean what you think it means, and you can’t understand it without knowing what these clever new teachers have written about it.
Such utterances betray a lack of trust in the Bible – a feeling that we cannot trust the truth of the Bible on its own merits, without finding external evidence to prop it up.
The truth is that evidence does not speak for itself. Evidence is always interpreted, according to a person’s worldview. What we should be saying to our young people – and our older people – is that you can trust the Bible, and give them the tools to handle it correctly. Let’s have less fear of what the world says, and more confidence that, when God spoke through Scripture, He did not make a mistake, so we should submit to what He has said through His Word.
Thank You that Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. Amen.
Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
One well-known pastor has recently stated that, if we ask our young people to believe something, because “The Bible tells me so”, then we are creating a house of cards religion. What happens, he asks, when they go to college and find that the walls of Jericho did not really come down, or that what they have been told about the world being created in 6 days is at odds with the fact that the universe is 14.7 billion years old?
There are many teachers today, who state that they believe every word of Genesis as fact, but that it doesn’t mean what you think it means, and you can’t understand it without knowing what these clever new teachers have written about it.
Such utterances betray a lack of trust in the Bible – a feeling that we cannot trust the truth of the Bible on its own merits, without finding external evidence to prop it up.
The truth is that evidence does not speak for itself. Evidence is always interpreted, according to a person’s worldview. What we should be saying to our young people – and our older people – is that you can trust the Bible, and give them the tools to handle it correctly. Let’s have less fear of what the world says, and more confidence that, when God spoke through Scripture, He did not make a mistake, so we should submit to what He has said through His Word.
Thank You that Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. Amen.
CAIN’S SACRIFICE
Genesis 4:4b-5a
And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.
Why did God accept Abel’s offering, but not Cain’s? As a child, I just couldn’t get it. They both brought offerings to God. Why did God show such favoritism?
I was told by teachers at elementary school that we should do the best we could for God. God deserves the best. But didn’t Cain bring to God the very best of his crops?
When I became a Christian, somebody told me that God must have seen that Cain had a mean spirit, while Abel trusted God. One day, it dawned on me that the answer must be more obvious than that, and must be clearly visible in the text, in order for us to learn something from it.
Cain’s parents had made themselves clothes of fig leaves, in order to cover their own guilt. But this did not make them right with God. Instead, God gave them clothes of skin, which must have involved the death of an animal.
Abel’s offering involved the death of an animal. Blood was shed, to cover sin. Cain’s offering was not a sacrifice. He offered the best that he could do. But the Bible tells us that the best we can offer is as a “polluted garment” (Isaiah 64:6).
Cain didn’t get it, either. Arrogantly, he assumed that God should have been pleased with the best he could offer. But without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.
Forgive me, Lord, for my times of arrogance, when I have thought I could do things my way. Please help me to seek Your way, instead of mine. Amen.
Genesis 4:4b-5a
And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.
Why did God accept Abel’s offering, but not Cain’s? As a child, I just couldn’t get it. They both brought offerings to God. Why did God show such favoritism?
I was told by teachers at elementary school that we should do the best we could for God. God deserves the best. But didn’t Cain bring to God the very best of his crops?
When I became a Christian, somebody told me that God must have seen that Cain had a mean spirit, while Abel trusted God. One day, it dawned on me that the answer must be more obvious than that, and must be clearly visible in the text, in order for us to learn something from it.
Cain’s parents had made themselves clothes of fig leaves, in order to cover their own guilt. But this did not make them right with God. Instead, God gave them clothes of skin, which must have involved the death of an animal.
Abel’s offering involved the death of an animal. Blood was shed, to cover sin. Cain’s offering was not a sacrifice. He offered the best that he could do. But the Bible tells us that the best we can offer is as a “polluted garment” (Isaiah 64:6).
Cain didn’t get it, either. Arrogantly, he assumed that God should have been pleased with the best he could offer. But without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.
Forgive me, Lord, for my times of arrogance, when I have thought I could do things my way. Please help me to seek Your way, instead of mine. Amen.
A DELAY IN ORIGINS
Proverbs 9:10a
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Why did Charles Darwin take so long to publish his Origin of Species? His Beagle journal was published in 1839, but Origins was published 20 years later, in 1859. And why was Darwin in such a hurry in 1858 to get his book finished and published? A book by Roy Davies, entitled The Darwin Conspiracy, suggests that Darwin was guilty of plagiarism.
On June 18th 1858, Darwin received a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace, who was collecting specimens in what is now Indonesia. Wallace’s letter outlined his idea on the transmutation of species. It turned out to be the same as Darwin’s idea, which he had outlined in a letter to his friend Joseph Hooker on June 10th. But Davies claims that Wallace’s other letters to his family were received on June 3rd – seven days BEFORE Darwin wrote Hooker.
If Davies is correct, Darwin plagiarized Wallace’s theory. Although he was notionally a member of the Church of England, Darwin was, in fact, an atheist, like his father. Wallace was a spiritualist, who claimed he had received his theory in a trance, while suffering from delirium. Could it be that the Origin of Species was a demonically inspired concept, delivered through the medium of Wallace, then stolen by the atheist Darwin? Whether or not this version of events is correct, evolution has served anti-Christian forces well, in persuading them that the Bible is not to be believed. We, on the other hand, trust God’s Word over the words of men – especially those influenced by darker forces.
As the heavens are higher than the earth, so Your ways are higher than mine, Lord. Amen.
Proverbs 9:10a
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Why did Charles Darwin take so long to publish his Origin of Species? His Beagle journal was published in 1839, but Origins was published 20 years later, in 1859. And why was Darwin in such a hurry in 1858 to get his book finished and published? A book by Roy Davies, entitled The Darwin Conspiracy, suggests that Darwin was guilty of plagiarism.
On June 18th 1858, Darwin received a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace, who was collecting specimens in what is now Indonesia. Wallace’s letter outlined his idea on the transmutation of species. It turned out to be the same as Darwin’s idea, which he had outlined in a letter to his friend Joseph Hooker on June 10th. But Davies claims that Wallace’s other letters to his family were received on June 3rd – seven days BEFORE Darwin wrote Hooker.
If Davies is correct, Darwin plagiarized Wallace’s theory. Although he was notionally a member of the Church of England, Darwin was, in fact, an atheist, like his father. Wallace was a spiritualist, who claimed he had received his theory in a trance, while suffering from delirium. Could it be that the Origin of Species was a demonically inspired concept, delivered through the medium of Wallace, then stolen by the atheist Darwin? Whether or not this version of events is correct, evolution has served anti-Christian forces well, in persuading them that the Bible is not to be believed. We, on the other hand, trust God’s Word over the words of men – especially those influenced by darker forces.
As the heavens are higher than the earth, so Your ways are higher than mine, Lord. Amen.
WORDS OF BIAS
Genesis 1:21a
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind.
We are used to evolutionists getting certain aspects of science wrong. But sometimes we are not aware of how words and phrases of bias can be slipped through unnoticed.
In an article in Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper, a science journalist began as follows: “By duplicating itself two and a half million years ago, the gene could have given early human brains the power of speech and invention, leaving cousins such as chimpanzees behind.”
Without any justification, this supposed science article has identified chimps as “cousins” of human beings. This creates a circular argument, because evolution is being assumed as a fact, before any supposed evidence for it is offered.
London’s Natural History Museum contains a display, which is meant to prove the evolution of the whale from land dwelling creatures called mesonychids. Three fossil skulls show the gradual change in appearance of successive animals’ heads. Yet they are not arranged in order of age – even by evolutionary, long-age standards. The second fossil is older than the first, according to dating methods, so the arrangement of the display is an illusion. The fossils have been arranged according to their alleged evolution, so the truth of evolution is assumed. The resulting display is then offered as evidence for evolution. Once again, this is circular reasoning. God’s word tells us that whales, created on day 5, could not have evolved from land animals, created a day later.
Thank You for the truth of Your Word, Lord. It is always true, and I pray that I will follow it always. Amen.
Collins, N. (2012), Gene which sparked human brain leap identified, (Daily Telegraph), < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/9244310/Gene-which-sparked-human-brain-leap-identified.html >, quoted in Taylor, P.F. (2015), Where Birds Eat Horses, (Toutle, WA: J6D Publications), p. 77.
Genesis 1:21a
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind.
We are used to evolutionists getting certain aspects of science wrong. But sometimes we are not aware of how words and phrases of bias can be slipped through unnoticed.
In an article in Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper, a science journalist began as follows: “By duplicating itself two and a half million years ago, the gene could have given early human brains the power of speech and invention, leaving cousins such as chimpanzees behind.”
Without any justification, this supposed science article has identified chimps as “cousins” of human beings. This creates a circular argument, because evolution is being assumed as a fact, before any supposed evidence for it is offered.
London’s Natural History Museum contains a display, which is meant to prove the evolution of the whale from land dwelling creatures called mesonychids. Three fossil skulls show the gradual change in appearance of successive animals’ heads. Yet they are not arranged in order of age – even by evolutionary, long-age standards. The second fossil is older than the first, according to dating methods, so the arrangement of the display is an illusion. The fossils have been arranged according to their alleged evolution, so the truth of evolution is assumed. The resulting display is then offered as evidence for evolution. Once again, this is circular reasoning. God’s word tells us that whales, created on day 5, could not have evolved from land animals, created a day later.
Thank You for the truth of Your Word, Lord. It is always true, and I pray that I will follow it always. Amen.
Collins, N. (2012), Gene which sparked human brain leap identified, (Daily Telegraph), < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/9244310/Gene-which-sparked-human-brain-leap-identified.html >, quoted in Taylor, P.F. (2015), Where Birds Eat Horses, (Toutle, WA: J6D Publications), p. 77.
WHEN IS A DAY A DAY?
Exodus 20:11a
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:
When is a day a day? And when is a day not a day? Are the days really 24 hours long? Let’s look at that well-known Bible passage that tells you about the first day, second day and so on. I am referring to Numbers 7.
What do you mean, you haven’t read Numbers 7 recently? It’s that exciting passage, when all the tribes of Israel brought their gifts for the Tabernacle to Moses. The tribe of Judah brought their gift on the first day. On the second day, it was the turn of Issachar. Zebulon came on the third day, and so on. Twelve tribes, twelve days. But a day with the Lord is like a thousand years! So poor old Moses must have sat there waiting for these tribes for 12,000 years!
I think you understand my point. The 12 days of Numbers 7 are obviously 12 literal 24-hour days, because the use of ordinal numbers only makes sense, if that were so. Yet the grammar and syntax of Numbers 7 is the same as that of Genesis 1. If you want to interpret Genesis 1 figuratively, then you ought to interpret Numbers 7 figuratively, and Moses had to wait thousands of years. But if you want to read Numbers 7 literally, as it is written, then you should read Genesis 1 the same. The days of Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days.
Thank You that You made this world exactly as You said You made it, because Your Word is trustworthy and true. Amen.
Exodus 20:11a
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:
When is a day a day? And when is a day not a day? Are the days really 24 hours long? Let’s look at that well-known Bible passage that tells you about the first day, second day and so on. I am referring to Numbers 7.
What do you mean, you haven’t read Numbers 7 recently? It’s that exciting passage, when all the tribes of Israel brought their gifts for the Tabernacle to Moses. The tribe of Judah brought their gift on the first day. On the second day, it was the turn of Issachar. Zebulon came on the third day, and so on. Twelve tribes, twelve days. But a day with the Lord is like a thousand years! So poor old Moses must have sat there waiting for these tribes for 12,000 years!
I think you understand my point. The 12 days of Numbers 7 are obviously 12 literal 24-hour days, because the use of ordinal numbers only makes sense, if that were so. Yet the grammar and syntax of Numbers 7 is the same as that of Genesis 1. If you want to interpret Genesis 1 figuratively, then you ought to interpret Numbers 7 figuratively, and Moses had to wait thousands of years. But if you want to read Numbers 7 literally, as it is written, then you should read Genesis 1 the same. The days of Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days.
Thank You that You made this world exactly as You said You made it, because Your Word is trustworthy and true. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment