500 Years of Calvinism Conference

This looks like it may be a fun conference. Next Week. I'm not going on Sunday and we're celebrating my wife's birthday next weekend. But all those who would like to go here is the information.

http://www.covenantreformedchurch.org/

Shared via AddThis

Dan Barker Continues to Object

Image by Sam UL via Flickr

James White has written an open letter to Dan Barker (picture on the right). It really gives great insight into what Dr. White thought about the debate and after viewing the debate I agree with James White. Barker made all atheists look bad. He has no good arguments and just tries to justify his own rebellion again God. Sad, really. I do hope that they do have another debate concerning Barker's perceived contradictions in the Bible. I hope Barker behaves better this time.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3537

Shared via AddThis

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Jesus the Ape?

Just when you thought that secular culture could not insult Jesus and His atoning sacrifice for our sins, things like this happen. Claude Mariottini wrote the following summary:

Artist Paul Fryer’s latest work will cause much controversy. His work, “The Privilege of Dominion,” which is on display at the former Holy Trinity Church in Marylebone , is a crucifix, but instead on Christ on the cross, the cross bears the life-like body of a gorilla.

The purpose of the display is to “highlight [the] plight of the Western Lowland Gorillas, and to challenge the Christian notion that animals do not have souls.”

 I agree we should save gorillas, but an ape did not die for my sin. It was my sin that put Jesus on that cross. It was the sin of killing and mistreating apes that Jesus died. I don't see how the crucifix can call attention to the idea that animals have souls. The work is completely an attack on Christianity.


Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Jesus the Ape?

R.C. Sproul is coming to the Bay Area!

Dr. R.C. Sproul THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5TH, 2009 R.C. Sproul is the founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries and author of over 60 books and countless articles. Currently the Senior Minister of Saint Andrews Chapel in Florida, he is best known for his writings on the history of philosophy, theology, Bible study, apologetics, intelligent design, and Christian living. Dr. Sproul's radio ministry, Renewing Your Mind (heard weekdays at 6 A.M. on AM 1100 KFAX), is committed to helping transform Christian's lives with the Word of God. Tickets: $12.00

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - Louisiana Judge Says No to Marriage License for Interracial Couple

It is amazing that in 2009 such as a thing as this can still happen. It is even more amazing that there is finally something that I can agree on with the ACLU.

Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, said he believed that interracial marriages didn't last that long and that was among his grounds for denying couple Beth Humphrey, 30, and Terence McKay, 32, a marriage license. The couple is said to be considering legal action.

From MSNBC:

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."

If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

"I try to treat everyone equa
lly," he said.

I can't believe that we are even talking about "bi-racial" anything these days. The truth is that all African-Americans are not purely African. I bet everyone of us are mixed up with African, Native American, and European descent. I'm certain of that. You can't go by skin color. My father is darker than I am but one of his granfathers was a mulatto.

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - Louisiana Judge Says No to Marriage License for Interracial Couple

Shared via AddThis

Truthbomb Apologetics: Featured Resource: Arguments Creationists Should Not Use

Over on his blog Truth Bomb Apologetics, Chad has posed a link to Creation Ministries International. They have a wonderful resources: FAQ, Quotable Quotes, Bad Arguments, and the work of scientists who believe God created the heavens and the earth. This is an awesome resource.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Featured Resource: Arguments Creationists Should Not Use

Rape-Nuts - No Way this Good.

On Jon Stewart's show he reports on the evil that our government is doing. And after you watch this if you not sure if you can believe this, I can substantiate the story. Rape case to force US defence firms into the open
Al Franken's picture is on the left.

Al Franken proposes getting rid of the old "it's OK if you get raped" clause in government contracts, but 30 Republicans object.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rape-Nuts
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - This Thing Is Not Like the Other: Mormons and

 I saw a great article on the Snob Blog about how the Mormons are trying to jump on "we are being persecuted just like black people who fought for Civil Rights" bandwagon. I don't see same-sex marriage as a civil right, but I must agree that I'm offended that both Mormon, with who I agree with about not changing the definition of "marriage" beyond the definition of heterosexual couples, and gay movement itself equating their struggles with those in the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights movement was fought against the Mormon church as well as other racist institutions. Anyone else remember that black people used to not be able to Mormons, not that I wanna join. I totally disagree with their theology concerning God's nature, Jesus, and exactly what the atonement is on Biblical basis. It's mind-boggling to me now that Mormons want to identify with black people now when they used to teach we have tails and were not as good as white people. Curiouser and Curiouser! Remember many (not all Mormons) had more in common with the people standing around the tree than those in it, until the mid-1960s.

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - This Thing Is Not Like the Other: Mormons and "Southern Blacks"

Shared via AddThis

Truthbomb Apologetics: Featured Article: The Plight of the New Atheism- A Critique by Dr. Gary Habermas

 On his blog, Chad, has posted a link to an essay by Dr. Gary Habermas who describes the problems with the "New Atheism" who proponents include Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins

Truthbomb Apologetics: Featured Article: The Plight of the New Atheism- A Critique by Dr. Gary Habermas

John Calvin Quiz

More about John Calvin at Calvin 500In celebrating the 500th birthday of John Calvin, one of the greatest theologians ever, there is a website I learned about from James White's blog called called Calvin 500. Dr White I think scored a perfect score. I however, only got 5 out of 10. I have to give them credit, it was not an easy quiz. In order to do well you have had to spent time digging into Calvin's life and background and I haven't.  My Score is on the left. Click on it to try it yourself!




However I did 100% at SaveOptimus!

Barack Obama's Anti-Christian Dream for the US

 I wrote a post about Obama's speech concerning gay rights last night and mentioned  James White's podcast from yesterday. Dr. White has posted about that podcast and even posts links to them. Here is what he had to say:

I went through Barack Obama's speech/sermon to a radical homosexual organization on Saturday on the DL today, demonstrating that Obama's dream for the US is for a nation without Christian morals or guidance. I didn't bother leaving my seat when it was over, for I then did the next hour on Iron Sharpens Iron with Chris Arnzen on the same subject. Here's the DL program. See here for the ISI program.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3554

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Was Moses a Bigamist?

Image via Wikipedia

 In three words: I don't think so. I found this post on Dr. Mariotini's blog extremely interesting for several reasons. I had no idea that people questioned if Moses had more than one wife. I just always thought that the woman mention in Numbers 12 as an Ethiopian (Cushite) was Zipporah. It never dwaned on me that it could be another woman. I also found interesting the extended quote from Josephus about Moses fighting a war, leading an Egyptian army, in Ethiopia. This story is used in the Ten Commandments movie staring Charleton Heston. I had always wondered where that idea came from.I've never read all of Josephus because the translation is relaly hard to wade through....kind of like chewing glass - at least the translation I own. In point of fact if Moses was married to more than one woman, while multiple of them was still living it doesn't mean than polygamy is okay nor that Moses is any less a friend and servant of God. (Moses, David, and Jacob had multiple wives). I'm sure they would tell you, if you could ask them in Heaven, they'd tell you not to do it.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Was Moses a Bigamist?

Why Richard Dawkins Does Not Debate Anymore

I have heard John Lennox (picture on the left) debate Richard Dawkins twice and I've come to the conclusion that Lennox is the reason why Dawkins does not debate anymore. He lost both of them and was caught completely unaware of Lennox's arguments. Lennox is definitely one who can debate Dawkins on his own ground using science. I also found myself in agreement with Lennox' theology. And  he debated with class. He was awesome so awesome that I think Dawkins is now "gun shy". He can't interact with anyone capable of truly challenging him and deep down he knows it. Dan Barker on the other hand does not mind appearing foolish and that is why he debates everyone. Dawkins, however has an ego and standards. I must reiterate that Dawkins should put up or shut up. Let everyone put their best arguments out in public, moderated debate and see who's positions are the most tenable. So far Dawkins is like the proverbial kid, with his index fingers stuck in his ears yelling "LA LA LA LA! I Can't Hear You!" This is what it's like when you write books, give lectures, and produce videos and documentaries against other world views and then refuse to interact with them. Cowardly.

Here are links to the debates on my blog
Richard Dawkins and John Lennox: Has Science Buried God? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315
Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox Debate the Existence of God

The Snob Blog - Don't Ask, But Do Tell (On How To End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell")

 On Tuesday, James White dealt with the same issue of President's Obama speech regarding gay rights in the military and in civilian rights. As a Christian, I'm concerned that our President is not upholding Biblical Christianity. We know that the world is changing and so is what our society considers good and not good. Unfortunately, we are moving further and further away from God. It bothers me that people consider that the social reforms of  abolition of  slavery of the Nineteenth century, and the Civil Rights and Womens' movements of the twentieth century show growth away from the Bible when in truth that was an example of society embracing what the Bible teaches while the secularization and acceptance of homosexuality marks rebellion against God.  Obama said:

You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman. (Applause.) --- President Barack Obama, October 10, 2009

While the Bible says:

The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men. (Psalm 12:8, God)

The truth is as long as we continue to rebel and thumb our noses at God's laws we will continue to have problems with our society. You can see the speech here:








 
Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - Don't Ask, But Do Tell (On How To End "Don't Ask Don't Tell)

Shared via AddThis

It's Okay, If Muhammad Did It

Muhammad is held up by Muslims as a paragon of virtue. Someone that people should emulate. The question people have been asking is: Was Muhammad a pedophile? Many Muslims say "No!" But some Muslims like Hamas believe that Muhammad married a child and consummated the relationship. They believe it so much that 450 Palestinian men married 450 prepubescent girls in a public celebration. Why do they feel justified in carrying out such a thing?

“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).” (Bukhari 7.62.88)”

Still think Islam is a good thing?

Gaza: Hamas weds 450 child brides in mass wedding *Video added*

Hamas Sponsors Mass Child Bride Wedding of “Palestinian” Children?

Interview with Milo Ventimiglia and Masi Oka - Outside the Box

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

 Here is an interview with Milo Ventimiglia who plays Peter Pettelli and Masi Oka who plays Hiro. Link is below


Interview with Milo Ventimiglia and Masi Oka - Outside the Box


Shared via AddThis

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Verb bara’: To Create or to Separate?

I have found a very interesting post on Dr. Claude Mariottini's website pointing to Dr. Ellen Van Wolde's (her picture is on the right) contention that Genesis 1:1 was incorrectly translated. Here is how Genesis 1:1 is rendered in English

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Here is how Wolde thinks it should be changed:

"in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth"

Her reason for changing it is that she disagrees with the traditional understanding of the word "bara". According to a newspaper article, James White pointed to on his blog, she argues that:

.... the beginning of the Bible was not the beginning of time, but the beginning of a narration.

She said: "It meant to say that God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself."

She writes in her thesis that the new translation fits in with ancient texts.

According to them there used to be an enormous body of water in which monsters were living, covered in darkness, she said.

She said technically "bara" does mean "create" but added: "Something was wrong with the verb.

"God was the subject (God created), followed by two or more objects. Why did God not create just one thing or animal, but always more?"

She concluded that God did not create, he separated: the Earth from the Heaven, the land from the sea, the sea monsters from the birds and the swarming at the ground.

"There was already water," she said.

"There were sea monsters. God did create some things, but not the Heaven and Earth. The usual idea of creating-out-of-nothing, creatio ex nihilo, is a big misunderstanding."

See problem? If this article is correct she is practicing eisogesis and reading foreign cultures and ideas into the text that was never meant to be there. Genesis 1:1 refers to the beginning of time and the universe but no details are given. Verse 2 tells us what happens on the earth. Saying that the Bible is actually saying the same thing as the other Mesopotamian creation stories ignores the fact that the rest of Bible clearly refutes the idea of other deities.

This is what the LORD says:
       "The products of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush, ^[b]
       and those tall Sabeans—
       they will come over to you
       and will be yours;
       they will trudge behind you,
       coming over to you in chains.
       They will bow down before you
       and plead with you, saying,
       'Surely God is with you, and there is no other;
       there is no other god.' " - Isaiah 45:14

Some people do not see this as a problem, but I do. Everything follows from Genesis 1:1. If you can accept Genesis 1:1 then everything else in the Bible is possible. and necessarily follows. Wolde's thesis brings up lots of questions. If God did not make the earth, how did it get here? Was it always here? We know that it wasn't always here from current findings in Physics - and that left to itself it will end. Also if you were going to argue that the Genesis account was borrowed from other ancient sources that seem similar like the Sumerian version, why would Moses' version not seem more Egyptian? I would think that Egypt would have had a far greater influence than the Sumerians on Hebrew thought and culture had Moses just been making something up. However, we don't see that.

There is so much pressure in academia to produce something new, that I think Wolde has fallen into that trap. Many heresies start out this way: saying God did not say something that He really did say. This is the trick Eve fell for in the Garden of Evil. We must obey and trust in the word of God. We can show that "bara" really mesans what Jews and Christians  have believed for thousands of years. Could God created everything in the heavens (the universe)  and not created the earth? If he only arranged the matter on the earth, what about the rest of the universe? Sorry, her thesis doesn't make since.


Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Verb bara’: To Create or to Separate?
Dr James  White - Stunningly Silly

Richard Dawkins - Coward

It's interesting to me that no one who can stand-up to Richard Dawkins on his own terms is being allowed to debate him in the public square? Why?  Is it because he has no peers who disagree with him? No. It's because he refuses to debate them. Chad over at Truthbomb Apologetics and Mariano at Atheism is Dead have written great articles with great background information on the fact that Richard Dawkins has refused to debate Dr. Stephen Meyer on the grounds that he doesn't debate creationists. I can't stand that. His attitude seems to be that anyone who believes that God created everything could not possibly  understand science as well as he does. I wanted to add to what Mariano and Chad have published.

Mariano concentrated on how Meyer would be a great foil to Dawkins and gives proof by talking about Meyer's most recent book on the design of the cell. Chad provided a transcript of Dawkins appearance on Michael Medved's show where he basically says that neither Intelligent Design or Creationism have enough respectability for him to debate. That floored me. He has made a career denying their ideas, yet refuses to interact with them directly. I think it's because he knows he can't win.

My addition to this is that although I disagree with much of what Bill O'Reilly thinks but one saving grace is that he disagrees with Richard Dawkins! Here is video I found on video.






O'Reilly has bad theology but at least he stands up to Dawkins.

Will Richard Dawkins Debate Stephen Meyer?
Richard Dawkins turns down Dr. Stephen Meyer's debate Challenge

How To Prove The Immaculate Conception Without Biblical Proof

Here is the link to an article by James Swan. It is about the Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary was immaculately conceived and therefore did not have original sin. He does a great job presenting the Roman Catholic arguments and then refutes it.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3531

Shared via AddThis

Recent Text Critical Innovations

Image via Wikipedia

Alan Kurschner has posted an article running down new software tools to make evaluating New Testament Greek texts more easily than ever before. Here is what he wrote:

Everyday we are introduced to new applications of technology in many scholarly fields. But I cannot become blasé about the recent technological innovations in text critical studies. The most well-known innovation is the Codex Sinaiticus project. Just last year one had to travel to four different libraries around the world just to view different parts of the manuscript. Now you can not only view it from the comfort of your home—for free!—but you can utilize its search and transcription features.

Then there is The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. Daniel Wallace is the Executive Director, and their primary mission is to make "digital photographs of extant Greek New Testament manuscripts so that such images can be preserved, duplicated without deterioration, and accessed by scholars doing textual research."

Another is the New Testament Virtual Manuscript Room. Its web-based search and collation features are unprecedented. Previous generations of text critical scholars were limited to libraries that only carried big, expensive text-critical books—in other words, before the real textual critical analysis could even begin, there were the logistics of accessing the material to work with. Not that every text-critical datum is at our finger tips right now, but we are witnessing the vanguard to this goal.

The latest innovation is by Daniel Wallace, which is a Textual Critical Chart Time Saver. I can envision this program becoming a very sophisticated tool in the near future when they add more textual data such as dates, character, and more manuscripts. A program that converts textual data into chart format is amazing, since we all take the time to do it now either in our head or on paper when working on a particular variant.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3545

Shared via AddThis

Father Alberto's wife talks about their scandal

 I wrote about this story before.  A famous Catholic priest was caught a few months ago on a date, kissing his girlfriend in public. The truth is the media is reporting that Father Alberto Cutié broke his vow of celibacy but I have never heard him say that. What is news to me now is that he has married this woman and he is now serving in the Episcopal church. This article I have linked has excerpts from an interview with the woman, named Ruhama Canellis. I agree that forbidding priests to marry is unbiblical and not right. However the Anglican church is accepting homosexuality which is also unbiblical. She said in the article that people should read their Bibles, but you can't just point a finger at the Catholic church and accuse them of heresy while practicing it yourself. I wish the couple only the best, but all Christians should follow the Bible and not cherry-pick what they will and will not follow.

Father Alberto's wife talks about their scandal

Shared via AddThis

An Exegesis of 1 Timothy 4:10 "...who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Alan Kurschner has written a great article on 1 Timothy 4:10.  It is often used as a proof text for Arminians who believe that Jesus died for every single human being  and a person is lost only by the exercise of their free will in rejecting Jesus. Calvinists believe that Jesus died only for those people who have been chosen to belong to God.  The scripture reads:

“For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” (1 Tim 4:10).

I've had a problem with this verse for years now because it seems to say that Jesus is the savior of all  people, not the elect. Both sides have offered various interpretations. One thing I am sure of is that it is not teaching that every person is saved regardless of what they believe. I have thought about it and realized the problem was is that it may seem to be saying that those who believe are a subset of those who Jesus is the savior of. Until now, I just thought it was saying that Jesus is the savior of all people because it is only through him we can be saved. I'm just not happy with that interpretation. Something is missing.

 Instead, I really like the exegesis Alan goes through in his post. He advances an interpretation that I have never seen before. He suggests that the verse has been mistranslated. He wrote:

The term for "especially" is malista. George W. Knight III argues that this term here should be rendered, "that is," thereby functioning as an explanation or further clarification of the preceding statement. The translation would be as follows: "who is the Savior of all people, that is, of those who believe." So this interpretation does not view "those who believe" as a subset of "all people"; instead, "those who believe" identifies who the "all people" are.

I think this is viable and would fit with the rest of scripture. Only those who believe are saved.





http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3523

Shared via AddThis