Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The New Simplified Bible.

Image via Wikipedia

 Here is a great post I just read. Dr. Mariottini has sounded an alert about a new online translation of the Bible - The New Simplified Bible. The problem? The translator says he made an honest translation free from the influence of any church or sect but you have complete mistranslations of  John 1:1 and John 1:18. These verses equate Jesus with God yet he translates them as saying Jesus is "god-like". I'm all for making easy to read translations of the Bible, but don't change what it says! I agree with Dr. Mariottini. I can't recommend this translation either. The translator is denying the deity of Christ and I know for a fact that the Greek is being mistranslated by him. It galls me that he has the audacity to say that he was not influenced by any church or sect.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The New Simplified Bible.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Character of the God of the Hebrew Bible

Dr. Mariottini has posted a post about a conference from back in September in which research was presented talking about the character of God as shown in the Hebrew Bible. This is important.  I would contend that that the character of God has not changed and is ultimately revealed to us through Jesus. The Old Testament tells us much about character of our Creator. Anyone who see the existence of evil as a challenge to the truth of God's existence or wants to know more about who God is...should see this post. There are links to videos of the conference on his blog too. I may do a review of the material on my own blog but I'm not sure yet. Thanks, Dr. Mariottini.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Character of the God of the Hebrew Bible

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Hypatia: A Woman of Renown

Image via Wikipedia

Dr. Claude Mariottini posted a link to great article about a figure of ancient history that few people have heard of. Her name was Hypatia and she was a lecturer, a philosopher, an astronomer, and a mathematician in a time when women were not allowed in those fields. Truth be told, there are few women in those fields even today.

Below is a video showing the trailer for a movie based on her life. Dr. Mariottini is right, this artivle is really great on Hypatia.





Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Hypatia: A Woman of Renown

Arminius' Works - NINTH CHAPTER OF ROMANS

Image via Wikipedia

 I've had a chance to examine a letter Arminius wrote to Gellius Snecanus about exegeting Romans 9. I admit that I'm impressed to how Arminus mind worked. He was much better at explaining Romans 9 then many people today. I found that I agreed with much of what he wrote in the letter. I see that I have greatly misjudged the man before reading his works. I think he nailed the main point of the chapter when he wrote:

I come to the subject itself. In the first place, the scope of the chapter is the same with that of the whole epistle: That the Gospel, not the law, is the power of God unto salvation, not to him that worketh, but to him that believeth, since, in the Gospel the righteousness of God is manifested in the obtainment of salvation by faith in Christ. This chapter performs its part, and indeed is peculiarly engaged in the support of that proposition. It defends the proposition against the objections of the Jews, who, with all their power endeavour to overturn it as hostile and destructive to their own views, and so defends it as to confirm its truth more and more, and, by refuting those objections, adds strength and stability to the foundation already laid, in that very divine word and purpose, which the Jews were strenuously wresting, in their own favour, to the overthrow of Paul's doctrine.

I find myself in total agreement, as I'm sure all Christians would. The disagreement comes in interpreting what Paul is saying is the reason why some people are lost and some people believe. Paul discusses this point in the context of  the fact that most Jews of his time (as well as now) reject Jesus as Messiah does not negate the fact that the Bible is true. It's at this point that I see Jacob Arminius takes the same tactic as some do today. Instead of seeing the examples given in the dynamics of Isaac vs Ishmael and Jacob vs Esau as being applicable to individuals, they are taken as types.

Here we must repeat what was said before, as a general remark, that Esau and Jacob are to be considered, not in themselves, but as types, and so that which is attributed to them, is to be accommodated to the antitypes, or rather to the things signified. Hence, also, the antitypes are to be considered, before a conclusion, similar to the former, can be deduced from them, to the refutation of the sentiment of the Jews and to the confirmation of that of the apostle. But what those antitypes are, may be gathered from the end or design which the apostle has added, in these words: "that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth." That is, God, in those words, "the elder shall serve the younger," addressed to Rebecca, "the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil," designed to indicate nothing else than that He had formed, in His own mind, from eternity, a purpose to communicate righteousness and salvation, not one which should embrace all the posterity of Abraham universally, but which should be according to election, by which He would distinguish between these and those, not considered simply in their own nature, as pure or corrupt, but in respect to the condition, by which righteousness and salvation were to be applied, as the apostle shows in the following words -- that this purpose, according to election, might stand not of works, but of him who calleth, in which words is contained a description of the antitypes, which had before been given in the phrases "children of the flesh" and "children of the promise." Here it is more clear, for the children of the flesh and those of the promise are, such, by their own peculiarity, defined by the apostle, in this passage, since the former are "of works," the latter of faith, by which obedience is rendered unto God, who "calleth." Therefore, the apostle says that the purpose of God, which is according to election, has reference to those who have faith in God who calleth, and who trust in Christ, not to those who seek salvation by the works of the law. The conclusion can be drawn from these things against the objection of the Jews in favour of the doctrine of the apostle concerning justification by faith, in this way: "If the word of God and His purpose is according to election, by which the former is rejected, and the latter accepted, then it follows, even if some of the Jews are rejected, yet that word and purpose is not in vain; rather indeed, if that purpose, which is according to election, should be said to embrace all without any election, it would be in vain; -- But this word and purpose is according to election; Therefore, even if some of the Jews should be rejected, yet that word and purpose does not, on that account, fail; it is, indeed, rather confirmed from that fact, because it is its nature to exclude some, as it is according to election, by which one is rejected and another accepted."

Romans 9 in its entirety makes the case that God chose Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau. Why? Not because of anything in them but because of God's sovereign choice. The point of Arminus letter seems to be on the fact that we are saved by faith not of works or who our biological father is - and I completely agree. I will need to spend more time in this library cache online to see if  I can find how Arminius answers the question of why those who believe believe and those who don't believe don't believe.

Arminius' Works - NINTH CHAPTER OF ROMANS

Firing Line 1997: a Creationism vs. Evolution Debate « Rationally Thinking Out Loud

 I came across a 4 way debate on Creationism vs Evolution December 19, 1997.

Resolved: Evolution Should Acknowledge Creation
Moderator: Michael Kinsley
The Debaters:

• Pro (creationist):
  
  
  • Mr. William F. Buckley
  • Mr. Philip Johnson (lawyer, author, Darwin On Trial)
  • Dr. Michael Behe (biochemist, author, Darwin’s Black Box)
  • Dr. David Berlinski (mathematician, author, The Deniable Darwin)
  
  
  
• Con (evolutionist):
• Mr. Barry Lynne (Americans for the Separation of Church and State)
• Ms. Eugenie Scott (Exec. Director, National Center for Science Education)
• Dr. Michael Ruse (philosopher)
• Dr. Kenneth Miller (biologist, author, reviewed Darwin’s Black Box)

1-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

2-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

3-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

4-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

5-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

6-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

7-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

8-8 Evolution -VS- Creationism

Firing Line 1997: a Creationism vs. Evolution Debate « Rationally Thinking Out Loud

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Babylonian Exile

Dr Claude Mariottini is doing a series on the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586 BC and how it affected Jewish history, life, and culture. It is a great read. I have the link to the first two parts below. The thing that stand out most to me is just like the prophets foretold that after their exile you no longer see idolatry as a problem among orthodox Jews. I mean they learned it so well, they were willing to die generations later when the Greeks tried to force them to worship idols.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Babylonian Exile

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Lonely Widow

John MacArthur on the "Lie of Evolution"

Image via Wikipedia

I found  a great article linked below. The author addresses an important question. The discussion is whether or not John MacArthur is being heavy handed in treating evolution as something that Christians should outright deny. I agree with the writer of this post that I don't know how old the earth is. The Bible does not tell us. Geology and Physics seemingly point to about 4.5 billion years. The Bible does not tells us that this is wrong. As someone trained in science and a Christian I must reject macro evolution for two reasons:

1. Scientific
Many scientist don't "drink-the-kool-aid" of  macro evolution. I think the most powerful argument is the fact that evolution cannot adequately explain how human consciousness evolved or how genetic mutations increased the amount of genetic data from one species to the next. 

2. Biblically
The debate over evolution  is not like the debate of geocentricism vs heliocentrisim of Galileo's time. The Church said the earth is center of the universe not the Bible. The Bible gives us plenty of information on God's character and we can talk about would our creator use evolution to create life on earth? I'm not saying that God could not have used evolution only asking does it make sense given what we know about how He has acted throughout time? Macro evolution is contingent on the idea that live evolved through natural selection where the members of the species most healthy - stronger - faster- survive to reproduce passing those traits to new generations. By defintion - God has circumvented this time and time again. Each and everyone of us are here because God actively and purposely changed circumstances. The truth is if God had not picked Abraham and his descendants to be his "special project" there would be no Jews today. We are all God's "special project" - a masterpiece that he has been putting together ever since he spoke and all of reality leaped into existence.

 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'   - Acts 17:24-28

John MacArthur on the “Lie of Evolution”

Posted using ShareThis

Romans 9 from Great Falls Conference

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I am always interested as to how people understand Romans 9. To date i have heard no better exegesis than the Way James White does it. I'd be really interested in hearings an exegesis from an Arminian viewpoint, because when I read Roman 9 I am forced to concur with James White.






Romans 9 from Great Falls Conference

He Lives: An apology for Apologetics

On his blog, David Heddle presents 7 great arguments in favor of Apologetics. These are great!

The late John Gerstner gave the following reasons for apologetics:

1. People who argue against arguments (That is, Christians who claim that apologetics are unseemly, reason is unreliable, and only unquestioning faith is virtuous) are, in fact, making arguments. They are using their heads to justify not using their heads. To provide reasons for not using reason is simply not very smart.

2. You will encounter those who will, as they should, ask why. You need a because that is more substantive than just because.

3. When sane people appear to be against reason, they actually are not. When Tertullian said he believed (in God) because it was absurd (as opposed to logical) he was in fact saying that it was logical that the ways of an infinite, Holy God should (by reason) appear absurd to fallen creatures.

4. If Christianity claims to be true, then it requires prove. If we only needed to claim truth, the Christianity would be established, as would Mormonism, Scientology, Islam, and all other religions. Proof is not just for the atheist, but also the believer. As Chillingsworth put it:

I am certain that God has given us our reason to discern between truth and falsehood, and he who makes no use of it, but believes things he knows not why, I say, it is by chance that he believes the truth and not by choice; and I cannot but fear that God will not accept the sacrifice of fools.

Even when we jettison reason in favor of experience, we are actually reasoning. The very primitive reason is this: I have had an experience, and that experience could only come from God. But this reasoning is very weak, and requires the listener to take the speaker’s word for it. The apologist who has only experience is in a position of extreme weakness, like the Moody Bible student who witnessed about Christ in her life to a University of Chicago professor. The scholar, through probing questions that she could not begin to answer, eventually had her doubting her own salvation. She was right and he was wrong, but she didn't know her apologetics. She had the proof but didn't know how to express it, and ultimately believed she didn't have it.

5. Christ proved He was who He claimed to be.

Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. (John 14:11)

But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." (Matt. 9:6)

Before healing the paralytic, Jesus forgave him of his sins, thus claiming His divinity. He then did not say: believe it or not. Rather he went on to prove His divinity by means that no rational person could deny.

6. The bible testifies to its own inspiration, but not through circular reasoning. The gospels have proven historically reliable, and they testify to a miracle working Jesus, miracles of which His enemies do not deny but rather attempt to attribute to Satan.

7. Through apologetics we demonstrate that the Creator is God, that God certifies His Son, that His Son certifies the Word, and that the Word certifies the gospel.

He Lives: An apology for Apologetics

Brennon's Thoughts: Arminianism = Council of Orange

I found a very interesting post about how Arminians see Pelagians. I agree with Brennon that there is no way the two can be literally equated. All Bible-believing Christians agree that a - every human being need salvation through Jesus to avoid going to hell and b - Grace from God is necessary to be saved. There are disagreements but I'm sure all Christians agree with these two points at least. I'd go further on to say that Grace is not just necessary but also sufficient. Pelagians historically assert that humans are so free that Jesus' sacrifice was unnecessary for our salvation. The point is that Pelagianism is definitely a heresy and I'm glad that historically Arminians repudiate it. I was prompted to write this post because Brennon's is so good.

Brennon's Thoughts: Arminianism = Council of Orange

Iron Sharpens Iron: ISI Is Off The Air

I just got some saddening news:

Dear Fans and Friends of Iron Sharpens Iron,

On November 2, 2009 Chris Arnzen found out that WNYG (the station hosting Iron Sharpens Iron) was sold. The station is currently off the air.

Please keep Chris and the show in your prayers, as he seeks a new station to continue the show.

If you've enjoyed Iron Sharpens Iron over the years, please take a few minutes to send Chris an e-mail and let him know that you're praying for him, and that you hope to hear the show back on the air soon: carnzen@optonline.net.

I'll be keeping the archives available, and I'll post updates as soon as they become available.

James Swan

xx

I'm saddened because I love the show. I think it feels a niche that is needed in society. However, I think that this may be an opportunity. Instead of radio, Why not turn Iron Sharpens Iron into a web cast?

Iron Sharpens Iron: ISI Is Off The Air

Ghosts, Demons, Ufos, Hell Do Exist!

I don't agree with all of this series. As a matter of fact I think some of the teachings in it are wrong. I don't think scripture supports the idea that the Nephilim were human/angel hybrids. I also think that film makers sensationalized a lot of it. I also have to take everything they said, not in the Bible, with a "grain of salt". For example, I think the existence of UFOs and Aliens are up for debate. I don't know the answer to that. However, I am cautiously leaning to the idea that UFO experiences are demonic manifestations if those experiences are true. I also don't think that ghosts are real in the idea that they are disembodied human spirits. I can find no Biblical examples of a human spirit returning after death to the living world and haunting the living. However, I do believe because of what the Bible teaches that demons are real and hell is real. I also liked how the videos do teach the truth that Jesus is the only way for salvation and to avoid going to hell.




part 1


part 2


part 3


part 4


part 5


part 6


part 7


part 8

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther's Paradox of the Hidden and Revealed God

James Swan wrote the following on his blog. You can find full post at the link below

Here's a follow-up Luther quote I've been meaning to get to related to my recent entries on Luther and Calvinism. As was pointed out in the recent ISI broadcast, Luther's paradox of the hidden / revealed God sheds much light on his views regarding predestination. Here, in the Bondage of the Will, Luther responds to the charge of Erasmus "Does the good Lord deplore the death of his people, which he himself works in them?”—for this really does seem absurd..."

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther's Paradox of the Hidden and Revealed God

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Is the Holy Spirit Identified as God?

Here is the next installment of Mariano's series evaluating whether or not the Bible teaches the Trinity. In this post, Mariano presents scripture showing that the Bible calls the Holy Spirit God! Check this out. It's a great post!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Is the Holy Spirit Identified as God?

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Hyksos, the Babylonians, and Egypt

Here is another great post from Dr Mariottini. He provides a great resource regarding the Hyksos. Apparently there is now apparent archaeological proof of contact between Mesopotamia and Hyksos controlled Egypt. This is big news. Take a look at the link.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Hyksos, the Babylonians, and Egypt

Atheism: Fulfilling Romans 1

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a video that James White had posted on his blog. His post is about how atheists like Dawkins are so blind they can't even see that they are blinded. This is direct fulfillment of Romans 1. Read Romans 1 and then try to deny that the Bible really is just as relevant today as it ever was.






Atheism: Fulfilling Romans 1

Welcome to BibleTech : 2010

Welcome to BibleTech : 2010

Truthbomb Apologetics: Featured Article: Why Isn't the Evidence Clearer? by Dr. John Bloom

I found this article on Truthbomb Apologetics in which Dr. John Bloom addresses the question "Why is the Evidence Clearer for the God of the Bible's existence?" It's an important question given the mantra by many unbelievers today is that there is not enough good evidence to convince them of God's existence. My two cents that I would like to add is that God has an answer to this question: Romans 1: 18-32

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Check out the link to the article below

Truthbomb Apologetics: Featured Article: Why Isn't the Evidence Clearer? by Dr. John Bloom

Atheism is Dead: Richard Dawkins’ Positive Atheism

Image via Wikipedia

 Here is a great resource from Mariano.  In this post he points out Richard Dawkins inconsistencies regrading to whether or not he believes there is no god period or just that there is no evidence. Sure wish he would make up his mind.

Atheism is Dead: Richard Dawkins’ Positive Atheism

Der Ewige Jude

The most infamous Nazi propaganda film of all time. Public domain. This film is intended for historical study purposes only.I nver thought I'd find it on the Internet!








Der Ewige Jude

Shared via AddThis