FacePalm of the Day #43 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: The Demise of the Trinity

I think it's important to listen to views that oppose your own and consider their validity as much as you can. It's important to check to see if what you think is true is true or not.  It is important to not let traditions get in the way of finding the truth.  When I saw this video posted on thegrandverbalizer's blog, I resisted the facepalm that I knew was coming because maybe the man in the video might have convincing evidence that might show me my understanding of God is all wrong. Maybe he'd be able to demonstrate that there is no way Jesus could be God. Then I watched the video, It does nothing to challenge the Trinitarian understanding of God.  However the man in the video is right that if the Trinity is not true we should not teach it or believe it. The problem is he didn't show that it was false. Muslims and Atheists not believing it is no big deal  because they reject the cores of Christianity anyway. No surprise there.  I find it interesting that someone can claim to be a Christian and not explain why they think it is wrong. To be fair, maybe the point of the video was not to show that the Trinity is not real but instead to explain what it means because it's not true. However, the man seems to just assume that the Trinity is not true and build his video on that claim.  Thegrandverbalizer seems to think that this is enough to just throw away the doctrine and not believe it.  I would tell people to not be so fast in that conclusion. What evidence does the man in the video have that the Trinity is not true? Does he accept the Bible as the infallible word of God? I'd bet he doesn't.. I was expecting much more than that. Follow the link below to see the video and the link below that to see the post from thegrandverbalizer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zgDRGNtbTs&feature=related

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: The Demise of the Trinity

Apologist Interview: Stephen Notman - Apologetics 315

Yesterday, Brian Auten posed a real gem of an interview with Stephen Notman. Stephen was a formal atheist and he explains how God revealed himself to him and why and how he does Apologetics. I also have to agree with Wintery Knight comment about how sanctification is an on-going process. I know people who were delivered from drugs and alcohol and promiscuity and smoking. When they got saved God took the very desire from them . They didn't do rehab or see a psychologist. However, I know people who are saved but went they through recovery programs. It's all God. The ones who didn't go through rehab are not more saved than the ones who did. It's a different process for everyone. No matter what you are miraculously delivered from, there are still many more thing that you will struggle with and will grow to overcome. Other things you will struggle with until you leave this earth. Just like Stephen says in the interview being a christian isn't easy. Jesus never promised anyone that it would be. Not one of us is perfect but we should be all tying to.be obedient to the one who saved us  Please follow the link below and here this wonderful testimony about just how God is.

Apologist Interview: Stephen Notman - Apologetics 315

Regis Philbin Smacks Nicki Minaj's Butt (VIDEO)

Recently Nicki Minaj appeared on Regis Philbin and Kelly Ripa's daytime talk show. After she sang one of her tunes, Regis Philbin smacked her on her butt. I don't think she liked it and it bothered her. The Huffington Post (from where I got this story) asks its readers to weigh in about if it was "inappropriate". Last I checked, if a man smacks a woman on the butt and makes off color jokes about how she is dressed and it's unwelcomed, it was called "sexual harassment". If it was Taylor Swift or Jessica Simpson, I think Philbin would be profusely apologizing for his behavior. Why? Just because Nicki does hip hop music does not mean she should be degraded in anyway. Is it just the music? Or is it latent racism? The racism is not only on the part of Philbin, but also on the part of the Huffington Post who value Minaj so little that such behavior may be only "inappropriate".

Regis Philbin Smacks Nicki Minaj's Butt (VIDEO)

Related articles

• Regis Philbin Freely Gropes and Embarrases Nicki Minaj on "Live" (womensrights.change.org)
• Nicki Minaj shocked by Regis Philbin's booty tap (hollywoodnews.com)
• Regis Philbin Slaps Nicki Minaj's Ass (WATCH!) (manolith.com)

Prescription or Description? Deuteronomy 20

I recently posted a link to an article by Anthony Horvath on how to read the Bible.  Ryan Anderson had an interesting comment

I will say, in regards to the section on "Prescription versus Description", he's right in theory, but seems to be glossing over the fact that some of those less than flattering things were in fact prescribed by God, not merely a description of bad Hebrew behavior.

Notice, to his credit, he tacitly agrees that Horvath is right that sometimes some texts are taken out of context where people say that the Bible is commanding violence  when it really describes something that will or did take place not giving a command to do it. However he then suggests that God does command that his followers do "less than flattering things" (read evil and morally bankrupt). I challenged Ryan Anderson  to give an example of such a text and I also asked that he provide a response explaining why the standard response do little in explaining why God said what he said. Ryan Anderson responded as follows:

Deut 20 comes to mind, but that's assuming you believe Moses was actually speaking for a God.

Notice he didn't interact with the reasons we give to understand Deuteronomy 20, but he did provide an example. I expect he really doesn't mean the whole chapter. The verses people seem to have a problem with are verses 14-17. They ask "How could God be moral if he allows women to be raped and their men killed? How can God be good if He tells Israel to kill all the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites? However let's look at the whole chapter in its historical and theological contexts and see what it shows of us as God's character because God - YHWH - did speak through Moses.

¹ When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you.² When you are about to go into battle, the priest shall come forward and address the army. ³ He shall say: “Hear, Israel: Today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not panic or be terrified by them. ⁴ For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory.”

The context of the chapter is the rules Israel was supposed to follow when they waged war. God starts with words of encouragement. Most of times through all the recorded wars in the Bible they are outmatched in almost every conceivable way. The priest is to remind the people that God is with them. The fact that theses are enemies presupposes the context of Israel acting in it's own defense and not as aggressors trying to take what does not belong to them. God is always with you - no matter the challenge.

 ⁵ The officers shall say to the army: “Has anyone built a new house and not yet begun to live in it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else may begin to live in it. ⁶ Has anyone planted a vineyard and not begun to enjoy it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else enjoy it. ⁷ Has anyone become pledged to a woman and not married her? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else marry her.” ⁸ Then the officers shall add, “Is anyone afraid or fainthearted? Let him go home so that his fellow soldiers will not become disheartened too.” ⁹ When the officers have finished speaking to the army, they shall appoint commanders over it.

How is this for raising an army? If you had just gotten property, about to get married, or just too scared - you was exempt from serving. I'm willing that mast Israelites would not take fear option to avoid the embarrassment. But that does not sound like something people do. In most drafts you have to go no matter what you feel or your personal circumstances. God is caring - your government is not.

 ¹⁰ When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. ¹¹ If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. ¹² If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. ¹³ When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. ¹⁴ As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. ¹⁵ This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

When dealing with other nations, they were first to make an offer of peace. Give them the chance to surrender. If the enemy surrenders they weren't  supposed to kill anyone. If they resist, kill all the men. All educate people know that Slavery in ancient Israel was not the same as slavery Europeans used in their imperialistic crusades from 1492 AD onward. Not only could you get your freedom you were never to supposed to be thought of as being less than human. I'm not saying that people did not treat their slaves like cattle in ancient times also, but you can't equate the two systems. You weren't enslaved because of your skin color in ancient times.  As for the women given as spoils of war - where is rape implied? Where is forced marriage? No one should be so naive to think that it never happened in Israel, but it was not sanctioned. Given how the Torah says men should treat their wives, the rights wives had - unprecedented in the region - I would find it hard to believe that many of the women would join the community willingly. It's not in this text (See Deuteronomy 21:10-14), but the women were supposed to be given time to mourn their family and friends if they lost them. You could not just marry them the next day. And you you did marry such a woman you could not just discard her like garbage when you were through with her - you know like men do today - running around from bed to bed leaving broken hearts, live, and children in their wake.

 ¹⁶ However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. ¹⁷ Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. ¹⁸ Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

Thing were different with the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites Why? God said that Israel was going to be His instrument of wrath and judgment on them for the evils and sins that they did. Yes, God is love and mercy, but he is also a god of justice and wrath. Did they deserve such judgment? Yes. They practiced human sacrifice of their children and babies to idols! God gave them 430 years to change and they refused (Genesis 15:12-14). Are we any better than they no? We eliminate babies and neglect or elderly all for the sake of convenience. Do you really think we, as a people and nation, won't have to pay for that? I don't think so. Verse 18 tell us why Israel were told to destroy everything and everyone. God knew that if they didn't, Israel would end up doing the same things as the people they displaced. This is exactly what happened.

 ¹⁹ When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them? ²⁰ However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.

Finally, we see God telling Israel that we should never use up natural resources irresponsibly to fuel a war.

We see God cares about His people, their enemies, and his creation. I find it difficult to see what is so immoral in what He told them to do. I find it amazing that Ryan Anderson defends the relativity of morality  but refuses to give God the same right to define morality that he says everyone has even when they are in conflict. I suspect the reason why is because, by definition , God's moral standards would have to supersede all others because that is what being God means. Therefore one who denies or doubts the existence of such a being can't afford to allow for that being's moral standards to have weight in their lives. Doesn't matter if they give it weight or not - that is the standard by which we will be judged apart from Jesus Christ who was given as our propitiation because none of  us could ever hope to measure up to that absolute standard.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Article: If You Cannot Scientifically Prove Your Belief, Is It Meaningless? by Paul Copan

Chad posted an interesting article by Paul Copan about science and proving your beliefs. Follow the link to his blog to get the link to Dr Copan's article.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Article: If You Cannot Scientifically Prove Your Belief, Is It Meaningless? by Paul Copan

Sunday Quote: Tim Keller on Doubting Your Doubts - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted a quote from Tim Keller about the fact that people should be just as willing to examine their doubts about Christianity as they are in demanding proof for why they should believe. I find the quote very appropriate given the number of instances of most atheists attempting to dodge the challenge of proving what they believe by saying that the burden of proof is on solely on the believer. They balk and backpedal saying that they are not making any claims as to what is real and what isn't real. To say that there is no God - no creator - and the Bible is wrong is making a claim about reality just as much as it is to say that the Bible is true, there is a God, and Jesus rose from the dead. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence is their mantra - except when it come time to show that they right. Here is what Tim Keller said:

"The only way to doubt Christianity rightly and fairly is to discern the alternate belief under each of your doubts and then ask yourself what reasons you have for believing it. How do you know your belief is true? It would be inconsistent to require more justification for Christian belief than you do for your own, but that is frequently what happens. In fairness you must doubt your doubts. My thesis is that if you come to recognize the beliefs on which your doubts about Christianity are based, and if you seek as much proof for those beliefs as you seek from Christians for theirs – you will discover that your doubts are not as solid as they first appeared."

- Tim Keller, The Reason for God, pg. xix

Sunday Quote: Tim Keller on Doubting Your Doubts - Apologetics 315

The Inarguable Sovereignty of God: Romans 9 and the Arminian Objection

Jamin Hubner has written a great article answering objections Arminians raise against Calvinist interpretations of Roman 9. Check it out!

The Inarguable Sovereignty of God: Romans 9 and the Arminian Objection

Tips that Atheists can use for Understanding the Bible | Athanatos Christian Apologetics Ministry

Anthony Horvath has posted a very interesting article. He summarizes key information about the Bible that many people don't know which leads them to misunderstand what the Bible says.

Tips that Atheists can use for Understanding the Bible | Athanatos Christian Apologetics Ministry

Radio Free Geneva on Today's Dividing Line

Yesterday, Dr White did another "Free Radio Geneva" edition on the Dividing Line you can find link at his blog post linked below. I like these programs because he honestly tries to interact with folk who disagree with him but won't interact with him. Well everyone has to deal with that, I suppose.

Radio Free Geneva on Today's Dividing Line

Calvinistic Cartoons: Classics #10

This one is too funny not to share

Calvinistic Cartoons: Classics #10

Responding to Saint Brian the Godless

One who calls himself Saint Brian the Godless has been trying to help Ryan Anderson out trying to stand against one of my blog posts regarding Noah's ark and the flood. During the course of discussion, Saint Brian the Godless finally made this appeal against Christianity. Rather than just dash off a comment I decided to take a whole post truly dissect what he said because this is about what the Gospel truly is. Also I wanted to move away from the heat because in the midst of it I could respond in a mean, defensive way and I truly want this post to help others because I know there are many people who think the way he does. He said the following:

You were a child once, that did not know to believe in God. Then your parents taught you about God. They learned it from their parents, and so on, back two thousand years. It was always a lie. Right from the start. Yo cannot (WILL NOT) consider that, not ever. You've been taught so much FEAR and RESPECT and even LOVE for God, that you can't even consider the possibility that, at least as regards the Christian version of God, there is no such thing at all. Oh sure, maybe tere's some sort of deity, who am I to say... but it's EASY to see that whatever it may be it it exists, one thing it most certainly is NOT, is your God. Sorry. Too many contradictions. One thing even your God cannot do, is to contradict logic. A loving God, for instance, would never have created hell. Period. No, shut up, it's really PERIOD. Nor would he have bet with the devil and tortured Job, nor would he have done a thousand other things that the bible says that HE DID. The mere existence of the book of Leviticus, totally INVALIDATES your whole faith.
So, you're screwed here, believing in a total malicious, life-negating lie. Again, my condolences.

There are many things in this comment. Let's try to enumerate his points...seriously consider if he is making good points or not.None of these are new. I will list them and give a response to each one.

1. The only reason why I (or anyone) is a Christian is because of a tradition and upbringing

I was raised in a Christian househould, but not everyone who is a born-again Christian was raised in a Christian household or even in the Western world. Add to the fact that some are raised in just as a pious household as I and they turn their backs on God and you can see how this is really a fallacious and silly argument. Let me be clear I love God  because He has personally changed my mind and heart and saved me from my sins because of his grace and mercy and not because of anything good in me.

2, We never consider if Christianity is a lie.

Of course I've considered it and looked at other religions and thoughts people have but I can find nothing wrong or contradictory in the Bible and I have looked and searched. The reason why I know Jesus truly saved me from my sins is that He changed my life and sustains me. On top of that there really are evidences that support the Bible and anything that attempts to stand against it can easily be knocked down.

3. We accept the existence of God because of we have been taught fear and respect.

Again: I believe in God because he deserves my respect and loved me first. I thank my parents for modeling this life but if it wasn't for my own  relationship with my Creator it would mean precious little for me. When I stand before my Savior, I won't be judged by what parents did, didn't do, or taught me. I, like you, will only be judged by what we say and do.

4. If there is a god it's not the God of the Bible.

The Bible says that God is all-powerful and knows everything - who else fits the bill?

5. Too many contradictions.

Many folks make the claim that the Bible is full of contradictions but when they start to name them you can see that they really are misunderstandings or lies. 

6.  A loving God, for instance, would never have created hell. Period.

When people use this they define "love" as meaning that you can do whatever you want without retribution or punishment or discipline.One has to look no farther than my own generation to see that  raising children this way is not a good idea. This is not what love is. Good thing that God does not run the universe this way. I always wonder when people raise this objection do they know what God should do with those people who don't want to obey Him but instead do things their own way including hurting other people?  God has chosen to separate himself from them and quarantining them from those who will love Him.  What do you think should happen? I think that God is being just. If you reject God now, you wouldn't change your mind if you were in hell.

7.  Nor would he have bet with the devil and tortured Job,

Misunderstanding of what the Bible says. A "bet" means you don't know what the outcome is and God knew and was always in control. Job's life shows us that bad things can and do happen to good people.All this does is to try to argue from emotion without seriously considering what is being said. Look at Job's attitude. He thanked God for showing him more of  God himself. His relationship was deepened even thought he was not told why God allowed all He did to happen to Job. Suffering does indeed teach such lessons - like it or not.  Job's life demonstrates Romans 8:28-29

 ²⁸ And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. ²⁹ For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.- Romans 8:28-29

8,  Nor would he have done a thousand other things that the bible says that HE DID.

Notice the catch all statement here with no explanation or proof. or example. I would ask, what has God done that you have a problem with? Good thing God inspired Paul to answer this nearly 2000 years ago. 

 ¹⁹ One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” ²⁰ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” ²¹ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?  - Romans 9:19-21

9. The mere existence of the book of Leviticus, totally INVALIDATES your whole faith.

Here is the question "how?".. Leviticus tells us a whole lot about the ancient sacrificial system.This system was symbolic and pointed to Jesus Christ. Leviticus totally does not invalidate my faith - Putting your faith in Christ fulfills and validate that system. Read Hebrews and here is another example:.

²³ Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. ²⁴ So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵ Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. 

 I think it is plainly obvious that if God is truly who the Bible says God is and has done what God said  God has done, we should not just believe with our minds but love and trust God with our minds, bodies and souls.

The Bible illustration blog: Guest Bible Artist Interview #8 - Sergio Cariello

I am very familiar with Sergio Cariello's work. The man is an artistic genius and I own several comic books he drew. I'm glad to find out he is a Christian and has lent his considerable talents to the Action Bible. I sure plan to get a copy. This is great interview and you learn a lot about him, art, and how God can use art to bring glory to Himself. I found some videos regarding the Action Bible to show what I am excited about.








The Bible illustration blog: Guest Bible Artist Interview #8

I'm Not Sure I Believe in Limited Atonement!

And Here is why Dr. James White thinks we should:



I'm planning a fuller post working through this material but this is a good place to start.

I Believe in Limited Atonement!

High Five of the Day #6 - Muslim Miscellaneous

Here is a great article written by Dr. James White. He points out some anti-Christian propaganda published this year in the UK by Muslims. It is real important to read the article and think about the points he is bringing up. On the left is a picture he included in his post.


Muslim Miscellaneous

Calvinistic Cartoons: Classics #9

More genius!!!


Calvinistic Cartoons: Classics #9

Responses to Notable Skeptics - Apologetics 315

Brain Auten has posted a link to Chad's Truthbomb Apologetics blog.. Chad has a series of article and resources about how to answer notable skeptics including Dan Barker, Richard Carrier, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Bart Ehrman, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and more. Follow the link to Apologetcis 315 to get the link to Truthbomb Apologetics.

Responses to Notable Skeptics - Apologetics 315

FacePalm of the Day #42 - Exegeting Genesis 10:25

I always thinks it's pretty sad when one atheist attempts to save the arguments of another. It's even more of a fail when they try to use scripture to do it. Case in point - Ryan Anderson attempted to rebut my response to Richard Dawkins trying to use geography to show that the Bible could not be correct about the story of Noah.  My point was that according to Genesis 10:25 we cannot say that the earth's geography looks the same today as it did during Noah's time.We don't know when the Flood took place or how the continents were arranged.

25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided ; and his brother's name was Joktan.  - Genesis 10:25

Ryan Anderson wrote the following:

Sure, given how the word פלג is used in Chronicles, Job and Psalms, and the references to "language" in Genesis 10:5, 20 and 31 it's pretty clear that the authors were laying the ground work for the more detailed narrative of the fall of Babel in the very next chapter and not talking about plate tectonics at all.

December 29, 2010 6:29 AM

Here is the problem:Ryan may be right about   פלג being used only 4 places in the Old Testament but he neglected to point out  that in the KJV it has always been translated "divided" and refers to something being divided and the word does not appear in the Tower of Babel account! Implying that the earth being divided in Genesis 10:25 is referring to what happened in Babel is dishonest. But let's be fair and ask a question: is the word translated "earth" ever applied to people, languages, or cultures? The word is used 2504 times in the Old Testament.  Of those 2504 times, how many times has the KJV translated it as  "language"? ZERO!!! Why? Simple: The word does not mean "language".


On a positive note, I thank Ryan Anderson for a prime example of eisegesis and scripture twisting. When it comes down to evicence Atheists have to disprove the Bible -scripture twisting is the only "evidence" they have. Let me be clear, in order for Ryan Anderson's argument to work he has to show that Genesis 10:25 does not refer to the earth itself but instead refers to the language of people. Did it work? Nope.






Palag (Strong number - 06385)

'erets - (strong number - 0776)

Truthbomb Apologetics: Article: Faith and Facts by Greg Koukl

I really appreciate Chad for posting the article by Greg Koukl in which he discusses what faith is and how it relates to science,  It really is worth reading!!

Truthbomb Apologetics: Article: Faith and Facts by Greg Koukl

Racists Totally Freak Out Over Muslim 'Batman of Paris' - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Comics Alliance has posted an important article calling attention to morons who don't like the fact that the new Batman of Paris is a Muslim. In case you haven't heard, in the comics Batman has franchised himself - choosing and supports men and women all over the world to be Batman-like characters. Apparently the hoopla is that the protector of Parish should be a white man and not a descendant of Islamic immigrants. Real stupid. The article does a great job of explaining the story and why the detractors are stupid! I really hate racism.


Racists Totally Freak Out Over Muslim 'Batman of Paris' - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Iron Sharpens Iron: James R. White: The Qur'anic Test of Muhammad as a Prophet

James White was a recent guest on Iron Sharpens Iron in which he discussed whether or not Muhammad was a prophet. Another great program and good summary of how Islam contrasts with Christianity.


Iron Sharpens Iron: James R. White: The Qur'anic Test of Muhammad as a Prophet