Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Apologetic Resources

Last week, June 24th, James White gave an excellent introductory lecture on his Dividing Line webcast explaining how we should form our methodology for doing apologetics. He makes his case specifically from the text of Scripture without even once mentioning the systems of evidentialism or presuppositionalism. Listen to it or download the MP3 for a limited time: Apologetics Defined.

If you are inclined to watch the Youtube video of the relevant 40 minutes, you can see it here:
Biblical Apologetics Defined and Defended

Additionally, Dustin Segers, who pastors Shepherd's Fellowship of Greensboro, has a 5-part set of Youtube videos where he leads a study on apologetic and evangelistic methodology. Video uploads are located on the church's Youtube page HERE, and you will have to scroll down the sidebar to find the series labeled Apologetics 051810. To start, here is Part 1.

Then lastly, I have always maintained that the most effective apologetic is a Christian whose life is lived submitted to the Lordship of Christ. Such a testimony of the power of the gospel to change lives is found in a story I ran across of a NBA basketball player by the name of Manute Bol who was from Sudan. I had never heard of him before I read this article. He died last week at the young age of 47, but the impact of his life lived for Christ, especially to the Sudanese people he gave so much to, will be long lasting. The writer of the story, Jon Shields notes, As one twitter feed aptly put it: "Most NBA cats go broke on cars, jewelry & groupies. Manute Bol went broke building hospitals."

Manute Bol's Radical Christianity

Labels: ,

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Favorite Geek Video of the Moment

I caught this yesterday.

I actually have one of these in my mother's shed. In decent, working condition, too.

I bet it is like worth a lot of money.

There is some dog behavior some folks may find objectionable.

Labels: ,

Gleanings from Daniel [12]

beasts-four The Night Vision of the Four Beasts [Daniel 7]

The 7th chapter of Daniel represents a transition. Where as the 6th chapter was the last narrative portion of Daniel’s book, the 7th chapter is the first official prophetic portion. From this chapter onwards, Daniel is given revelation that tells of Israel’s future and the future of all the gentile nations and the eventual coming of the Messiah’s Kingdom.

Daniel 7 is also the last chapter in Aramaic. Meaning this is the final chapter intended for a secular nation. The pagans have had revealed to them how God will direct human affairs and governments. It is a message of hope for God’s people, Israel, who are at the time of this prophecy, in captivity.

The prophecy outlines four important themes:

- First, it is a message of deliverance of God’s oppressed through out human history.

- Next, it reveals the direction of God’s purposes.

- It reveals how those gentile powers will end.

- And then how God’s eternal kingdom will be established.

With the vision of these four spectacular beasts, chapter 7 is the bookend chapter of these Aramaic sections. Chapter 2 began with a vision of a statue with four metallic parts. This chapter pictures those same kingdoms, but as bizarre beasts. In chapter 2, the dream was by a heathen monarch, but here in chapter 7, it was a revelation given directly to God’s prophet. The dream presented the history of these earthly kingdoms in the outward aspects of majestic splendor, how men see themselves, but the vision pictured their inward spiritual aspects of how God sees them, as raving, wild beasts. The vision also provides more historical background than what the dream did.

By the time we come to chapter 7, Daniel’s character has been established as a man of God. If the LORD has demonstrated His power in the life of Daniel, He then is a God Who can be trusted to tell us the future. Most significantly, His promise of a coming Messiah who would come and eventually deliver God’s people from both spiritual and national bondage to heathen empires.

I. The Timing of the Vision [7:1]

Daniel says this vision came during the first year of Belshazzar. According to historical records, Bel. was made co-regent by Nabonidus three years after his reign started in 556 B.C. Thus, this vision came in the year of 553 B.C. This was about 14 years before the fall of Babylon to the Medo-Persians. Knowing this vision was from God, Daniel wrote it down later.

II. Details of the Vision [7:2-14]

Daniel’s vision begins with him explaining how the winds of heaven stirred up the sea. The concept of “sea” is often pictured in Scripture as sinful humanity. For example Isaiah 57:20 and later in the book of Revelation in chapters 13, 17. In Daniel 7:17, the beasts are interpreted as those that come out of the earth, in other words the mass of humanity.

Next, the four winds stir up the sea. “Winds” in Scripture can often be seen as God’s judgment like in Psalms 18:10, 42 and Ezekiel 1:4. The word is also synonymous with God’s Spirit. The idea here in Daniel’s prophecy would be those God directed forces, or the moving of God’s Spirit, which move upon the nations of men. The picture here is of God providentially working among the gentiles to do His purposes.

When the winds stir up the sea, they stir up four great beasts. It is agreed among the commentators of Daniel (even some of the liberal ones) that these beasts represent the four kingdoms seen in the dream of the great statue as outlined in chapter 2: Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greece, and Rome.

The beasts are diverse from one another. Each one different from the other.

1) A lion with wings – This pictures the nation of Babylon. Interestingly, winged lions are prominent in Babylonian artwork. The Ishtar Gate, that was one of the main gates of Babylon during the reign of Neb., features a winged lion. The vision shows the wings being plucked off the lion and it being humiliated. Knowing that the Babylonian empire is embodied with the person of Neb., this may be a reference to his humiliation recorded in Daniel 4.

2) A bear with 3 ribs – The next beast that comes after the winged lion is a bear pictured with three ribs in its mouth. The text says it was raised up on one side, as if it were lopsided with his legs being bigger and longer on one side over the other. The bear has three ribs in its mouth. This is undoubtedly the Medo-Persian empire that replaced the Babylonian empire. It was lopsided, because, even though there were two groups, the Medes and the Persians, the Persians became the greater of the two groups and dominated the empire. The three ribs represent the three major nations the Medes and Persians conquered: Lydia, 546 B.C., Babylon, 539 B.C., and Egypt, 525 B.C. After they conquered those nations they controlled a vast amount of territory.

3) A four headed, four winged leopard – This beast speaks of the Greek empire. The four wings represent swiftness, and it describes perfectly the actions of Alexander the Great. He took the throne of the Greek empire in 334 B.C. and within 10 years had conquered the known world. After his death, he was replaced by four of his major generals who broke his kingdom into four sections (four heads): Antipater, Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy.

4) An Indescribable Beast – The last beast defies any zoological classification. It had 10 horns on its head and one horn had a mouth and eyes and blasphemed God. This beast is described as terrible and horrifying and tramples to pieces all the earth. The only kingdom it could possibly represent would be the Romans.

The Throne – While Daniel is contemplating these things, he sees a vision of the Ancient of Days. This figure is seen as a judge and it is clear that He is the eternal God Himself who alone has the authority to exercise judgment. Thrones are set up, which may have reference to the saints mentioned in Revelation 20:4. God’s throne is pictured as a flaming chariot – similar to what Ezekiel saw in the first chapter of his prophecy. What would be God’s war machine preparing to exercise judgment.

He convenes a court and opens the books of judgment. Yet, while God is preparing a court, a little horn, associated with the fourth beast, blasphemes God. But he is judged as the final beast is slain and burned with fire.

The Final Kingdom – Then Daniel sees one final vision. One like the Son of Man coming in the clouds. It is a Messianic vision. He comes before the Ancient of Days and is given authority to rule a kingdom.

Four characteristics mark this kingdom:

- Sovereignly Administered. Given directly by God and no other rivals and no kingdoms will follow it.

- Universal in scope. It entails all nations and all people.

- Eternal. Its dominion will never end.

- Supernatural. No human army or kingdoms can destroy it.


Monday, June 28, 2010

For the Eccentric Billionaire in You

If you are an eccentric billionaire, this may be right up your alley:

Of course, there is certainly an issue with the sound the thing creates. It's irritating just watching the video. I couldn't imagine what it would be like flying it, so I am sure ear muffs would be needed at all times. Plus, I understand from the related videos that the inventor is having a hard time getting it to fly any higher than 6 feet off the ground. That limitation could be a big damper on the whole project. I mean, if you are an eccentric billionaire, you need a reliable, high flying jet pack that allows you to get quickly across your island compound to the miniature zoo. By miniature zoo, I don't mean a small zoo, but you know, a zoo with genetically engineered miniature animals. Like giraffes one third their normal size and elephants as big as Great Danes.

Labels: ,

Friday, June 25, 2010

True Colors

See my addendum at the end

At times like this, I think of Kermit the Frog’s song: "It's not that easy being green…When I think it could be nicer being red or yellow or gold / Or something much more colorful like that." - Darrel Falk, Senior Fellow, BioLogos Foundation. On Living in the Middle

Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later get squish just like grape - Mr. Miyagi, The Karate Kid, 1984.

No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other.
- Jesus Christ, Our God and Savior, Sovereign Creator, Matthew 6:24

As the BioLogos enterprise chugs along attempting to dispel the myths of biblical creationism, the infallibility of God's Word, and Scripture's sufficiency as a historical document, it was only a matter of time until their true colors were to shine through. I began picking out these atheistic chameleons painted like Christians early on when I would read through the disjointed comments under the blog posts. The BioLogos fans were a mixed bag of theological ineptitude. Commenters took grand delight in renouncing creationists as hill billies, mocking "literalists" and "inerrantists," and explaining how their mediatory views of faith and science is just what the unbelieving scientist needs in order to know the love of Jesus. Yet at the same time they actually took umbrage at anyone who would question their devotion to the Lord and the Bible.

But how can one NOT question the sincerity of BioLogos's commitment to the inspiration of Scripture and Christian orthodoxy when Darrel Falk writes,

There are Christians whose very sense of purpose and meaning in life depend upon the historicity of Adam and Eve.

Huh? The man has read the Bible, right? There is a rather foundational reason why as a Christian my very sense of purpose and meaning in life depends upon the historicity of Adam: Because my sin is dependent upon an historical man, Adam, and my salvation is dependent upon an historical Second Adam, Jesus Christ.

There is a lot I could say, but I wish to save my passion for later articles on my series addresing theistic evolution. However, two articles today by others who are way more articulate than I am are worth highlighting,

Phil Johnson's response to Darrel Falk, Middle of the Road, R.I.P. Kermit
and my friend Travis wrote this for the GTY blog, Dying in the Middle

Post Script (6/26)

Phil added this supplemental post over the weekend. It's a reprint of a comment Dan made as a summary of all the comment exchange that happened under Phil's response to Dr. Falk. What Dan demonstrates, at least as I can see it, is that the folks at BioLogos, who claim to be evangelical and defenders of Christian orthodoxy, are virtually indistinguishable from the atheistic evolutionists they pander to. The "David" commenter in question has posted here under this post and this post. Under the post about Neanderthals, his dismissive comments about the Bible being a "bronze-aged book" reveals the typical heart of a good majority of theistic evolutionists. They reject the sufficiency of scripture as a genuine historical document that tells how and when God created.

Labels: ,

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Islam Resources

I guess if you are outside my immediate circle of blogger acquaintances, you may have missed the goings on in Dearborn, MI, this past weekend (6/18-6/20/2010) when a group of Christian evangelists were arrested for handing out copies of the Gospel of John and witnessing to Muslims at a local Islamic festival. I am personally baffled as to why Glenn Beck or some other major conservative radio talker didn't cover this more extensively. Perhaps they did and I missed it, but we need to ponder long and hard as to what happened. Video and photography is available and a review of the material clearly shows the Christians were not behaving, say for example, like Fred Phelps or any number of crackpot fundamentalist "street preachers" most folks are familiar with.

Meanwhile, there were some debates that took place in conjunction with this festival between James White and some other Christian apologists, and in between all of that, James White, Sam Shamoun, and some other guys, participated on an TV program discussing the points of disagreement between Christianity, Islam, Mohammed and Jesus. There is some good stuff to watch that provides a solid introduction to Christian apologetics answering Muslims. Both James and Sam are outstandingly informative in this discussion.

First long video is here:

Jesus or Muhammad (Mohamet, Muhammed, whatever)

The other installments are located AT THIS POST. Scroll down to the bottom to get the links to the videos.

I only wish these guys had been around when I was in college at ASU. They would have provided valuable insight for my interaction with the Muslims I worked with.


Tuesday, June 22, 2010

P.C. Do Gooders

I received this video from a frequent contributor to this blog.

Nothing blesses my heart more than watching a finger wagging P.C. crusader assuming the worse about people and telling us who we can and cannot associate with... and then falling flat on his face.

Labels: ,

Monday, June 21, 2010

Hard Truths for Theistic Evolutionists [2]

shepherd On Death, Dying, and Suffering

Theistic evolution is the belief God brought about the present variety of life on earth by the process of evolution.

BioLogos is a group of theologians and scientists who adhere to theistic evolution. Their purpose statement says, We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation. Though the folks at BioLogos say they affirm biblical inspiration in their statement, as I pointed out in the previous post on this subject, their affirmation of inspiration is inconsistent from what the Bible claims for itself concerning its own infallibility and trustworthiness in matters pertaining to physical reality, the history of the earth, and the origin of life.

In a manner of speaking, the very term “theistic evolution” is oxymoronic. A radical discontinuity exists between the tenets of modern evolutionary theory and the eternal creator God revealed in Scripture. Yet, as sharp as the inconsistencies are between what is taught in Scripture about the origin of creation and what evolutionary theory believes about origins, theistic evolutionists insist the biblical revelation of creation can be woven together with evolution.

But could God have providentially used evolution to create? Can one hold to modern evolutionary theory and still fully confirm the infallibility of God’s Word? I don’t believe so and I think there is clear reason why I say that.

Consider death and dying. The death of living things is taught in Scripture as being a bad thing; an unwelcomed intrusion in God’s creative order. After God originally created the world, He declared that all He created was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). But, Adam’s act of disobedience in the garden by eating from the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 3) is understood as the introduction of death and suffering into God’s creation. Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden, separated from an intimate relationship with God and the earth was also cursed so that it would no longer serve Adam in the manner it once did. The end result of Adam’s sin was physical death, and the eventual physical death of all of his progeny. Within the genealogies of Genesis 5, the repeated phrase that rings in the ears of the reader is …and he died. Ultimately, eternal death would result when men were divinely judged for their rebellion against God. Adam’s sin did not stop with only him and his human descendents, however, but it plunged the entirety of God’s creation under the curse of sin so that all living things will suffer the pains of dying and eventual death. As Paul summed up the situation in Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death.

Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, understands death as one of the mechanisms that is a part of the process of evolution. The author of the article Evolution for Beginners notes the second important thing that drives evolution is, the disproportionately high percentage of deaths of organisms who are less well suited to their environments and predatory conditions, and therefore are unable to leave as many offspring. The idea being that death of a weaker individual organism allows the stronger organisms to thrive and pass along their offspring. Additionally, competition among species contributes to the function of natural selection and the evolution of those species. Competition then, … occurs when two species each require a resource that is in short supply, so that the availability of the resource to one species is negatively influenced by the presence of the other species. Hence, when environments lack the food sources necessary to sustain the life contained in it, weaker species will thin out due to the inability to adapt and survive. In other words, they die off.

Theistic evolutionists, instead of understanding that death is the negative consequence of Adam’s sin, insist “death” is an important part of God’s creation and it is necessary to maintain God’s “perfect” world. Death is viewed as a creative agent facilitating the majestic work of God as He providentially guides His creation to reflect His glory. This is also the position of other old earth creationists who would reject the concept of evolution. For example, Hugh Ross and the apologists at his ministry Reasons To Believe as well as Greg Koukl and Stand to Reason.

But seeing “death” as a creative act of God and a necessity for His created order is strange in light of the fact the Bible identifies the introduction of death with Adam’s sin. Death is the eventually curse upon man’s sinfulness, and the Bible states the entirety of creation groans under death’s curse. Death is an enemy to be abolished at the coming of the new created order (1 Corinthians 15:26). If “death” is a work of God’s creative action, why does Revelation 21:4 say, And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away? The “former things” are contrasted here with the New Heaven and New Earth. Where as the “former things” – our current world in which we live – are marked by death, sorrow, crying, and pain, the New Heaven and New Earth are not. The “former things” are certainly not described as being good or an important part of God’s perfect creation.

On top of this, famine and the scarcity of resources is revealed in the Bible as a judgment by God against His people and against sinners in general. For example, in the curses promised to Israel if they did not obey the covenant made with God, the LORD says in Deuteronomy 28:24 that He will change the rain of your land to powder and dust; from the heaven it shall come down on you until you are destroyed. We see this promise kept in 1 Kings 17 when the prophet Elijah announces no rain will come upon the land for 3 years. In the prophecy of Jeremiah, chapters 14, 42, and 44 particularly, God threatens to send famine and pestilence upon the people as a means of judgment. Other prophets record similar threats and acts of judgment by God. In all of these instances, death, disease, and famine, is an extremely negative thing and never is creativity attributed to them.

A lot of the dying of God’s creatures involves the scarcity of resources – the idea of competition noted above. Yet it is clear from Genesis 1:11-13, 20, and 22, that God originally created His world with the abundance of life in the seas and on the land, and the necessary resources for that abundant life to thrive. This is especially true with God’s command to “be fruitful and multiple” because the resources must be available for His creation to fulfill that mandate. But the lack of resources in a given environment on the earth is one of the primary causes of death. In light of what God stated about His original creation multiplying abundantly and being fruitful, the reality of competition, the struggle to survive, and the lack of much needed resources, is problematic to affirming both evolutionary theory and what the Bible teaches concerning God’s creation now under the curse of sin.

The typical response by theistic evolutionists, and even old earth creationists like Hugh Ross, is to say the death spoken of in Genesis is “spiritual” death, not physical death. Some even re-define the word “death” to mean only “separation” and chide those who think no physical death existed before Adam sinned as misunderstanding the theology of death. The reason Adam didn’t die, they argue, is because he and Eve were in fellowship with God and had access to the tree of life mentioned in Genesis 1-3. It wasn’t that they wouldn’t die, per se. Their obedience to God and resistance to the Devil’s temptation merely promised them immortality. But once Adam and Eve disobeyed, they were separated from God and they could no longer partake of the tree of life. At this point onward they were to continue being subjected to physical death.

But that is a strained interpretation of Adam’s sin and the death that followed when one considers Paul’s argument for Christ’s cross work of redemption. There are at least two reasons why death by Adam’s sin was not just “spiritual,” but also physical and that physical death had not happened before he sinned. First, In both Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, Paul explains that redemption was only secured when Christ physically died and then physically rose again from the grave. In 1 Corinthians 15:21 and following, Paul contrasts Adam’s act of sin which produced physical death with Christ’s physical resurrection from the dead. If Adam had only died spiritually, then it would only be logical to say Christ was only “raised” spiritually. There would be no need for the bloody death of a substitute to pay the penalty for sin as Paul outlines in Romans 3-5 and then His resurrection from the dead (see also Hebrews 9:16, 17).

Secondly, Paul ties the restoration of creation at the eschaton to the physical resurrection of the saints and the defeat of death as the “last enemy.” He writes in 1 Corinthians 15:42-58 how the corruptible (fallen, mortal, sinful men), cannot inherit the incorruptible (the new “sinless” creation). The corruptible becomes incorruptible when Christ returns and God’s kingdom comes to earth and transforms it. The contrast between the corruptible and the incorruptible and the identification of sin as the “sting of death” in verse 56 clearly implies the condition of “corruptibility” did not exist before sin. Now, if physical death existed before Adam’s sin and was a part of God’s perfect creation, why is there a need for our redemption from “corruption”? Why is physical death even considered an “enemy”? Why would a good thing necessary to God’s perfect creation even be considered an “enemy”? Something that is to be abolished? And if physical death existed before Adam sinned, why is it tied to Adam’s transgression?

What I am seeing with the arguments made by theistic evolutionists – and by extension, old earth creationists – is that physical death isn’t really considered a “big deal” to them. But the theology of death presented by theistic evolutionists creates major difficulties with the whole of Scripture and how the Bible understands death. A person has to wonder what impact theistic evolutionists believe Adam’s sin had first to his progeny and then to the rest of the world. A person also has to wonder how seriously theistic evolutionists believe the plain teaching of Scripture in these matters. From what I can tell, biblical theology suffers horrendously in their hands.


Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise

Fred Van Dyke, Theological Problems of Theistic Evolution [A lot of my thinking on this subject was pulled from this paper]


Thursday, June 17, 2010

Advice from a Mentor

I always recommend that folks should receive Doug Kutilek’s monthly email list called, “As I See It.”  His compilations are always stimulating and interesting.  He provides some of the best reviews on a variety of books both theological and non-theological.  To get his electronic “magazine” shoot him an email at DKUTILEK@juno.com.

This month Doug provides challenging advice for young men and their personal study habits. A few of these recommendations I have already cultivated, but I certainly could improve my note taking from the books I read (see #2).

[The following section is taken from Doug’s most recent As I See It, June 2010, Volume 13, Number 6.]  


A Mentor’s Recommendations


Note: I was recently asked to serve as “mentor” for a student taking courses in a Bible college. I compiled a selection of practical suggestions for this student. Perhaps my suggestions to him may be of some use to others.

1. Begin keeping a journal, to record your thoughts, life events, ideas, quotes found in reading, observations, plans, etc. This will serve you well for review, reflection, and more. I have kept a regular (though not daily) journal since 1977. I have tried bound (blank-book) and spiral notebooks, and prefer the latter (I have about 60 volumes of journals). And you should go back from time to time and re-read what you wrote (I recently re-read my journal for most of 2009). It will remind you of things that ever-so-quickly slip from memory.

2. Keep a list of all books you read, noting author, title, date, total pages, and an evaluation (“review”) of the book, noting good and bad points. I commonly make my own index--written inside the back cover--of every book I read of thoughts, quotes, information, etc. that were of interest to me, or that I may wish to access in the future. Often times, a mere glance at a list of books I read 5, 10, even 20 years ago will stir up memories of their contents, memories buried deep in my mind and not consciously remembered in years. This list can be kept either as a computer file or as a hard copy. Keeping this list of books read as a database allows sorting by author, title, date, etc., which facilitates answering the questions--how many books have I read by this author? When did I read such and such a book? How many times have I read this volume? Obviously, what we read affects what we know, and how we perceive things. Tell me what books a man has read, and which ones he values most, and I will tell you what he is.

3. Compile a continuing list of books you need / ought / want to read, and then actually set about to read them. [Amazon “wish lists” are helpful in this regard – fb] I almost always write up on January 1 a list of 15-20 books I want to read “this year” though I rarely get more than a handful of them read--other books snatch away my attention. A couple of years ago, I without design had read 7 of the top 10 books on the New York Times non-fiction best-sellers list (I’m sure that has never happened before, and will almost certainly never happen again). There are some authors of whom, over a period of years or even decades, you will want to read the whole of their literary output.

Set an annual goal of reading that you are capable of, and then set it a bit higher, to challenge yourself. I personally try to read 50 books / year, or 1,000 pages per month. I usually come close to one or the other, and occasionally exceed them both (though this past year was my poorest in quantity of reading in a decade or more). Of course, it is better to read fewer good books well, than to merely gorge your mind with reading. As Sir Richard Baxter is quoted as having said, "It is not the reading of many books which is necessary to make a man wise or good, but the well-reading of a few, could he be sure to have the best."

In an average lifetime at 50 books / year, a man could read 3,000 books, more or less. Since you are mortal and your time limited, and the number of “worthwhile” books (to say nothing of the mediocre ones) greatly exceeds your reading capacity, read the best whenever you can find it, and don’t waste time--or money--on inferior and second-rate works. Seek out and get and read the best, even if they are more expensive or more challenging.

Of course, determining what books are worth reading, are “essential reading,” or “not worth reading” is the problem. The best guide is to ask people who read a lot. You will soon discover whose opinion is worthwhile and whose isn’t. Seek to read the best two or three books on a subject; read them closely, and you will be well-informed on the subject they cover

Constantly be on the lookout for areas of deficiency in your personal knowledge, and set about to fill these deficiencies. It may seem a bit odd to ask yourself--“What is it that I ought to know, but do not?” but do so anyway, and then seek to repair the defect. Of course, there is nothing which so exposes a man’s ignorance as extensive reading--you discover whole vast territories of information that you didn’t even know that you didn’t know. In reading, knowledge increases arithmetically, while discovered ignorance grows geometrically.

Deliberately seek out old “classics” and read them along with newer books. C. S. Lewis suggested alternating in read--first a “modern” book, then an old. While a “classic” has been cynically defined as “a book everyone has heard about but nobody reads,” many such books have attained lasting fame for reasons of real merit.

Keep a list of books you “want”; birthdays and Christmas happen to every one, and someone just might ask--“what do you want for your birthday?” A list ready to hand makes the answer easy.

4. Begin to build a good personal library of reference books. A library need not be large to be adequate, assuming it has been well-chosen and well-used. More than half the books I own are such that I could dispose of them without loss were I on campus at a Bible college or seminary with access to their library for occasional reference, but since I am isolated and am forced to fall back on my own resources, I have acquired and kept a large number of “just in case the subject comes up” books. And sure enough, from time to time, a subject comes up, and I have at hand the necessary resources to address the matter. This happened about 15 years ago. I was scheduled to teach in Romania a course on “cults,” including the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I had in my library three good books on that cult, all purchased in the 1970s, and all unused until the teaching of that course fell to me. And in the mid-1990s, all three were out of print and unavailable. Had I not purchased them 20 years earlier, I would not have had them when I needed them.

I have compiled a list of about 100 or so essential books for reference purposes and if a man had nothing more, he could exhaust himself for decades thoroughly mastering these. I will send the list by e-mail [and on request to any readers--editor]. Many of these as well as other books are often available on CD or in some other electronic format. I personally very much prefer “paper and ink” books over anything displayed on a computer screen (unless it is otherwise not accessible).

5. Begin a chronological list of every Bible message you teach or preach, noting text (or topic), date, place, occasion and attendance (estimate this latter figure). Again, this can be kept manually or on computer (but be sure and regularly back up and keep a copy remotely if you do). This list is valuable for a number of reasons--it will keep you from giving the same message to the same audience (I’ve done that before!); negatively, it will show you what subjects you have neglected to teach or preach. Etc. I did not start to keep such a list until the early 1990s when I began going to Romania (there it proved essential, since I speak so often in so many places--in some places just once, in others hundreds of times). Your list can also be consulted when you are looking for a message topic or text--in the nature of the case, I taught the same lesson to jail inmates about once every 7-8 months when I was active in that ministry, since there was constant turn over in the jail, and many Biblical passages are ideally suited for such an audience. When I was preparing for a Bible study at the jail and was stuck for a text or topic, consulting my list brought ideas immediately to mind.

And keep on file a copy of every outline you prepare, though I will admit to having trouble deciding how to file them--in Biblical order by text? In chronological order by date? In logical order by topic? A copy under each of these orders? Being mostly unable to decide, many of my hardcopy outlines are conserved in a jumbled stack several inches thick.

6. Read well-selected periodicals. I receive about 8-10 periodicals (some monthly, some bimonthly, some quarterly), some I read all through, others just what interests me. Among those I read are The Biblical Evangelist edited by Robert Sumner; Acts & Facts from the Institute of Creation Research; Answers from Answers in Genesis; Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Biblical Archaeology Review; and a small handful of others. Let me also recommend to you “As I See It” which I edited and publish myself. It is impossible to read anything more than a small fraction of the flood of periodic literature, but reading from it selectively will help you keep “current” with trends and news, etc. By the way, I don’t read the daily newspaper, partly because its news is mostly stale, and besides I don’t like the leftist political slant of the local paper (I get most of my news electronically--television, radio, internet). And the newspaper can be quite time-consuming (G. Campbell Morgan never read the newspaper in the morning--he reserved that time for his ministry studies).

7. Prepare a plan of what you currently think you want to do ministry-wise for the next 5, 10, 20 and 50 years (such schemes are always subject to revision and mid-course changes). And then write out the means necessary to reach these goals. Having specific aims, goals, or direction always motivates me to try just a bit harder and achieve a bit more.

8. Make it a fixed purpose in your heart that you will study and learn as opportunity presents itself (or you make your own opportunity) Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin, plus one or two modern foreign languages (Spanish and German are both good, as would be French or Italian or Romanian--the list is endless!). Knowledge of languages, besides facilitating Bible study, will greatly improve your knowledge and mastery of English, and enhance your writing and speaking style. The older I get, the more I value my knowledge of foreign languages, and the more I see the need to expand it yet more.

9. Begin writing regularly--topical studies, technical research papers, devotional articles, etc. Then go back and revise, correct, improve, etc. (and keep a list of all your writings that get published). At first, you might find it beneficial to imitate the style of one or more good writers, as you develop your own style. The spoken word is ephemeral at best; the written word is more permanent. “The writing that men do lives after them.”

10. Keep a daily and an annual list of your Bible reading--I do this on a pocket calendar. In my case, I record any chapters completed, and the language read in (last year I read more of the Bible in Spanish, and Romanian than in English, and almost as much in German). At the end of the year, I compile the numbers and examine them. This will help you evaluate your Bible reading. Again, reading intensively (closely and carefully) is better than merely reading extensively (much, but not with attention). Not uncommonly, I may read the same Bible chapter four times in a single day, in as many different languages. This compels close attention, and yields a fuller understanding than a single reading, or even multiple readings, in English alone. It would also be worth your while over a period of years to read in their entirety four or five of the best English versions--NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, etc.--regardless of what version you regularly read from.

11. Begin a topical filing system for the collection of clippings, articles, etc. on topics that are likely to come up in your ministry or that interest you, and make a separate folder for each topic (my filing system, in some disarray, probably has 500-800 separate folders, maybe more, in half a dozen filing cabinets. I’ve been needing to up-date it, purge it of some extraneous stuff, and reorganize it, but how much fun would that be?).

12. Become “expert” in one or more areas that interest you--I myself have an above average knowledge of Spurgeon, Baptist history, Bible versions, textual criticism, the American Civil War, Scientific creationism and apologetics, trees and grasses, agriculture and gardening, linguistics, Samuel Johnson, etc. I have read and continue to read extensively in all these areas (on the other hand, I know next to nothing about counseling, church growth techniques, church administration, Oriental history and culture, oceanography, etc.).

In all of these suggestions, there is the common thread of progress in usefulness, growth in knowledge, efficiency in ministry, and avoiding that deadly sin of stagnation. This isn’t all the advice I have to give, but it is a start.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Because it can happen to you

Dan linked us this past Friday to an important service announcement.

What to do in case you are attacked by killer bees.

I know killer bees can be bad because I remember seeing some horrifying movies when I was a kid; particularly one in which Olivia de Havilland had a thunder cloud sized swarm of killer bees trying to get into her house.

Here's a brief video attached with the article,

Now if we could have some advice on how to escape the potential threat of rampaging monkeys attacking a banana pudding factory.

Labels: , ,

Monday, June 14, 2010

More from the Attribute Series

I noted a couple of weeks ago that John introduced a series for our church family on the attributes of God. The series is underway and there have been some outstanding messages from the pulpit. You can download available messages and see what is coming up HERE.

One surprising sermon was from our high school department pastor. I generally don't expect much from youth guys, but this fellow, Austin Duncan, gave a fabulous lay level message on the doctrine of the Trinity. Yesterday Phil preached on the immutability of God which should be a download when it comes available later this week.

Labels: ,

Friday, June 11, 2010

Articles on Apologetics and Evangelism

Articles I have written addressing apologetic methodology, the application of apologetics in evangelistic encounters, and answering atheists, pseudo-Christian cults, and other religions.

Apologetic Methodology:

Introduction, cont.
The Myth of the Neutral Playing Field
Evangelism’s Woes
Foundational Blocks for Building a Wall of Defense
Developing a Strategic Offensive
Readying Ourselves to Engage the World
Readying Ourselves to Engage the World, Pt. 2
Readying Ourselves to Engage the World, Pt. 3

The Application of Methodology

Ray Comfort’s Debate on Atheism
The Atheist’s Nightmare
The Dangerous Thin Line Between Human Reason and Biblical Authority
The Laminin Molecule and the Inadequacies of Evidence
Indescribable: A Review
The God of Weights and Measures
The Death of a Deist
Clearing the Presuppositional Malaise
Applying Presuppositionalism: Exegetical and Theological
Applying Presuppositionalism: Practical and Workable
Answering a Cranky Evidentialist
Apologetic Methodology in a Nutshell
CSI Apologetics
God Fearing Apologetics
Apologetic Dissonance
Questioning Classic Apologetics
True Persuasion: Contrasting Apologetic Methodologies

Apologetics In Action

Our Dinner with the Mormons
On Mattresses and Mormons
Visiting with the Secular Humanists
Visiting with the Secular Humanists #2
Jehovah’s Witnesses at the Door
Me and the UFO Guy
Divine Miracles
A Conversation with the "Mother-god" Guys

Answering Atheism:

Twenty Ways to Answer a Fool [My series interacting with the arguments of Chaz Bufe, the Blues loving anarchist]

Twenty Ways to Answer a Fool, Introduction
Is Christianity Based on Fear?
Does Christianity Prey on the Innocent?
Is Christianity Based upon Dishonesty?
Is Christianity Egocentric?
Does Christianity Breed Arrogance?
Does Christianity Breed Authoritarianism?
Is Christianity Cruel?
Is Christianity Anti-intellectual?
Does Christianity Have an Unhealthy Preoccupation with Sex?
Does Christianity Have a Narrow View of Morality?
Does Christianity Depreciate the Natural World?
Does Christianity Model an Authoritarian Organization?
Does Christianity Sanction Slavery?
Is Christianity Misogynistic?
Is Christianity Homophobic?
Is the Bible a Reliable Guide to Christ’s Teachings?
Is Christianity Borrowed from Other Ancient Religions?

Bob, the Blog Commenter
[Articles interacting with Bob, the bitter atheist commenter]

What About Bob?
Bob’s World
Bob and Weave
Bob Sled

Richard Dawkins Post Box Series

Post #1, #2, #3, #4, #5

Miscellaneous Articles Answering Atheism

Thank You Mr. Atheist for Your Loving Concern
Ridiculing Unbelief
12 Angry Statements
Suicide Solution
Answering Punk College Atheists
Musings from Atheist Dan
Why Should Atheists Care about Japan?
Epistemically Out-of-Touch

Conspiracy Theories
Chick Tracts Get You in Trouble
Tin-Foil Hat Theology: [Post #1, Post #2, Post #3]

Labels: ,

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Those were the Days

I have a busy rest of the week, so blogging will be below my average. To keep the home fires stoked, I ran across this interesting round up of abandoned theme parks.

8 Abandoned American Theme Parks

They forgot one, Dogpatch, USA in northwest Arkansas. One commenter under the article mentions it. We went to Dogpatch once as a family when I was a kid. A terrible, tacky place to visit. It made Silver Dollar City look like Disney Land. The day we went, their signature ride, "Lil Abner's Space Rocket" was closed for repairs. My little brother and I felt like getting a B.B. gun and going Clark Griswald on them.


Monday, June 07, 2010

Hard Truths for Theistic Evolutionists [1]

creationGod’s Character and the Doctrine of Inspiration

BioLogos is a website dedicated to promoting theistic evolution. Under the “Questions” page the curators summarize their position by writing, Theism is the belief in a God who cares for and interacts with the creation. Theistic Evolution, therefore, is the belief that evolution is the way by which God created life. On the webpage where the BioLogos Foundation outlines what they are about as a group, they write, We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation [emphasis mine].

Here we read a clear statement from the BioLogos Foundation affirming a devotion to the inspiration of Scriptures, and this is important to note, because the Bible specifically defines for us the word “inspiration.” In 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, Paul writes, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. The word translated in our English Bibles as “inspiration” is a Greek word meaning “God breathed.” Some English translations even render the word as “God breathed.” In other words, Paul is saying the Bible – the Scriptures – is a written, divine revelation directly from God.

Paul goes on to identify the effectual nature of Scripture. It is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Now, the constituency of BioLogos would argue Paul’s description of Scripture pertains only to moral issues of a spiritual nature. The daily issues a pastor will encounter when shepherding the Church of God. Hence, when the Bible addresses ethics, morals, and spiritual values of the Christian life, it is a reliable source of information. However, when the Bible addresses physical reality, areas of the world where modern day scientific theory attempts to assert itself as the dominant authority, it isn’t particularly useful and in some instances may be mistaken.

But, if the whole of scripture is, as Paul describes, God-breathed, then such would imply the whole of Scripture is invested with a uniquely divine authority. The Scriptures, being breathed out by God, would certainly bear the qualities of God’s attributes. The most important of those attributes as it pertains to Scripture is God’s truthfulness. In God dwells all truth.

The Scriptures themselves repeatedly declare God is the source of all truth. For example, Deuteronomy 32:4 says God is called A God of truth. Psalm 31:5 states the same thing about God. Through out the Scriptures, the Word of God is called God’s truth and to obey God’s Word or to keep His law is equated to obeying the Truth. See for example Psalm 86:11 which says, Teach me Your way, O LORD; I will walk in Your truth; Unite my heart to fear Your name. Also Psalm 119 describes God’s Word as truth and obedience to His Word by believers as “walking in truth” five times in verses 30, 43, 142, and 160.

The NT states the same thing about God’s Word. Jesus, in John’s gospel, calls Himself the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). When He prays to the Father, Jesus says God’s Word is truth and that truth sanctifies the believer (John 17:17, 19). The Holy Spirit is called a “Spirit of Truth” in John 14:17 and 15:26. It is also important to note that “walking in light” is seen as walking in truth and is contrasted to “walking in darkness” which is described as error or deception.

Several more passages in both the OT and the NT could be considered, but it is clear the Bible identifies God and His Word as being “the truth,” and it is “truth” identified with God’s character.

So. When God breathes out His revelation it will always be truthful in all the matters it addresses. This can be the only conclusion one can draw from Scripture if we take it seriously as a divinely given document. If the Bible is God-breathed and, as its own pages proclaim, it is truthful, then it has to be without error because being by its very nature God-breathed, the Bible is invested with God’s character which is truth.

Returning back to Paul’s words to Timothy, the apostles states “all Scripture” is God-breathed. “All” means more that just those things only pertaining to spiritual or moral values. This means God’s Word is without error when it speaks to physical reality and historical matters. There isn’t a dichotomy within Scripture where some is God-breathed and other portions are not. In other words, God’s Word cannot be God-breathed yet filled with error or deception at the same time. It cannot be both inspired yet errant. If Scripture is inspired or God-breathed it has to be inerrant and infallible in all that it addresses both in spiritual matters and physical and historical matters. The presence of any error in the Bible with regards to physical matters (read “science”) and historical matters (read “origins”) would impugn God’s character with either intentional deception or making a series of mistakes. If either one of those scenarios are true the Bible could no longer be confidently believed as trustworthy or said to be infallible.

The drafters of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy recognized inspiration and inerrancy are wed together as one in the historic orthodox doctrine of Scripture. These two doctrines stand or fall together and cannot be separated. Under article 11, the drafters state,

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated.

and under article 12 they write,

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Regrettably, the folks at BioLogos reject the unity of inspiration and inerrancy in the one orthodox doctrine of Scripture. Even though they claim they, being theistic evolutionists, believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, they reject inerrancy. They are acknowledging an inspired, but errant Bible, especially when it addresses the subjects of our World’s creation and man’s origins. This is clearly seen in this blog article. The author argues that inerrancy is false and is a result of a misguided adherence to strict biblicism that only engenders poor and inferior judgments about science, history, and theology. The author, then, wants to help the church get the proper bearings in a world with out adherence to biblical inerrancy.

One has to wonder if the author recognizes how his position speaks against the character of God. That what he is saying is God breathed out a divine revelation that was inscripturated in the Bible but what God revealed was misleading, deceptive, or mistaken. Accusations anyone with a high view of God would be nervous to make. In a comment underneath the post, the author says the actual text of the Bible is marred by man’s sin, but that only tarnishes God’s ability to preserve the revelation He breathed out in the first place. (Not to mention the fact it demonstrates a gross ignorance of textual criticism).

If theistic evolutionists insist they believe in a divine, sovereign God and that the Bible is inspired, I would expect them to explain the numerous theological problems their position creates. The disconnect between an inspired, yet errant Bible and God’s character being just the first among many. In a handful of up-coming posts, my objective will be to highlight those problems and consider whether theistic evolution really reflects a high view of God, let alone a high view of Scripture.

For what I see so far from theistic evolutionists, particularly the people at BioLogos, is unbelief. A full out denial of Christian orthodoxy. In a manner of speaking, it is a form of stealth atheism.


Sunday, June 06, 2010

Sodee Shop

Northern folks -- you know, those folks whose kin from way back yonder in the 1800s participated in the war of Northern aggression against the God blessed South -- have, as I understand it, always called a Coke, or any other soda product a "pop." So. If you are offering a Coke to someone, you ask the person, "Hey, do you want a "pop?" We, however, in the more sophisticated and fun loving Southern states, always referred to the same Coke in more humorous and homey ways. We say, "Hey, do you want a "sodee?" which is a play on the word "soda." For some reason, I have always been mocked for using such a reference. Of course, when I was much younger and living in the neutral state of Missouri (Missouri officially didn't take any sides during the war of Northern aggression, being more like those coward over in Switzerland), we called any "soda" product "Coke." So. If you wanted to offer someone a drink you would ask, "Hey, do you want a Coke?" To which that person would reply, "Oh yeah, I'll have a root beer if you got it."

All of that to point you to this fun Youtube documentary.

When I found out this guy's store is like 25 minutes from where I live, I started making plans for a visit.


Friday, June 04, 2010

Answering the Claims of Gay “Christian” Apologetics

Articles I have written answering the various arguments put forth by gay apologists who claim the Bible, rather than condemning homosexual behavior, commends and encourages it.

I also have an audio version of some of these messages at my other website, Fred's Bible Talk.

Debunking Gay Apologetics: Answering the apologetics of so-called gay evangelicals.

Toward a Biblical View of Sexuality

Slouching Toward Gomorrah

Were David and Jonathan Gay?

The Abomination of Sodomy

The Folly of Same-sex Theology

Gay “Christian” FAQs [1]

Gay “Christian” FAQs [2]

Miscellaneous Articles

Gay Apologists and Revisionists

Answering Some Gay Christian Apologists

The Rodney King Philosophy and Gay Revisionists

The Centurion’s Servant

Is the Word “Eunuchs” The Bible’s Way of Saying Homosexual?

Thoughts about Ray Boltz Declaring His Homosexuality

On Christians, Compassion, and Being Gay

Debating Dr. Laura

Articles on Homosexuality and Culture

Defining Deviancy

Prop. 8

Thoughts on the Evolution of Homosexuality


Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Gleanings from Daniel [11]

denThe Lion Den (Daniel 6)

Daniel chapter 6 is the last real narrative of the book of Daniel.  From chapter 7 onwards the book turns to prophecy. 

Remember, Daniel is composed of two languages: Hebrew, the language of Israel, and Aramaic, or what would be the common language of the secular world at that time.  The majority of the narrative chapters are written in Aramaic, meaning as I believe, God wanted to convey His sovereign authority to the most powerful pagan nations in the ancient world. 

This last official narrative passage has God displaying His power to the new king Darius.  Chapter 5 ended with the Babylonian kingdom falling to the Medo-Persian empire and Darius receiving the kingdom.

Who was Darius? Two possibilities:

Gubaru (Gobryas)

He is said to have been a previous Babylonian governor who turned to the Persians to help them over throw the Babylonian kingdom.  Three reasons why some see Gobryas as the historical Darius

1) Nabonidus Chronicle says Gubaru was installed as a sub-governor under Cyrus.  Daniel 6:1-2 seems to confirm this.

2) Darius is said to have “received the kingdom” meaning, from a superior ruler who would be Cyrus.

3) Daniel 6:28 reads, “So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.”  The text suggests two distinct individuals.


“Darius” is just an official title for Cyrus, who was the only sole ruler of Babylon.  Four reasons why historians say this:

1) Dual titles were common in the ancient world.  For example, Ahasuerus represents the Hebrew translation of the Persian title for Xerxes.

2) Cyrus had a Persian father, but a Median mother.

3) Ancient historian, Cicero, records that Cyrus died at the age of 70 and ruled the kingdom for 9 years and this would be about the same age of the Darius mentioned at the end of Daniel 5.

4) Daniel 6:28 the “and” could be rendered “even” implying a translation, “Darius, even Cyrus” meaning they are the one and same person.

I personally take the position that Darius was just another title for Cyrus. 

None the less, once Darius took over, he immediately demonstrated wise skills in governing.  He set over the entire kingdom 120 sub-governors, the Satraps, to rule the kingdom.  Over that group of 120 Satraps, He appointed three specific officials to govern the Satraps.  Daniel was one of those three officials.   It should be noted, also, that the translation “…of whom Daniel was one” could possible be rendered the idea of first, or the head over the other two.  Meaning that Daniel was the main guy over all of them.

What ever the case, Daniel distinguished himself as being the preeminent man over all the others.

He had what the Scripture describes as an excellent spirit, which implies his life being divinely directed by God.  He also had a good reputation; obviously because of his past history with Neb. when he spoke before him with authority.  More importantly, Daniel had integrity, something the new king needed with a governor in order to prevent governmental corruption. 

He had all of these qualities because he was blessed of God.  So, when a man like Daniel stands for conviction, integrity, purity, his enemies rise up to find fault. When they could not find anything to pin upon his character in order to take him down (vs. 4), the only option they had was to manufacture a phony plot to ruin him.  A typical move by the wicked against the righteous. 

So let me consider this vain plot against Daniel:

I. The Plot Conceived (6-9)

We are not certain how many individuals conspired against Daniel.  The only area where they could possibly impact him was religion.  Appealing to the King’s sense of pride, they went to him to enact a new decree.  The text says they “came as a throng” which speak more to a rebellious conspiracy.  They asked Darius to make a decree that no one worship or pray to any god other than the king.  The king, of course, agreed.

II. The Plot Executed (10-17)

Knowing that Daniel would not abide by Darius’ decree, they sought to expose him.  In fact, note how Daniel went home upon hearing the news of the decree and he prayed.  Which means He knew about the decree and prayed anyways: He chose to obey God rather than men.  His political enemies spied him out to accuse him and they saw him praying.  Immediately, they went straight to the king to bring charges against him for defying the king’s decree.  Darius was grieved over his stupid decision (vs. 14).  Regrettably, he had to execute Daniel on account of the decree that was unalterable. 

The form of execution was throwing Daniel into a den of lions. This was a typical form of capital punishment.  It was bothlions violent and gruesome.  Liberal scholars describe the reason for Daniel’s safety in the lion’s den was due in part to the lions being sick and weak from mistreatment.  But this is an absurd stretch to deny God’s power to save.  Lions are extremely dangerous animals.  In 1898, during the construction of the Kenya-Uganda Railway in Africa, two male Tsavo lions were responsible for the grisly killings of 28 railway workers. Unofficial reports put the number even higher at 135 men killed.  Hunting primarily at night, the two lions were bold enough to enter camps and drag men out of their tents while they slept.  They were nicknamed the “Ghost” and the “Darkness” and their reign of terror lasted from March of 1898 to December 1898 until they were shot and killed.   But, even though Daniel’s situation looked to be dire, Darius had confidence in God to rescue him. 

III. The Plot Failed (18-28)

Darius was so worried about Daniel, he fasted and prayed all night long.  Early the next morning, before even the sun came up, he went to the den.  His response is touching.  He called down into the pit with a lamenting voice and asked, “has your God whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?”  Daniel replied out of the darkness of the den that God had in deed saved him.  Daniel was alive and untouched, because an angel kept the mouths of the lions shut.

Then, in a twist of scriptural irony, those who accused Daniel were brought before Darius and condemned.  They, along with their families, were thrown into the pit and all of them were destroyed.  As the Bible states, they were killed before they even came to the bottom of the den.  All of them perished.

After Daniel was delivered, Darius made another decree:

=> He calls all the people to fear God

=> He proclaims God’s authority and dominion

=> He testifies as a witness to this God’s ability to save and deliver in a miraculous fashion

As a post script, Daniel is blessed of God so that he prospered during the reign of Darius who was Cyrus the Persian.


Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Draw Mohammed (if you dare)

As Seen on Zomblog


Answering the Claims of KJV-Onlyism

The various articles I have written answering and refuting the apologetics of King James Onlyism.

Many of these articles are also available at my other website, Fred’s Bible Talk.

My Testimony

Leaving King James Onlyism (with special thanks to Gail Riplinger)

My Series Examining the Apologetics of King James Onlyism

The Six Arguments in Defense of KJV-Onlyism

The Exclusivity Argument [Pt. 1]

The Exclusivity Argument [Pt. 2]

The Promise Argument

The Textual Argument

The Textual Argument: The Preservation of the OT

The Textual Argument: The Preservation of the NT

Have Heretics Corrupted My Bible?

Were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort Apostate New Agers?

The Line of Good Bibles Argument

The KJV Translators and Their Work

The Historical Argument

Miscellaneous Articles Addressing KJV-Only Issues

Liberals, KJV-Onlyists, and Inerrancy

Run for Your Lives! KJV-Onlyists Will Eat You Alive!

Translational Discernment

Answers KJV-Onlyists are Afraid You Will Provide [Pt. 1], [Pt. 2], [Pt. 3]

Textual Preservation and MVOs

The KJV-Only Naturalistic, Non-neutrality Argument

Welcome to KJV-Only Fideist’s Club House

King James Only Historiography

F.J.A. Hort and Séances

Slaves of Christ [Pt. 1], [Pt. 2]

The KJV-Only, He-man Woman Haters Club

The KJV-Only Easter Bunny Trail

Cloudy Daze (Romans 8:16 and “The Spirit Itself”)

The Wheels on the Chariot…

Bro. Cloud’s 8 Presuppositions for Textual Criticism

The Unbound Scriptures, A Review