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

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

11 foot, 8 inches

We are sending out our first batch of ESV study Bibles this week, so blogging will be light. I have a big essay in the works that may be up later, but I don't know.

In the meantime, allow me to entertain you with an amusing website.


I realize this may be sick-minded, but I would find great glee in sitting by the road just waiting for some hapless fellow to come driving through with his U-Haul.

Just to whet your appetite for destruction:

Labels: ,

Sunday, August 29, 2010

An Update on Bob Johnson

The Transformation Buster

Some long time readers may remember the name, Bob Johnson.

For the last four years or so, Bob has been a loud voice warning the Christian Church at large about John MacArthur and our ministries at Grace Church.

I first encountered Bob in May of 2006 out in front of Grace Church on Roscoe Blvd. He was passing out a multi-page report that allegedly documented how a couple of our fellowship groups had succumbed to Purpose Driven Life philosophy and were engaged in seeker-sensitive church growth techniques. He further claimed the PDL philosophy was really akin to Hegelian-Marxist techniques that seek to brainwash individuals to think in terms of an ungodly group think (whatever that maybe). Some of the ways this "group think" supposedly manifested itself was in the manner of "vision casting" talk, small group dynamics where "facilitators," as Bob called them, would lead the group in "brainwashing" sessions, and the building of relationships.

Bob also had it in for Al Mohler, claiming that he was a secret, U.N. agent bent on infiltrating the Christian Church in America.

I spent a good 30-40 minutes talking with Bob and I wrote up our initial encounter with a snarky posted entitled, My Interview with a Crackpot.

I thought Bob would remain something of a onetime, local conspiracy kook, but before I knew it, he had taken to the internet with his screeds against John and Grace Church. Both Phil Johnson (no relation) and I would receive phone calls and emails from individuals from all over the world asking about the accusations in Bob's papers. One of the recent mission conferences even addressed Bob's material, because he was claiming our Master's Academy International, a seminary ministry designed to train foreign national pastors in their home countries, was a secret group with the agenda to subvert the Christian churches in the various countries where they operated.

It became clear Bob needed to have something of an answer, at least to me. I pulled together a number of personal emails I exchanged with Bob and a couple of his minions (though I think one or two of them was the Bob in question) and I published them as apologetic articles for inquirers who had run across his internet sites.

This past Friday, August 27th, Phil Johnson informed me he had received a phone call from Bob apologizing for the articles. He further informed Phil that he had taken down his websites and would no longer be posting against John. His main reason is that he believed he was too judgmental in an unbiblical way. Phil encouraged him to make some public announcement of his change, which to Bob's credit he did at his The Watchman Wakes in Vain site.

Seeing that I have been Bob's most vocal opponent, I thought I would post it here:

I have deleted the article regarding the transformation of John Macarthur's church. The reason this article was deleted is because it was an article written in judgment which is unbiblical. It was also written more in a spirit of "I'll show you" than in love.. Does that mean that the facts in the article were untrue? I am unaware of any factual errors in that report.

For instance, did Grace Church have purpose driven ministries? Yes. Do/did they have ministries that partner with governments and UN-NGO member orgs? Yes. Are their agents transforming Grace Church from within? Absolutely. Phil Johnson belongs to an org called FIRE. This org has a slogan identical to that of Phoenix Freemasonry. I said that was of interest but I never intended that anyone assume Phil Johnson was a Mason. I apologize to others at Grace Church who have been similarly hurt.

Judge not lest you be judged. It was wrong for me to sit in judgment of Grace Church and John Macarthur and others. Only by God are they judged. How can I judge the speck in the eye's of others when I have a log in my own? And I fear now that His judgment is upon me.

In spite of Bob's claim that what he wrote he believed was factually true, it was not. I will say a lot of his charges against our Church stem more from his strange interpretations of what he considers "church growth" philosophy. If he begins with his particular model in place, I can see how he can easily find ghouls when none really exist. For instance, we have never utilized "Purpose Driven Life" principles in any of our ministries. The use of small groups, utilizing contemporary music, even talking about "catching a vision" does not equate to church growth-PDL philosophy and is only a figment of Bob's conspiratorial mindset.

I will say I am concerned for Bob, especially regarding his last sentence of how he is fearful of God's judgment coming upon him. I have never wished such a thing on Bob, just that he would admit his mistake and cease from lying against my pastor and church.

In addition to Phil's admonition to put up an announcement about why he is doing what he is doing, I would even encourage Bob to write up a page to be handed out to our congregation expressing his wrong doing and asking for forgiveness and spend a Sunday or two handing it out to the folks coming and going to church. Maybe it is a little too much and perhaps unneeded, but I for one would love to see how God can change one of the biggest critics of my church into one of the biggest supporters.


Friday, August 27, 2010

Gleanings from Daniel [13]

4beast The Night Vision of the Four Beasts – Pt. 2 [Daniel 7]

In my last posting on the book of Daniel, I was considering chapter 7. That chapter is unique because it is the last major portion of Daniel in Aramaic. This is intentional, I believe, because God wanted to relay this vision to the secular governments who believe they have nothing to do with the God of Israel.

God, in fact, has much to do with them even if they are pagans, and He outlines for them His decree of history.

Chapter 7 bookends the vision Nebuchadnezzar had in a dream of a giant statue of 4 metals. Here, the same four kingdoms represented in Neb.’s dream are present in the image of these four beasts who come out of the sea.

These four beasts are pictured as: 1) A lion with wings, 2) A lopsided bear, 3) a four-headed leopard with wings, and 4), an indescribable monster. Each one of these beasts coincides with the four major world empires: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome.

The fourth beast is the most unusual. It was unclassifiable on a zoological level. Additionally, there were 10 horns on this beast that pictured 10, yet-in-the-future kingdoms. One of the horns had a face and spoke blasphemy against God.

As this beast was standing with this little horn speaking blasphemy against the God of heaven, the Ancient of Days arrives and sets up court. He judges the little horn and then the Son of Man comes and receives a kingdom from the Ancient of Days.

I want to consider this vision in three sections. The last time I considered the first two sections:

1) The Setting – the first year of Belshazzar

2) The Details – the actual vision itself as outlined in Daniel 7.

This time I want to consider a third section, 3) The Interpretation.

Turning to Daniel 7:15-18, let us first look at the source of the interpretation. Daniel is “disturbed in his spirit” after seeing these visions. Rightly so when these weird, vicious beasts are to represent the violent, chaotic overthrow of governments. The obvious question is, “What do these beasts mean?” “When will these things take place?” “How will they effect God’s people?” In order to get answers to these questions, Daniel approaches “one of them,” that is, one of the angelic beings standing by to minister to the Ancient of Days. This being explains how those great beasts are four kingdoms which will come to power. But the ultimate end of their dominion will be ended by the coming of the Kingdom of God.

One theological question is to ask “who were these saints who received the KoG?” The Reformed believe it only speaks to those who are the true Israel: the Church, both in the OT and the NT.

But what exactly is the context of Daniel in this text? Who exactly would the prophet be thinking about? The entire chapter is a prophetic word contrasting the heathen kingdoms of men as they relate to the people of Israel. The only “saints” or “holy ones” or “set apart ones” would be God’s people of the nation of Israel that was at that time in bondage in Babylon. I believe this vision intends to direct us to God’s dealings with Israel at the coming of the Son of Man in the latter days.

The Fourth Beast: Daniel was particularly interested in the fourth, unclassifiable beast with the 10 horns, and even more so in the little horn that had a mouth speaking blasphemy against God. The fourth beast was certainly different because of its ferocity and undefined classification. In addition was this horn with eyes and a mouth, like some odd, blasphemous muppet.

In verse 23, the angel describes the beast as a fourth kingdom which will rule the world, what Daniel describes as “devouring the whole earth” trampling and breaking it into pieces. We see this fulfilled the kingdom of Rome, whose rule extended across all of Africa, Arabia, into Europe and even into the British Isles.

The Little Horn: Daniel asks about the little horn in verse 20. It is noted as having a mouth, which means intelligence and the ability to communicate. In this instance, the horn blasphemed the LORD. One detail Daniel adds is how this little horn wages war against the saints and it is said to prevail against the saints.

In response, the angels explains in verse 24 how the 10 horns represented 10 kings who come from the fourth beast/kingdom. The “little horn” subdues three of the kings out of the 10 by force. This “little horn” is noted for three major things:

Blasphemous. As has already been seen, the little horn speaks blasphemy against God. As will be seen in a moment, his blasphemy is defined by demanding god like worship.

Wears out the Saints. He “wears out” the saints by persecuting them (vs. 25).

Changes holidays. It is a bit unclear as to what the angel means when he says the little horn will “changes times and laws.” The clearest understanding is that in his blasphemy, the little horn may be changing religious laws to direct worship toward him and certainly denying religious liberty.

The little horn does all of these things, according to the angel, for “a time and times and half a time.” Commentators mark that period as 3 1/2 years and identify this little horn in other portions of Daniels prophecy, 9:27, 12:7, and most importantly, in the book of Revelation 13:5 and following. In fact, John’s description of his “beast” is identical to Daniel’s vision of this “little horn,” but he provides additional revelation not found with Daniel, specifically how this “beast” demands worship. This figure is the Anti-christ, a cruel, anti-God figure who will bring war upon the earth in the latter days before Christ returns. He will do this for 3 1/2 years, and he will bring violent persecution against the “saints” in Daniel’s vision, who are the people of Israel.

However, his reign of terror is short. Verse 26 begins with the marvelous conjunction, BUT.

The Kingdom of God: As the little horn is wearing out the saints, it is then that the “Ancient of Days” comes. His court will be seated and when this happens, this little horn shall be destroyed forever. The “Ancient of Days” – God Almighty – judges in favor of the saints and they possess the kingdom. The dominion of sinful governments comes to an end and the dominion of the LORD is established. The one characteristic marking this kingdom: The people obey and serve the LORD.


Thursday, August 26, 2010

A Dog and Her Elephant

This clip is a bit old, so I imagine most people have seen it already. A friend email list spammed me the other day that linked me to it again. I thought I would share. Don't care too much for the philosophical tripe about how humans should learn a lesson about getting along in spite of our differences, but the story get's me weepy every time.

Sorry about the pre-commercial.


Wednesday, August 25, 2010

The Unbound Scriptures: A Review

One of the first book reviews I wrote earlier in my web publishing career for my other website was called The Unbound Scriptures: A Review of KJV-Only Claims and Publications written by Rick Norris.  I was a KJV-Onlyists for about the first 10 years or so of my life as a Christian, due primarily to some bad teaching I received from some respected friends.  I chronicle my break from KJV-Onlyism with this article if anyone is interested. 

Anyhow, by the time I read Rick’s book I had abandoned my KJV-Only sympathies, but his work was an excellent resource for dealing with some pernicious internet KJV-Only apologists who trolled on some forum boards where I frequented at the time.  Rick discovered my review and wrote me to thank me for it and he occasionally would send me additional material he was working on via email. 

He wrote me recently to tell me he has a new website hosting some of his work:

The Unbound Scriptures

Along with plugging his site, I thought I would post an edited version of my original review.



unbound The Unbound Scriptures: A Review of KJV-Only Claims and Publications

Rick Norris 


During the course of my personal reading I will occasionally come across a book that is like an aromatic cup of warm coffee: it is both delightful to the taste and warming to the soul. Rick Norris has written such a book with The Unbound Scriptures: A Review of KJV-only Claims and Publications. This book is a delight, because Mr. Norris has addressed a topic that is close to me: I was once a rabid King James Only proponent.

For nearly a decade I believed the only English Bible accurately representing the true Words of God was contained in the 1611 translation of the King James Bible. It was my sincere conviction that the KJV was based upon the best Hebrew and Greek texts that had preserved every "jot and tittle" of Holy Scripture.  Furthermore, I believed the KJV had been translated by the godliest and most capable scholars the Christian world has ever known. I would argue that any of the modern, English translations like the New International Version, New American Standard Version and English Standard Version, were based upon inferior Hebrew and Greek texts. I would call them "modern perversions" because I believed heretics had corrupted the original manuscripts these translations were based upon by stealthily injecting cultic doctrines by omitting a key word here or adding a slightly different phrase there.

Additionally, modern versions were translated by men who were unbelievers; individuals who held to unorthodox beliefs and denied essential Christian doctrine like the virgin birth and the deity of Jesus Christ. Any Christian who read and studied these modern versions, in my opinion, was only receiving a portion of what God really said, and even worse, believers were being brainwashed to unwittingly accept false doctrine. Moreover, any person who actually defended the use of modern versions and had the audacity to challenge the pure, inerrant translation contained in the King James Bible was in my mind a Bible rejecter and corrector, and this person was setting himself up as the final authority rather than submitting to God’s Word. I was, in all sense of the term, a King James Only advocate, and I would add, I rather obnoxious one.

In order to defend my KJV convictions I appealed to an arsenal of supposed arguments that are promoted in the myriad of publications produced by KJV only advocates.  I would often utilize those arguments in order to defend what I believed to be God’s unalterable Word. It is these arguments that Rick Norris has dared to challenge in his book.

Just offering a challenge is of utmost importance because King James Only advocates refuse to have the fundamental presuppositions of their beliefs examined by any meaningful critique.  Rick Norris, however, has provided  such a meaningful examination in his 500 plus page book and it is both thorough and devastating to the KJV only system. I would further point out that his challenge is at the risk of having his personal character viciously smeared and his research ridiculed by the KJV only advocates in their monthly newspapers, internet bulletin boards, and other publications. Yet, with all of the bombast which may billow forth from the KJV only crowd, Mr. Norris’s work is sure to withstand the ridiculous scrutiny it is going to receive.

Mr. Norris has documented his case well against the KJV only arguments by wading through literally hundreds of KJV only books, tracts, pamphlets and other similar materials. That alone is a daunting task.  It takes steeled courage to sift through page after page of erroneous nonsense.  Yet, his bibliography covers 48 pages, so it is clear he has done his homework and is informed when he writes. He interacts with all of the regulars from the King James Only camp. Men like Samuel Gipp, David Cloud, D.A. Waite, Thomas Holland, Jack Moorman, and of course the grand patriarch, Peter Ruckman, who is the loudest and most savage of all the King James Only proponents.  Mr. Norris basically puts all of their various arguments defending the KJV on trial and subjects them to a barrage of questions and the proper citing of historical fact that exposes those arguments as outright fallacious and absolutely without any merit.

I am particularly pleased with the extensive research Mr. Norris provides in the area of pre-KJV English translations. He has comb through translations like Tyndale’s Bible, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, and the Geneva Bible to provide some original citations that are normally inaccessible to the average laymen. This is a significant study for a couple of reasons:

First, KJV only advocates will argue the King James translation is the only Bible to be used by Christians because it is the final, purified seven times translation in the line of seven English translations that God blessed. This “purification,” argue the KJV advocates, establishes the KJV as the crowning authority of God’s Word. They attempt to build their argumentation for the "line of good Bibles" from the pages of Scripture by misapplying Psalm 12:6, a verse they horribly abuse and wrestle out of context, which states, The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Mr. Norris demonstrates how this argumentation is seriously flawed, and he uses his study in pre-KJV translations to demonstrate this error. He states:

If this line of good Bibles gives any valid evidence for the KJV-only view, all the Bibles must be inspired and inerrant like they claim the KJV is. Otherwise, if any errors (errancy) or corruption enters their line, how does that prove the KJV-only claim that an inerrant KJV must result? (p. 206).

In other words, all of the Bibles listed in the line of seven must have God’s hand of blessing upon them, protecting them from the encroachment of error into the translational process. If a textual, theological, or translational error enters into the stream at any point, then any subsequent Bible would be polluted and the KJV advocate’s claim to a pure line of Bibles resulting in the crowning achievement of the King James is ruined. As Mr. Norris points out, "Can a stream rise higher that its sources?"

One amusing fact Mr. Norris shows us in his research is that no two KJV advocates can agree as to which biblical translations belong in the list leading up to the King James. For example, Peter Ruckman’s good tree chart found in his book The Bible Babel omits the 1568 Bishop’s Bible, but it is included among the list found in KJV only advocate J.J. Ray’s book, God Only Wrote One Bible (p. 207).  KJV only advocate, William Bradley, has a list of Bibles in one of his publications that consists of Wycliffe’s, Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, The Great Bible, the Geneva, and then the King James, while omitting the Bishop’s Bible, of which the KJV was officially a revision,  yet in a later publication, he reinserts it his line of seven good Bibles: Wycliffe’s, Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, The Great Bible, the Geneva, the Bishops’s and then the King James, which would then make the King James the eighth in the line of good Bibles, not the seventh (p. 236). Such inconsistency illustrates the absurdity of holding to a mystical notion of God blessing a specific translational stream resulting in the purified King James published in 1611. Mr. Norris rightly observes:

What consistent criteria was used to determine objectively which translations to include? It seems that the KJV-only advocates cannot agree on which Bibles to include on their lists and on which Bibles to leave off. Do they start with the assumption that the KJV has to be the seventh one and then subjectively pick out six others to make their count work? If believers were to accept the erroneous claim that men can purify God’s word in a series of translations, on whose authority do we base the claim that the KJV is the seventh and final purification? (p. 236, 237)

A second area of importance addressed with Mr. Norris’s study of pre-KJV English Bibles is the rendering of specific phrases as well as unique translations that are found in earlier English versions KJV only advocates condemn when the same renderings and translations appear in modern translations. For example, all of the KJV only advocates I have ever read in my pro-KJV only days would cite Luke 2:33 as proof of how modern translations corrupt God’s Word by altering specific doctrines like the Virgin Birth of Christ. In the KJV, Luke 2:33 reads, And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him. Take note of the phrase "Joseph and his mother." However, the New American Standard translates the verse as, And his father and mother…, and the New International Version translates it as, And the child’s father and mother…. Both of these modern translations change the phrase "Joseph and his mother" to "his father and mother." King James Only advocates love to point out how the Virgin Birth of Christ is denied with these two modern translations. D.A. Waite, one of the more "scholarly" King James Advocates and president of the Dean Burgon Society, writes in his book called Defending the KJV concerning this translational difference:

After eliminating "Joseph," they substitute the words, "the child’s father," thus possibly calling Joseph, Christ’s literal "father," thereby denying His virgin birth. This is certainly a matter of doctrine and theology. At this point, these Greek texts and these English versions are theologically deficient, whereas the Textus Receptus and the KING JAMES BIBLE are theologically superior.

His argumentation does sound convincing, especially to anyone who is untrained in textual criticism and translation methods.  Mr. Waite, however, in his "heresy" hunt against modern translations, failed to take notice that several pre-KJV translations contain the words, "his father and mother." Mr. Norris shows us how the phrase "his father" has been translated in at least six of the pre-KJV translations that make up the supposed "good line of Bibles:" Wycliffe’s, Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, the Great Bible, and the Bishop’s. On top of that, both the Luther’s German NT translation and the Spanish Enzinas NT translation have "father" translated in their respective languages at Luke 2:33 (p. 246). The average churched Christian could be easily swayed by KJV only arguments, but Mr. Norris’s research into the earlier English translations does a valuable service to dispel the exaggerated examples KJV only advocates often employ in their polemics. One can only wish KJV only advocates would be so honest in their research.

I was also encouraged by Mr. Norris’s biographical study of the King James translators.  King James Only advocates practically deify the men who translated the KJV by claiming they were scholars of superior intelligence, qualified both academically and spiritually for the task of translating the Bible, as compared to those men who translated the modern versions.

Oddly, as Mr. Norris points out in his opening remarks in this biographical chapter, many KJV only proponents will vilify scholarship and knowledge, but inconsistently appeal to it to defend their beloved KJV translators. The writings of KJV only advocates gush with nauseating praise of how these men are the best translators the world has ever known, the godliest men the church has ever known, and their final translation is a work that should never be questioned. They are in essence raised to a level of infallibility. Yet, Mr. Norris’s research into their lives shows us that they were just ordinary men, and even though they were for the most part good and decent translators of the original languages, they were not with out their foibles, nor did they rise above the fleshly sins that plague all of God’s people here in this life. For example, the King James translator’s were Anglicans that were doing their translational work for the state church of England. They translated the KJV more for the political reasons of the state rather than out of some compelling love to give God’s people a "final authority" in a Bible.  King James hated the Puritans, a movement within the Anglican Church, and the Puritans favored the popular Geneva Bible. James wanted to unseat it as the one Bible commonly used by most of his subjects, thus he allowed for a new translation, an update of the Bishop’s Bible, to be produced.

Also, several of the KJV translators were notorious for their state sponsored persecutions of those Christians who would dissent from the Church of England. Mr. Norris points out that both George Abbot and Lancelot Andrewes, two of the key translators of the KJV, urged the burning at the stake of Bartholomew Legate in March of 1611. "George Abbot," writes Norris, "even presided over the proceedings" (p. 53). In addition to these persecutions, the Baptist church in England also suffered severe persecutions. It is ironic that KJV only advocates, fundamental Baptist in conviction, would be so eager to defend a Bible translated by men who persecuted their Baptist forefathers.

Unbound Scriptures is an outstanding study of the various KJV arguments, and the hundreds of questions Mr. Norris asks of the fundamental beliefs that make up KJV onlyism reveal that it is an apologetic system built upon the proverbial foundation of sand.  However, even though this is an excellent work, I would be amiss not to offer a couple of thoughts of constructive criticism I hope would only help improve such a tremendous book.

First, the book is privately published (see contact information below), and because of that fact, it runs the risk of quickly going away and not having a wide distribution. Word of mouth and positive reviews will obviously serve Mr. Norris’s book well, but it would be a blessing to see a known publishing house take up the task of producing and marketing Unbound Scriptures to a larger Christian audience. Many pastors and laymen who have to deal with a vociferous KJV only advocate disrupting the fellowship of their congregation or home Bible study may never be aware such a fine work exists to counter and silence KJV only claims. The Christian Church at large would benefit greatly from the material contained in this book.

Second, the table of contents could be better organized so as to be more useful for the reader. Mr. Norris cleverly titles each one of his chapters with a biblical verse taken directly from the King James translation that highlights specific subjects of KJV only argumentation. For example, chapter two is entitled, Understandst thou what thou readest, and is an examination of the KJV only argument that the King James is not copyrighted. Chapter 15 is called, Give an account of thy stewardship, and examines the KJV only claims concerning variation between the original language manuscripts of the Bible. The chapter titles are catchy, but also ambiguous. They do not tell the reader what is necessarily being discussed. A helpful improvement for the table of contents would be to maintain the chapter titles, but then provide the sub-titles that indicate the subject of each chapter and list them under each of the chapter title headings. That would not only help inform the reader of the subjects addressed in the book, but would also provide a quicker reference for locating a specific subject.

Thankfully, those small issues do not detract from the over all excellence of this work and should not deter any Christian from enjoying it. I am actually looking forward to reading various KJV only critiques of this book. I am eager to see how they attempt to answer his research, because the questions Mr. Norris raises against KJV only claims are so penetrating that KJV only advocates are sure to manufacture more conspiracy theories and re-write more Church history in order to make excuses for what is at the foundation, an indefensible system of belief. May Unbound Scriptures serve the people of God for years to come.

To obtain a copy of Unbound Scriptures, you can contact the author, Rick Norris, at the following email address:

Email: rick1560@juno.com


Monday, August 23, 2010

The Wild, Technology, and Stupid People

Technology Leads More Park Visitors into Trouble

“Because of having that electronic device, people have an expectation that they can do something stupid and be rescued,” said Jackie Skaggs, spokeswoman for
Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming.

“Every once in a while we get a call from someone who has gone to the top of a peak, the weather has turned and they are confused about how to get down and they want someone to personally escort them,” Ms. Skaggs said. “The answer is that you are up there for the night.”

By the way, it's worth clicking over to watch the buffalo video.

Labels: ,

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Old Earth Defenders of the Gospel

Theistic evolutionists and other old earth apologists claim to have a high regard for the integrity of the Gospel message. They are particularly concerned for the Christian witness to sound rational, logical,and reasonable before the academic community of unbelieving scientists, and because the academic community of unbelieving scientists all accept for the most part Darwinian evolution and an Earth that is nearly 5 billion years old, the evangelist must never present a view of the Christian faith that appears illogical and foolish before this group of high caliber unbelievers. In a manner of speaking, they are their own unique mission field in which we must apply a different set of missional criteria.

Thus, Christians who hold to a literal understanding of the Genesis creation account, and thus a young age for the Earth, are a serious stumbling block for the Gospel of Christ with scientific unbelievers and should never engage them in evangelism. If they do, they will only make Jesus look stupid.

During the course of our four month long blog series on Genesis at the GTY Blog, the theistic evolutionists warned us of how we were damaging the cause of Christ with our ridiculous views of creation. They pleaded with us to stop believing this nonsense because we made ourselves appear like idiots by denying reality and defending a position that is utterly impossible to believe by any "scientist" who is knowledgeable with the evidence. The bulk of the various blog articles, along with the attending comments, are linked in this summary post so that people can get a flavor for the evangelistic zeal on the part of our TE and OEC critics.

To illustrate what I mean by missionary zeal, there was a bit of a telling exchange with one of our regular TE critics.

Our web manager, Travis, wrote up a post highlighting some comments made by the Trojan atheists at the Biologos foundation and some responses to them by a few other bloggers. As an illustration of different starting points when evaluating any scientific evidence, Travis wrote about the uniformitarian presuppositions with geology and recalled a conversation he had with a geology professor when he attended Metropolitan State College in Denver:

Geology Prof: “Well, we date the eras by the strata that belong to that era.”

Me: “How do you date the strata?”

Geology Prof: ”By the fossils embedded in each stratum.”

Me: (Now we’re getting somewhere.) “So, since carbon dating is used for recent dating, and since radiometric dating isn’t used for dating fossils, how do you determine the ages of the fossils?”

Geology Prof: “By the strata in which we find them.”

Me: “Isn’t that circular? I mean, if you date the fossils by the rocks, and the rocks by the fossils, isn’t that circular reasoning?”

Geology Prof: “Yes, I suppose it is. But that’s the best we can do.”

Just three comments deep in the meta, an old earth Gospel defender leaves the following comments:

That "conversation with a geology prof" is an strawman or urban legend taken from old YEC books. Notice how no name is provided for the geology professor. It's hard to believe it is being brought up in a blog for a top tier pastor in 2010.

He genuinely believes we are making this up. We're nothing but a den of liars and thieves. We merely have our Dr. Dino handbook opened and are running it play by play, and we all know what sort of a liar and thief Dr. Dino is. John MacArthur's reputation as a top tier pastor is on the verge of being ruined. No one thinks like this in 2010. Maybe 1982, but not now in 2010, so we have to lie and fabricate an Ergun Caneresque make-believe conversation with a non-existent geology professor.

It may be helpful for our commenter to know that many evolutionary-old earth teachers and propagandists against biblical creationism haven't received his message. The "conversation" noted above with a geology professor is not an isolated event. I can remember hearing the exact same argumentation coming from my high school science teacher, Carla Sample. She was more into biology than geology, or at least from what I can recall, but she did read from our standard Earth science text book that argued for the age of strata in exactly the same way. When I got to college at Arkansas State University, I had to take an Earth science class for basic credit. The fellow, a grad assistant whose name I don't remember at all, who taught the class was a geologist and he argued in the exact same way for dating strata. I remember the lecture because I was a brand new Christian who was thinking through the issues of creation and evolution at the time. Other friends I have spoken with have testified to similar lectures in similar science education courses. So, if our commenter is correct that such a "conversation" is a young earth urban legend, it would be helpful for him to send out a memo to the geologists teaching in our colleges.

But he goes one to provide how such a conversation would really go in our day and age"

Such a line of questioning with a true geology prof would be more like this:

"So I asked him how geologists justified the dating of the geological column, the chart that traverses time from the Cryptic era (starting from 4.5 billion years) to the Cenozoic era (up to today)."

Geology Prof: “Well, we date various sedimentary layers by applying radiometric dating to the volcanic material (e.g., lava, ash) which is interspersed between the layers. We always find particular types of fossils within layers formed within similar time spans as confirmed with radiometric dating. Therefore, we know the span of time to which each type of fossil belongs, even if a layer doesn't happen to be bounded by dateable material at it's particular location. For example, we always find dinosaur fossils within layers which fall between about 230 million years old to about 65 million years old. We have given names for the eons, eras, periods, epochs, and ages according to the types of fossils found in each one and other factors.

Me: “How do you date the strata?”

Geology Prof: ”I just told you. Material that can be dated using radiometric techniques is found in between all kinds of layers in all kinds of places. Also, radiometric techniques keep getting better and better, and we now have some techniques which don't assume a knowledge of the amount of parent material. People read these books written for mass consumption that are critical of radiometric techniques, and they think they know everything about radiometric dating. The don't understand the amount of time and effort it takes to obtain date a rock.”

Me: (Now we don't seem to be getting anywhere.) “So, since carbon dating is used for recent dating, and since radiometric dating isn’t used for dating fossils, how do you determine the ages of the fossils?”

Geology Prof: (This guy isn't listening to me - he seems to have a force field that prevents him from accepting any information that might require him to get out of his comfort zone. He sounds like one of those fundamentalist Christians -- what a terrible witness -- I don't want anything to do with his faith) “Yes, but carbon dating does tell us the age of a lot of recent things on and near the surface of the Earth. And again, we don't just data fossils by the strata in which we find them.”

Me: “Isn’t that circular? I mean, if you date the fossils by the rocks, and the rocks by the fossils, isn’t that circular reasoning?”

Geology Prof: “Groaaannnn...Yes, I suppose your thinking is circular. Your arguments always pre-suppose that evidence supporting the current consensus of geologists does't exist, then proceed to use that presupposition in your arguments for a young earth. For example, look how Woodmorappe's statement that "Common sense teaches us that 16 miles (at most) which exists, out of a total of 100 or 200 miles, is a very incomplete (geologic) column!" completely ignores current geologist's understanding of a global rock cycle involving erosion, sedimentation, plate tectonics, subduction, metamorphism, recycling into igneous rock)."

The commenter assumes a number of things with his imaginary conversation, but ultimately, his concern is with the "terrible" Gospel witness this young earth believer is giving to this man of education in his field of expertise. (As if any unbeliever knows what constitutes a "terrible" witness is in the first place). The biggest assumption is that such an educated expert would be open to the Christian faith but the young earth advocate throws a tremendous intellectual stumbling block in the professor's path by offering ignorant questions and arguments against how the consensus of geologists date rocks. The young earth apologist is telling the professor he has to abandon what he knows to be true about the history of the world and accept an entirely different view of reality that is just incredible and impossible to reconcile with the known evidence. But this assumes the unbelieving professor would be "open" to other incredible things associated with the Christian faith like armies being drowned in seas, food falling out of heaven on a daily basis, paraplegics being supernaturally restored to full health, and dead men raising from the grave.

The reality, however, is clearly the opposite and is affirmed by the biblical testimony of the fallenness of sinners. Rather than being "open" to the Gospel and the history of the world as presented by the revelation of Scripture, unbelievers, like this professor, would reject any evidence that would force him to have to renounce his unbelief and submit to the authority of God in his life.

Borrowing this illustration, the conversation between a biblical creationist and an unbelieving professor would probably go more like this:

Me: "How do you date strata?

Geology Prof: “Well, we date various sedimentary layers by applying radiometric dating to the volcanic material (e.g., lava, ash) which is interspersed between the layers. We always find particular types of fossils within layers formed within similar time spans as confirmed with radiometric dating. Therefore, we know the span of time to which each type of fossil belongs, even if a layer doesn't happen to be bounded by dateable material at it's particular location. For example, we always find dinosaur fossils within layers which fall between about 230 million years old to about 65 million years old. We have given names for the eons, eras, periods, epochs, and ages according to the types of fossils found in each one and other factors.

Me: But aren't you assuming the "readings" from the radiometric dating have been consistent for the entire history of geology?

Geology Prof: ”I just told you. Material that can be dated using radiometric techniques is found in between all kinds of layers in all kinds of places. Also, radiometric techniques keep getting better and better, and we now have some techniques which don't assume a knowledge of the amount of parent material. People read these books written for mass consumption that are critical of radiometric techniques, and they think they know everything about radiometric dating. They don't understand the amount of time and effort it takes to obtain date a rock.”

Me: (He didn't really answer my question): But sir. Again, even with these techniques, which are not as consistent as you are letting on, you're assuming a uniform decay rate that in turn assumes other a priori presuppositions about the history of the earth? You seem to suggest that yourself when you say, "which don't assume a knowledge of the amount of parent material." That's a pretty big assumption, don't you think?

Geology Prof: (This guy isn't listening to me - he seems to have a force field that prevents him from accepting any information that might require him to get out of his comfort zone. He sounds like one of those fundamentalist loons -- what a terrible witness -- I don't want anything to do with his faith. I imagine he probably believes in talking snakes, floating ax heads, food being formed out of thin air, and dead men raising to life).

“Groaaannnn...Yes, I suppose I am assuming uniformitarianism, because this is the consensus of science. Your arguments always pre-suppose that evidence supporting the current consensus of geologists doesn't exist, then proceed to use that presupposition in your arguments for a young earth. (what an ignorant fanatic).

Me: Okay, thanks for the clarification, I think?

Our commenter then provides a link to a lecture presented by a geology professor named Rob C. Thomas who provides Strategies for Dealing with Religious Fundamentalist Students in College Level Geoscience Courses. Contrary to our commenter's accusation we are burning strawmen against our opponents, Thomas's powerpoint lecture is one big strawman. All the young earth students he has ever encountered do nothing but Bible thump in his classes, shout down the teacher, write rude remarks on their essay papers, and slip creationist literature under the professor's door.

In fact, this lecture was part of a much larger symposium addressing the perceived problem of Pentecostal hill billies in school,

Is it Science? Strategies for Addressing Creationism in the Classroom and the Community.

Just by reading the various titles to the individual presentations, it is pretty clear the bulk of the presenters hold any kind of creationism, old or young, in contempt, and see the creationist movement (as well as ID) as a serious threat to higher education. This aversion to creationism in general I would bet, extends also to the Christian faith as a whole. Eugenie Scott, for example, who is a strident atheist, was one of the presenters. The only notable exception I could see was creationist, Kurt Wise, but he was probably the "one" so-called educated creationist allowed to present so the symposium wouldn't be accused of being unbalanced and not giving the other side a "fair hearing." Ironically, the titles of the lectures hint at its own fundamentalist militancy desperately defending treasured secular traditions. The need to even have this kind of symposium demonstrates the persuasive effectiveness of such creationist ministries as Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International.

Nothing in any of the abstracts of these listed presentations reveals any hint the academic community would be interested in the Christian faith if it were not for those intellectual stumbling blocks presented by young earth creationists. Rather there is nothing but dismissive snobbery of any sort of biblical creationism. They could care less about a reasonable and logical Christian faith. A belief in a divine creator doesn't belong anywhere in the realm of serious, academic science, and though individual scientists can be "religious" their faith must be taken more like a personal hobby and is to remain over in a corner somewhere out the way of any scientific procedure. No one would dare mix model railroading when doing chemical engineering. Such should be the case with religion.


Thursday, August 19, 2010

On the Brevity of Life

The thesis for my sermon I recently preached was on how to stir up a renewed perspective on God’s sovereignty in our lives. One of my points from James 4:14 was something like Recall the Shortness of Life. James writes, whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away.

One of the most amazing events that illustrates this biblical truth is the Johnstown flood that happened on May 31st, 1889. An earthen dam, about 15 miles above the town of Johnstown, PA, was loosened during a series of rainstorms that hit the state the week leading up to May 31st. The torrential rain washed out the dam sending a massive wall of water down upon Johnstown. The force of the water was likened to the volume of water that cascades over the Niagara Falls in 30 minutes. Having had the opportunity to stand in front of Niagara Falls, I can tell you that that is a lot of water.

The first published book by author, David McCullough, was a historical account of the events of the Johnstown flood. He recounts the story of a young, 16 year-old Victor Heiser. A story that reads like a fictionalized scene from a movie if it weren’t for the fact it is true. After reading the account, keep in mind what happened and consider the final sentence.


Heiser The water in front of the Heiser store had been knee-deep since early in the afternoon, which was a record for that part of town. In the other floods over the years there had never been any water at all so far up on Washington Street…

Sometime near four o’clock George Heiser had sent his son, Victor, out to the barn to see about the horses. The animals had been tied in their stalls, and George, worried that they might strangle if the water should get any higher, wanted them unfastened. The barn, like the store front, was a recent addition for the Heisers. It had a bright-red tin roof and looked even bigger than it was, standing , as it did, upon higher ground at the rear of their lot. To get back to it, Victor had left his shoes and socks behind and, with a pair of shorts on, went wading across through the pelting rain. It had taken him only a few minutes to see to the horses and he was on his way out the door when heard the noise.

Terrified, he froze in the doorway. The roar kept getting louder and louder, and every few seconds he heard tremendous crashes. He looked across at the house and in the second-story window saw his father motioning to him to get back into the barn and up the stairs. Just a few weeks earlier he and his father had cut a trap door through the barn roof, because his father had thought “it might be a good idea.”

The boy was through the door and onto the roof in a matter of seconds. Once there he could see across the top of the house, and on the other side, no more than two blocks away, was the source of the racket. He could see no water, only an immense wall of rubbish, dark and squirming with rooftops, huge roots, and planks. It was coming at him very fast, ripping through Portage and Center streets. When it hit Washington Street, he saw his home crushed like an orange crate and swallowed up.

JohnstownFlood In the same instant the barn was wrenched from its footings and began to roll like a barrel, over and over. Running, stumbling, crawling and over hand, clawing at tin and wood, Victor somehow managed to keep on top. Then he saw the house of their neighbor, Mrs. Fenn, loom up in front. The barn was being driven straight for it. At the precise moment of impact, he jumped, landing on the roof of the house just as the walls of the house began to give in and the whole roof started plunging downward. He clambered up the steep pitch of the roof, fighting to keep his balance. The noise was deafening and still he saw no water. Everything about him was cracking and splitting, and the air was filled with flying boards and broken glass. It was more like being in the middle of an explosion than anything else.

With the house and roof falling away beneath him, he caught hold of still another house that had jammed in on one side. Grabbing on to the eaves, he hung there, dangling, his feet swinging back and forth, reaching out, trying to get a toe hold. But there was none. All he could do was hang and swing. … Then his grip gave out and he fell, backwards, sickeningly, through the wet, filthy air, and slammed down on a big piece of a red roof from the new barn. And now, for the first time, he saw water; he was bumping across it, lying on his stomach, hanging on to the roof with every bit of strength left in him, riding with the wave as it smashed across Johnstown.

The things he heard and saw in the next moments would be remembered later only as a gray, hideous blur, except for one split-second glimpse which would stick in his mind for the rest of his life. He saw the whole Mussante family sailing by on what appeared to be a barn floor. Mussante was a fruit dealer on Washington Street… Victor knew him well, and his wife and two children. Now there they were speeding by with a Saratoga trunk open beside them, and every one of them busy packing things into it. And then a mass of wreckage heaved up out of the water and crushed him.

5cover But he had no time to think more about them or anything else. He was heading for a mound of wreckage lodged between the Methodist Church and a three-story brick building on the other side of where Locust Street had been. The next thing he knew he was part of the jam. His roof had catapulted in amongst it, and there, as trees and beams shot up on one side or crashed down on the other, he went leaping back and forth, ducking and dodging, trying desperately to keep his footing, while more and more debris kept booming into the jam. Then, suddenly, a freight car reared up over his head. It looked like the biggest thing he had ever seen in his life. And this time he knew there could be no jumping out of the way. But just as it was about to crash on top of him, the brick building beside him broke apart, and his raft, as he would describe it later, “shot out from beneath the freight car like a bullet from a gun.”

Now he was out onto comparatively open water, rushing across a clear space which he judged to be approximately where the park had been. He was moving at a rapid clip, but there seemed far less danger, and he took the time to look about. There were people struggling and dying everywhere around him. Every so often a familiar face would flash by. There was Mrs. Fenn, fat and awkward, balanced precariously on a tar barrel, well doused with its contents, and trying, pathetically, to stay afloat. Then he saw the young man who worked for Dr. Lee, down on his knees praying atop his employer’s roof, stark naked, shivering, and beseeching the Lord in a loud voice to have mercy on his soul. Like the Mussante family, they were suddenly here and gone like the faces in nightmares, or some sort of grotesque comedy, as unreal and as unbelievable as everything else that was happening. And there was nothing he could do for them, or anybody else.

But now his course changed sharply, from due west to due south. The current grabbed his raft and sent it racing across the Stony Creek a half mile or so, over into the Kernville section, and it was here that his voyage ended. “I passed by a two-and-a-half story brick dwelling which was still remaining on its foundations. Since my speed as I went up this second valley was about that of a subway train slowing for a stop, I was able to hop to the roof and join a small group of people already stranded there.”

When he had been standing on the roof of his father’s barn, looking across the housetops at the avalanche bearing down on Johnstown, he had taken his watch out of his pocket to look at the time. … He had snapped it open, because, as he would say later, “I wanted to see just how long it was going to take for me to get from this world over into the next one.” Now, on the rooftop in Kernville, realizing that he had perhaps a very good chance of staying on a little longer in this world, he pulled out the watch a second time. Amazingly enough, it was still running, and he discovered with astonishment that everything that had happened since he had seen his home vanish had taken place in less than ten minutes. [The Johnstown Flood pg. 150, 151, 152, 153, 154]

Labels: ,

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Sunday's Message

I had the great honor of preaching this past Sunday, 8/15, at Grace Church Santee, pastored by a good friend, Steve Lamm. My message was from James 4:13-17 on recapturing a vision of God's sovereignty in our lives as Christians. For anyone interested, the message can be downloaded HERE.

After listening to it last evening, I feel as though I could remarkably improve my delivery and emphasis in certain areas. I need to re-work the conclusion to have more of a closing impact. But I guess I will always be my own worst critic.

I also had the opportunity to teach the adult Sunday school hour on how our view of Genesis effects our overall theology. That lecture wasn't recorded, but I would direct folks to check out pastor Steve's current series on Genesis. He has presented some excellent material on the subject of origins and the compromise of Christians with evolutionary constructs regarding the history of our world.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Ministry Bootcamp

As I reorient myself after a lovely extended weekend vacation, I thought I would give a link to a recent Gospel Coalition interview with a number of seminary profs on the subject of ministry.

They were asked: What one thing would you change about seminary?

Richard Pratt hands down gives the best answer out the entire mix:

The agenda of evangelical seminaries is set primarily by scholars. Professors decide how students will spend their time; they determine students’ priorities; they set the pace. And guess what. Scholars’ agenda seldom match the needs of the church.

Can you imagine what kind of soldiers our nation would have if basic training amounted to reading books, listening to lectures, writing papers, and taking exams? We’d have dead soldiers. The first time a bullet wizzed past their heads on the battlefield, they’d panic. The first explosion they saw would send them running. So, what is basic training for the military? Recruits learn the information they need to know, but this is a relatively small part of their preparation. Most of basic training is devoted to supervised battle simulation. Recruits are put through harrowing emotional and physical stress. They crawl under live bullet fire. They practice hand to hand combat.

If I could wave a magic scepter and change seminary today, I’d turn it into a grueling physical and spiritual experience. I’d find ways to reach academic goals more quickly and effectively and then devote most of the curriculum to supervised battle simulation. I’d put students through endless hours of hands-on service to the sick and dying, physically dangerous evangelism, frequent preaching and teaching the Scriptures, and days on end of fasting and prayer. Seminary would either make them or break them.

Do you know what would happen? Very few young men would want to attend. Only those who had been called by God would subject themselves to this kind of seminary. Yet they would be recruits for kingdom service, not mere students. They would be ready for the battle of gospel ministry.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Going on Holiday

The family and I are retiring to the sea-side manor for a few days of laying about.

There will be no blogging until next Tuesday. Perhaps during those days the trolls will get bored and move along. That also means that after Thursday, I won't be approving comments until next week.

We are planning on one day to have a cheese burger at our new found favorite eatery.

On Sunday the 15th, the good Lord willing, I will have the privilege of preaching the Word:

Grace Church Santee.

I will also be conducting the Sunday school hour following the morning worship. If you are in the area, stop on by.


Monday, August 09, 2010

The MacArthur Study Bible.

One of the primary duties with my job at Grace to You is coordinating the mailings of our many free resources we offer through our ministry. For the month of September, we are getting prepared to mail out the new ESV edition of the MacArthur Study Bible. I anticipate maybe anywhere between 30,000 to 35,000 copies will be sent out from our ministry.

This is the third edition we have mailed of the MSB. The first one was the NKJV edition, which was the first MSB edition printed. I believe that was around 1997 or so. Then we mailed out the NASB edition in 2006. Each mailing was a daunting task to handle, but through the labor, we had a fun time working together and the satisfaction we put a great resource into the hands of our supporters and ultimately, the Christian Church.

I recall the first copy I saw of the original NKJV MSB. John just so happened to be at the ministry that day and I noted to him, "The margins aren't wide enough for me to write notes." To which John replied dryly, "Why would you want to add your own notes? I thought I was pretty thorough."

Here's a brief video explaining the history and background to the MacArthur Study Bible.

Here's a blessed example of the impact of John's study Bible.


Thursday, August 05, 2010

Prop. 8

So a federal judge, who just happens to be a homosexual, overturned an amendment to the California constitution that would not allow homosexual perversion to be normalized by the state government. Was there anyone who honestly did not see that coming?

Of course, all the supporters of proposition 8 are haters and bigots. Isn't that what the slogan stated: "prop. 8 means hate!" Maybe next time they can name similar legislation prop. 19 so as to avoid the negative marketing campaign.

This loaded rhetoric assumes, however, that supporters of prop. 8 are all bigots at heart to begin with who think all gay people are just icky pedophiles. Painting your opposition as Nazi monsters who want to bring forth a fundamentalist dystopia is typical of progressive propaganda. It's the type of sloganeering that plays upon the shallow, unthinking minds of our MTV generation. There is no need to intellectually engage the arguments if your opponents are really just a bunch of corpulent, red faced Fred Phelps types who yell at people.

For example: a blog my wife and I frequent for its ability to follow closely the local news of our hometown is typically left leaning in the opinions of the main hosts. They posted a gloating comment praising the wise decision of the judge who is only protecting the minority from the harshness of the bigoted, mob majority.

In the meta, amongst all the high fiving comments, someone mentioned how the religious right needed to heed their own Bible and consider Matthew 7:1. My sweet wife innocently left a response telling the person he was taking the passage out of context. She explained how Jesus was in no way saying we are not allowed to judge others in matters of sin when it violates God's Word, and then she linked to a sermon by our pastor on the passage. It was like someone threw a live squirrel in to a room full of dobermans. The vitriol of the responses was truly revealing. My family has been officially labeled "a clan."

There are others in my blogasphere who can write much more eloquently on the outrage of this judge's decision than I can. I will say I am not entirely agreed with secular conservatives on how to address this issue. On the one hand, I would certainly agree same-sex marriage is detrimental to the overall health of our society at large. "Normalizing" the sexual perversion of an extremely small fraction of individuals degrades the significance of marriage as it has been instituted throughout the course of human history and the function of society. Western society in particular has seen the importance of regulating the conduct in marriage. There is a penalty to be paid when one commits adultery or engages in prostitution or any other number of sexual violations of the law.

To be consistent, same-sex marriage supporters should also rally behind those Mormons and Muslims who wish to practice polygamy. By prohibiting the practice of polygamy, especially by the proponents of a major world religion, the rights of those who wish to have three wives are being violated, are they not? Who is the government to tell these individuals who they can and cannot love? How to practice their faith? I mean, there all sorts of constitutional rights being trampled upon by banning polygamy.

Yet on the other hand, while I certainly agree with all those things secular conservatives argue in support of prop. 8, I am against same-sex marriage for only one reason: God has told us who the participants in a marriage are to be -- one man and one woman. This is the way it was from the beginning (the reason why Genesis is theological foundational), which was affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19, and further affirmed by the apostle Paul in Ephesians 5. God has defined marriage for humanity, any deviation from that pattern is sinful.

Hence, as I understand it, the rage expressed against supporters of prop. 8 is not because they are bigots and homophobes. The rage is expressed against the God of heaven Who has defined marriage for all men.

Additional links to make you think:

As to the question of being compassionate toward homosexuals, I recommend reading this article I wrote last year: On Christians, Compassion, and Being Gay.

Turk's take on the decision, Special Meaning
He recommends this article from a Jewish, secular perspective, Gay Marriage -- and Marriage

James White: The Amazing Hubris of the Ruling Class Judiciary

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

GTY Creation Series Summary and Conclusion

Travis Allen, who heads up our web content and development here at Grace to You, posted the last article on our long series regarding Genesis.

A Stopping Point on the Dividing Line

The article is worth the time to read, and if you have the opportunity to invest a good couple of hours, following the individual links to every post and surveying the comments underneath. They are a clear presentation to the workings of modern theistic evolutionary apologetics.

I'll post my own observations and lessons learned in a future post.

Labels: ,

Monday, August 02, 2010

Walking Across America

Saw this over at Dan's place on Friday.

It is a spectacular video to behold. There is also a "how-they-did-it" video, too. Watch it after you watch this.

Labels: ,