Archive

Archive for March, 2007

Nobody is right or wrong….but that’s just WRONG!

The movie “300″ has been a runaway smash hit here in the USA! In Europe however, things are a little different. Recently while listening to CNN I heard a British film critic discussing the somewhat cold response that “300″ has received in the UK. The critic stated that the ethic and morality portrayed in the film is overtly “American.” The critic stated that in Britain the masses have accepted a view of morality and ethics in which there is no clear right and wrong. They have further come to the realization that there is no absolute good or evil and therefore they do not like this  “absolutist” movie. Because one cannot demarcate between what is “good” and what is not, often times during the showings of the film the British viewers would become disgusted with the film and walk out!

Did you catch that? There is no “right” or “wrong”….no “good” or “evil”…one cannot make a definite “judgment” call.

YET, they decide that this film portrays a worldview not worth observing….thats a ethical/moral judgment. That is a contradiction! A self refuting ideology!

For more info on relativism: CARM

Categories: In the News, Philosophy

Book Meme…

March 29, 2007 Dayton Hartman 2 comments

Number of books you own: Roughly 1,100

Percentage of these books that you have read: Cover to cover…about 40% but about 1/3 of the books are reference.

Last book you purchased: “The Canon Debate” by Sanders

Last book you read: “History of the Church” by Chadwick
Book(s) you are currently reading: “After the New Testament” by Bart Erhman, “Early Christian Doctrines” by J.N.D. Kelly, “The Canon of Scripture” by F.F. Bruce

Upcoming books to read: “The New Testament Text” by Bruce Metzger “Introduction to the Bible” (AGAIN!) by Geisler

A book you have read more than once and may yet read again: “Reasonable Faith” by William Lane Craig

A book your friends might be surprised that you own: “The Book of Mormon” by Joe Smith

A book that changed your life: “Boyd’s Handbook of Practical Apologetics” by Robert Boyd (My first apologetics book)
A book you’d want if you were stranded on a desert island: “Systematic Theology Vol. 1-4” by Norman Geisler.

A book that made you laugh: “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins

A book that made you cry: “Heaven” by Randy Alcorn.

A book that you wish had never been written: “New Age Versions” by Gail Riplinger

Bibles, Abuse and all things Moral…

Recently the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, released what he thought to be conclusive findings that proved referring to God as masculine contributes to domestic abuse (Read About it HERE!). Gender neutral advocates were absolutely aflame with joy over this proclamation…..I however, as a conservative evangelical, am not thrilled. In fact, I think he is a flat our liar. My reason? This dude is a perverter of the Holy Scripture.

In 2004 he made a public statement of support for a British Bible translation called “GOOD AS NEW”. This “translation” was done by a group headed by a former Baptist minister called “ONE”. The goal os this group is to “”establish[ing] peace, justice, dignity and rights for all….sustain use of the earth’s resources…to challenge oppression, injustice, exclusion and discrimination….and to accept one another, valuing their diversity and experience.”

Seems like noble goals. However, why would such a group undertake a translation of Scripture unless it had an agenda. Further, why would Rowan Williams back such a translation unless he too had an agenda?

Below are just a few “translation” changes made in the “Good as New” Bible compared to that of the KJV.

(This comes directly from the London Times Newspaper)

Mark 1:10-11Authorized version: “And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him. And there came a voice from the heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

New: “As he was climbing up the bank again, the sun shone through a gap in the clouds. At the same time a pigeon flew down and perched on him. Jesus took this as a sign that God’s spirit was with him. A voice from overhead was heard saying, ‘That’s my boy! You’re doing fine!’”

Matthew 23:25

Authorized version: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!”

New version: “Take a running jump, Holy Joes, humbugs!”

Matthew 26:69-70

Authorized version: “Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, ‘Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.’ But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.”

New: “Meanwhile Rocky was still sitting in the courtyard. A woman came up to him and said: ‘Haven’t I seen you with Jesus, the hero from Galilee?” Rocky shook his head and said: ‘I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about!’”

1 Corinthians 7:1-2

KJV: “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

New: “Some of you think the best way to cope with sex is for men and women to keep right away from each other. That is more likely to lead to sexual offences. My advice is for everyone to have a regular partner.”

1 Corinthians 7:8-7

KJV: “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”

New: “If you know you have strong needs, get yourself a partner. Better than being frustrated.”

So let’s think about this…..The man who wants us to do away with masculine terminology directed toward God, alos endoreses a Bible translation that promotes pre/extra marital sex. It also calls salvation “completeness”…Christ not the Son of Man but rather “the complete one”…

Does this man have an agenda??? I think so….

Would he distort the truth to reach his goals? Well, he distorts Scripture…so we must answer an undeniable YES!

I will leave you all with this….

“…if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. ” Revelation 22:19

For further info about ONE, please see their website: http://one.gn.apc.org/

Categories: Heresy Watch, In the News

Nacho Libre and the religion of SCIENCE

March 25, 2007 Dayton Hartman 1 comment

The most religious people on the earth today, I would dare say are atheists! Now more than ever they have elevated the physical sciences to a belief system, to a religion. It is portrayed amongst the secular media that one can either be a “religious” person or a scientific person. I believe this is a poor categorization. There are many people who work and have worked in the natural sciences and then come to the conclusion that there is a God (i.e. McGrath) and scientific methodology examines his creation. I am not going to take the time now to discuss how science has become a religious system that denies truth in order to maintain its belief system (something Christians are blamed for daily…) but I did want to share something that reminded me of this that I came across the other day. While watching the first wrestling scene in the movie NACHO LIBRE, I realized that “Steven” (Nacho’s buddy) declared that he does not believe in God. One would expect him to say that he follows the sciences into a denial of God or that science proves there is no God, but he doesn’t. Instead, he states that he believes in SCIENCE…he has supplanted a theistic belief system with an atheistic. By his own statement he has placed his FAITH/BELIEF IN science. Watch the following scene and see what I am talking about….

Nacho Libre SCENE ONE

The scientific method is an amazing tool when used properly! But just as my atheist friends have pointed out it is only valid when the conclusions from the methodology follow the fact and not faith based presuppositions. The blade cuts both ways and atheists are just as guilty as many Christians for have a “god” of the gaps.END RANT…

Atheism VS. Intelligent Design

This is a video debate that took place between Alister McGrath Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University (a former atheist) and Peter Atkins, Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University.

Click the icon below:

Atheist+Debate

Well, that’s my interpretation…

Today in the church there is an epidemic of proof texting (or perhaps “spoof” texting). What I mean by this is that some popular teachers (as well as your average “Joe” pastor) will pick a topic to teach upon, then grab a concordance to find verses that address the specific topic they have chosen. Often times this results in the misapplication of passages or the ignoring of context to make the point “work.”

So back by popular demand…here is a re-post of a blog I did on commonly misunderstood verses…

I plan to do another one asap….
I Cor. 14:34-35 “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.”

Misunderstanding: Some people claim that because of these verses a woman is NOT allowed to speak in Church AT ALL!!!

Correct understanding: These verses are in no way a prohibition against women speaking in Church. There are a variety of reasons why this is the case…

1). I Corinthians chapters 12-14 is all about tongues. Paul spend 2 entire chapters discussing the misuse of tongues in the Corinthian Church.

2). These verses are preceded by 33 verses regarding the misuse of tongues, and prophesy in the Church. It would make no sense for Paul to switch topics with no apparent transition.

3). The remaining verses of the chapter following verses 34 and 35 are again about the misuse of tongues and prophecy. Therefore the CONTEXT must be about tongues and NOT common speech.

4). In the original Greek language there were no punctuation marks nor verse breaks like we find in our English bible. The punctuation is dictated by the tenses and grammatical construction of the Greek phrases used. These verses are not parenthetical. Meaning that they are staying true to the subject at hand, which is tongues

5). While Paul is referencing the universal truth that women are not to be heads or the teachers of the Church, he is not forbidding them from speaking, just from speaking in tongues. This makes sense in light of the fact that in most tongue speaking Churches women are allowed to preach. Also, given the history or Corinth it makes sense that in verse 35 Paul tells the women to keep their questions for at home with their husbands. History tells us that the Corinthian Church was overrun with women trying to disrupt teaching by questioning the integrity and authority of the Scriptures. This is the problem that Paul is referencing!

Luke 9:59-61 Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

Misunderstanding: Recently a person explained this verse to me this way: “To the best of my knowledge, he means let the spiritually dead bury the physically dead. And be happy because we know that Christians go to heaven, and non Christians will never go to heaven, so there is no need in morning especially for a dead Christian.” (His spelling…not mine…)

Correct Understanding: First of all, this passage was written before the church was established. The apostles were preaching the Gospel of the kingdom. There was NO “CHRISTIAN GOSPEL” as of yet.

Secondly, this is in reference to a Jewish custom. This man was asking Christ for the right to bury his father. At first glance it seems of if Christ’s reply was somewhat harsh, however a quick look at Hebrew culture will prove otherwise.

It was a common practice in Hebrew culture for the first born son to remain with his father (or in close proximity) until his father died. Then upon burying his father he would receive his inheritance. Now if the eldest son were to give up this right and leave his father then his brothers would then be given the legal right to step in and bury their father. What makes this interesting is that until something happened like this, the younger brothers were referred to as “THE DEAD”, because they were “DEAD” to the inheritance. Because of this we can understand that Christ’s response to the mans question; “What must I do to follow you?”, was not cruel and unsympathetic, but rather it was a costly condition. Give up your inheritance and follow me now!

I Corinthians 6:19 “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit…

Misunderstanding: It is wrong to do anything that is harmful to your body. For instance, eating fatty foods, getting a tattoo (because of risk of dirty needles)…etc…etc…

Correct Understanding: Many people use this verse for a variety of prohibitions. Anything and everything from foods, to smoking. Some also use it to display a “biblical” reason why we should exercise. While it is unhealthy to eat fatty foods, and it is a bad idea to smoke, and exercise is beneficial, this verse does nothing to support any of these ideas. There are a few reasons:

1). Context. This verse is about sexual sin. NOTHING else is implied by this text but sexual sin. The full context reads as follows:

“Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.” I Cor. 6:18-20

2). The Corinthian Church was being overrun by those practicing sexual immorality. This is what Paul is addressing. There were no smokers there….nor was there an issue with people being couch potatoes.

MORE VERSES:
Eph 4:26 “BE ANGRY, AND yet DO NOT SIN; do not let the sun go down on your anger.”

WRONG VIEW: Settle disputes before you sleep.

CORRECT VIEW: DO NOT SIN as result of your anger. Be ANGRY WITH SIN. NEVER let your ANGER towards sin stop!

Phil. 4:13 “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.”

WRONG VIEW: We can do ANYTHING we put our minds too…It’s all about positive thinking in Jesus name!

CORRECT VIEW: I can ENDURE ANYTHING…..Remember…CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT!!!!

Prov. 23:7 “As a man thinks in his heart so is He.

WRONG VIEW: We ARE what we think….

CORRECT VIEW: It actually reads, “Do not eat the bread of a miser, nor desire his delicacies; for as he thinks in his heart, so is he. “Eat and drink!” he says to you, but his heart is not with you.” So this proverb is advising us to be careful when a miser asks us to share a meal with him. In other words, don’t be fooled by the words of a deceitful person, because as he thinks in his heart, so he is. (borrowed from Doug Beaumont…he has a great website www.dougbeaumont.org)

Psalm 118:24 “24This is the day which the LORD has made;Let us rejoice and be glad in it.”

WRONG VIEW: This day was made by God so we should be happy about it!!!

CORRECT VIEW: This is a prophetic passage about the Crucifixion and Resurrection. We should rejoice in the fact Christ died for us. This “DAY” is a single event…we are not ALWAYS going to be happy, and it IS OK to have a bad day!!!

Categories: The Bible, Uncategorized

Christ in the Old Testament

March 15, 2007 Dayton Hartman 2 comments


And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them: And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians (Exodus 14: 19, 24)

Who is this Angel (I capitalize angel here for a reason) of the Lord? Is it just an Angel, or is He something more? Perhaps He is not a member of the created angelic order. Perhaps He is the CREATOR of the angelic order. As we examine the evidence we will find a very clear picture of exactly who this being really is!

First, we can see that this being speaks as if He is God. “And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.” (Gen 16:10). After Hagar fled into the wilderness to escape from Sarah, Abraham’s wife, the Angel of the Lord promised to greatly multiply her descendants and prophesied the birth of Ishmael, who became the father of the Arab nations. Can a mere limited angel make such a promise? The answer is a definite no!

Secondly, we can see in Exodus 3:2 the Angel refer to Himself as God. “And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.” Here we see the Angel of God appear, and this is key. Because just following this we see Moses ask this being to identify Himself, and He does by saying :“I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.” (Ex. 3:6). This is a declaration that the Angel of God is none other than God Himself!

Thirdly, we find this Angel of the Lord accepting worship. At no point in the Bible do we find angels openly accepting the worship of men. In fact the messenger would often times scold the human being doing the worship, quite harshly. This Angel of God though, is very different. Not only does He speak of Himself as God, but He also receives the worship deserved by God! In Joshua 5 :14 for instance we find “The Man with a Sword in His Hand” is identified as “Commander of the Army of the LORD.” Joshua fell to his face and worshipped Him and called Him “My Lord.” This commander did not rebuke Him, but instead received worship!

Fourthly, we find this Angel of God acting as an intercessor. “Then the angel of the LORD answered and said, O LORD of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years?” Zech. 1:12. Now we know that the Bible says there is one intercessor between God and man, and it is Jesus Christ. Therefore, if this is a mere angel then he is usurping the authority of Christ.

We can establish even more Biblical evidence if it were necessary. For instance, Samson’s parents refer to this Angel of God as God. Gideon believed this Angel is God. I could go on and on. The Biblical record shows this Angel of the Lord to always be held in a position of deity. It must be noted however, that this in no way shape of form lends any credibility to the doctrines of cults relegating Jesus to a lesser state of deity. Some would use these Christophanies as examples of Christ being nothing more than a glorified angel. It must be noted that the majority of these cults believe that once Jesus returned to heaven He was relegated to angelical existence once again. Yet the Bible contradicts this notion by saying Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. Also, after Christ’s ascension there is no more mention of this Angel of the Lord. Dr. Charles Ryrie says this about the eternality of Christ Jesus.

The Pre-existence of Christ means that He existed before His birth. For some writers it means that He existed before Creation and before time. But strictly speaking, pre-existence is not synonymous with eternality. Practically speaking, they stand for a similar concept, for a denial of pre-existence almost always includes a denial of eternality and vice versa.” [Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, pp. 273]

Based upon the over abundance of Biblical evidence I believe there is no other logical conclusion to reach other than that this Angel of God is none other than the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. Dr. John MacArthur stands in agreement with this position: “The house of David, like the Angel of the Lord is most likely a reference to the Messiah Himself, who will be the strength of His people.” [The MacArthur Study Bible, pp. 1354] If that is the case then it lends further support to the idea of the Angel of the Lord being the Second Person of the Trinity.

Perhaps God used the term angel to signify His role as messenger. Perhaps not. Whatever the reason I am not sure. However, I am sure that this was indeed the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ. Dr. Ron Rhodes says this:

Only of Christ can it be said that His birth did not signal the beginning of His existence. Prior to His birth, he had existed for all eternity with the Father and the Holy Spirit…Christ created the universe in all its vastness, continually sustained it by His own intrinsic power, made many pre-incarnate appearances to Old Testament saints, helped His people in time of need, and much, much more. In fact, the scriptural testimony is that Christ was exceedingly active prior to His becoming a man in the Incarnation.”[Ron Rhodes, Christ Before The Manger, pp. 35]

He is indeed correct. Christ was very active in the realm of the heavens and humanity prior to His incarnation. He was active through the manifestation of Himself commonly referred to as, The Angel of God.

Categories: Christology, Theology

I MOVED!!!

I have moved all my blogging materials here because my MySpace and BlogSpot blogs were becoming hard to manage! I may actually post more now!!!

I will be importing stuff back over here in the next few weeks!

Categories: Uncategorized

Ironic News

I really want to develop the following story into an apologetic to Buddhism, but I can’t figure out how without laughing! any ideas?

Monks VS. ANTS

FREE Unity of Isaiah Slideshow

Categories: Apologetics, The Bible