Bible Giveaway

Go! Check this out!

Logos Bible Software is celebrating the launch of their new online Bible by giving away 72 ultra-premium print Bibles at a rate of 12 per month for six months. The Bible giveaway is being held at Bible.Logos.com and you can get up to five different entries each month! After you enter, be sure to check out Logos and see how it can revolutionize your Bible study.

Return from Hiatus

Sorry for the long delay in posting -- I'm sure everyone missed me. :-)

I was recently asked about my ideas about the fact that the majority of humanity's ills seem to stem from the uneven distribution of wealth, and that, therefore, socialism is surely the closest economic system to Biblical principles. My response follows:

While the Bible does, at times, seem to preach a socialistic economic model (Acts 2:45), in reality this passage is more about stewardship than it is about economies. The apostle Paul wrote in his second letter to the church at Thessalonica, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Th 3:10). This is very clearly antithetical to a socialistic model. But it is directly in keeping with one of stewardship.

All that exists owes its very existence to the will of God. It is all His, ultimately. In the book of Genesis, and again in the giving of the Law in Exodus, God has appointed man to be in charge of His creation. In order that man be a better steward of His creation, God has given permission for individuals to "own" pieces of the creation for himself. When people have a vested (ownership) interest in the results of their works, the tendency is for that work to be of a higher quality. In commanding His people "thou shalt not steal" (Ex 20:15), God is clearly teaching that this ownership princple is both recognized in the Godhead and should be respected by mankind.

The free exchange of goods and services is not normally considered to be a hallmark of socialistic societies. In those areas, government controlled monopolies are necessary to ensure the "fair" distribution of goods with no particular care being placed upon the quality thereof. The Bible, however, teaches exactly the opposite. For example, in the purchase of a cave in which to bury his wife, Abraham gives us the very first "guns and butter" illustration in history. Sarah, Abrahams wife, had died in Hebron, and Abraham desired a place to bury her. Heth, grandson to Ham, owned a piece of land which included a cave near Machpelah. Heth valued the cave at 400 shekels of silver. Abraham evaluated his need with the cost, and determined that such a deal was mutually beneficial to both he and Heth. Therefore, he paid to Heth the 400 shekels of silver for the field and the cave and was, ultimately, buried there himself. This is a classic example of a capitalistic, not a socialistic economy.

Examining the socialistic aspect to Acts chapter 2, one does not actually find what one would expect from a socialistic society. The believers were not selling their things and sharing them equally -- as pure socialism would demand. Rather, possessions were being sold and shared specifically "as every man had need." In other words, the believers in Jerusalem were willing to sell their things to meet the needs of fellow believers. This is not a 'vow of poverty', but is, rather, fully consistent with the stewardship principle, in that even we, as human beings, belong to God himself -- and He has called us to take care of His creation -- ALL of His creation.

The presuppositions that "science" imposes on itself while insisting that no such presuppositions exist is just laughable. Read the following article from the Institute for Creation Research:

http://www.icr.org/article/4102

I love this quote: "[They]...spend their time and resources in trying to create life, based merely on the unsubstantiated belief that “it must have arisen naturally,” rather than putting their efforts into developing ways to preserve and improve the quality of the life that the planet currently has."

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

It's interesting to note if you replace the word "faith" with the word "evolution" in the above quote, the sentence remains wholly factual.

Evolution = Religion -- accept it.

A Clouded Worldview

NY Times Editorial

Ok, so, wow. This is a pretty slanted editorial.

"Evolution...is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence."

We all share the same evidence. The difference is not in the clarity of the evidence, but the clarity of the glasses through which one views the evidence. The foundational truths of Genesis can give us 20/20 vision in interpreting the evidence.

"The religious faith underlying creationism..." -- what about the religious faith underlying evolution? Both models require faith in things that no one has directly witnessed.

The biblical flood of Noah offers us a perfectly reasonable explanation for the fossils found around the world, and explains why fossilized remains of creatures we see extant in the world today look EXACTLY the same (e.g. The coelacanth, the Wollemi pine, et. al.). That's a very difficult nut for the evolutionist to crack.

There is no macroevolution.

Period.

In other words, the lack of proof for macroevolution is evidence of macroevolutions faulty premise. It is not simply proof that we haven't found the proof yet!

In the beginning, GOD created. . .

Albert Mohler - Missing the Mark?

In his recent post, Values and Moral Truth are Not the Same, Albert Mohler discusses the transition in our society from one of morals to one of "values". Quoting Mohler:

"Values reflect only a subjective dimention with no objective moral truth. A generation raised in the incubator of moral relativism is groping for enduring truth in the moral wilderness."

Now, I agree completely with Dr. Mohler on this issue. Where we fall down is on where we place the blame for this societal decline. He cites an abdication of moral leadership of Christians as a root cause of this shift. I would argue that an abdication of the specific authority of the Bible to teach in all areas is the root cause here. What do I mean? Well, in particular, Genesis chapters 1 through 11 specifically address all of the areas specified by Dr. Mohler: life, sexuality, family, marriage and moral responsibility.

Once the "church" decided it was ok to throw out the first portions of the first book for the Bible given secular scientists "discoveries" about the "actual" age of the earth, we completely lost our moral footing. Gone is the very reason for life (to love and worship God who made us in His own image), sexuality (man created male and female, the man leaving his family to cleave to his wife), family (established for man to be fruitful and multiply), marriage (between one man and one woman alone) or moral responsibility (yes, you are accountable to a just God for your actions). Without a solid foundation in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, it's not surprising that the postmodern philosophists in our society are winning.

It's instructive to view how first Peter and then Paul framed their sermons to different groups in the book of Acts. In Acts chapter 2, you have Peter speaking to Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost.

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know -- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it...This Jesus, God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Acts 2:22-24,32,36 (ESV)

That's a pretty straightforward gospel message being preached. Now, contrast that with Paul, preaching to the Athenians at the Areopagus in Acts chapter 17:

"Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, To the unknown god.
"What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands as though he needed anything since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined alloted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each of us, for in him we live and move and have our being; as even some of your own poets have said, For we are indeed his offspring.
"Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance ot all by raising him from the dead." Acts 17:22b-31 (ESV)

Is it not interesting to note that Paul does not primarily preach the gospel message to the Athenians, he preaches Genesis 2, 3 and 11 before even mentioning, in his final 2 sentences, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Paul sets his moral authority by declaring that there is, indeed, a God in heaven. This is the God who formed each and every one of those listening to him, and that one day, God who will, one day, judge the world in righteousness.

Our culture is much more like the Athenians than it is the Jews in Jerusalem. We have lost our own "moral absolutes" by allowing secular society to chip away at the very foundation of the gospel message. If Genesis 1-11 is not true, if it's not history, then how can anyone be certain of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John? What of Romans, Galatians?

"If the foundations are destroyed,
what can the righteous do?
The LORD is in his holy temple;
the LORD'S throne is in heaven;" Psalms 11:3-4a (ESV)

Dr. Mohler, as the leader of the pre-eminent Southern Baptist seminary in the country, please stand up and proclaim the truth of the Bible from the very first book! Genesis desperately needs to be preached to our nation.

And the first animal was. . . .

And the first animal on Earth was a... from PhysOrg.com

A new study mapping the evolutionary history of animals indicates that Earth's first animal--a mysterious creature whose characteristics can only be inferred from fossils and studies of living animals--was probably significantly more complex than previously believed.

[...]

I think the first sentence of the attached article says it well. "Earth's first animal...was probably...more complex than previously believed."

Actually, this article is so riddled with careful language and unsubstantiated, unproven presuppositions, it's hard to see how a journalist would even print this stuff as factual. Let's quote mine. . .

"The tree of life is a hierarchical representation of the evolutionary relationships between species that was introduced by Charles Darwin."

Presupposition: All life evolved from a single form of life at some time in the past.

Fact: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures...So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm...And God saw that it was good."

Discuss: Since we're dealing in this article with aquatic life, I think it's of some worthy note that God created the "great" sea creatures along with the microscopic life with which the seas teem.

"This finding challenges the traditional view of the base of the tree of life, which honored the lowly sponge as the earliest diverging animal. 'This was a complete shocker...So shocking that we initially thought something had gone very wrong.'"

Presupposition: The tree of life, as written, is sacrosanct and correct.

Fact: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures..."

Discuss: Well, duh, Mr. Dunn. Something has gone very, very wrong. You have placed your own fallible mind and understanding ahead of God. You have fallen for the lie. And here you have evidence that the "tree of life" is no longer a Holy Relic to venerated, but merely a relic of man's own misplaced faith in himself.

"...We don't have fossils of the oldest comb jelly, therefore, there is no way to date the earliest jelly to determine when it diverged."

Presupposition: That it "diverged" at all.

Fact: "God created the ... sea creatures ... according to their kinds"

Discuss: The article goes on to discuss what happened "after diverging from other species." It is full of words and phrases like "probably", "likely", "going to" and "will." There is nothing new under the sun, it seems.

What's most troublesome about stories like this is the way in which otherwise intelligent people are blinded by the reality of their own presuppositions. Not once does it occur to PhysOrg, the NSF or Mr. Dunn himself to question the base premise of this study: that evolution is a fact, not a theory.

If you use a pure exegetical reading of the book of Genesis to inform your worldview, then it becomes clear that finds like this support and uphold the Genesis record. God created all of the original sea creatures on the fifth day. If you don't -- that is, if you rely on the fallible opinions of mankind, where you are boxed in by your own premises, then when a finding like this happens along, you have to invent a story of your own to make the finding fit. We have to 'rethink' the tree of life.

A Lesson In Scale

A few days ago, my twin sons were preparing a project for their Awana Truth & Training club. The project involved making a "model of the solar system" and was to include Psalms 19:1:

"The heavens declare the glory of God,and the sky above proclaims his handiwork"

Once they had completed their own projects, I thought it would be fun to do a kind of "family" version. So, I identified a section of wall about 10 feet in length and drew a horizontal line about 3.5 feet off the ground. I labeled the left end of the line "the Sun" and drew a pretty big semi-circle - probably with a radius of 6-8 inches.
I took a book we had on the solar system and determined that Neptune, at 30 AU, would determine the scale. Given about 100 inches to work with, I decide to make my scale 3"=1AU. So, we put a dot on our line for each planet:

• 1.2" (0.4 AU) - Mercury
• 2.1" (0.7 AU) - Venus
• 3.0" (1.0 AU) - Earth
• 4.5" (1.5 AU) - Mars
• 15.6" (5.2 AU) - Jupiter (quite a gap there!)
• 28.5" (9.5 AU) - Saturn
• 58.8" (19.6 AU) - Uranus
• 90" (30 AU) - Neptune

Ok, so after plotting these 'dots' on my orbital plane, I decided we should give a sense of scale to these planets. So, at a scale of 1"=50,000,000km, I determined the size of the circle I would need to draw for Jupiter, the largest planet.

0.00285 inches

That's the diameter of Jupiter on my wall. Not even 3 one-thousandths of an inch. Wow. Ok, so now I'm doubting my math, because I just sort of assumed that I could at least SEE Jupiter in my model. I mean, the pencil dot I'd placed on my line was perhaps an order of magnitude or two in size greater than the 0.00285 inches it should have been. Not just that, the line itself was probably an order of magnitude too big.

So, the next logical question is. . .how big is the Sun on this scale? I got out my trusty calculator. . .

0.02784 inches

Not even three HUNDREDTHS of an inch? Remember - I'd drawn my "model" sun with a diameter of maybe EIGHT inches - 287x too big!! The dot I'd placed for the Earth was probably only half that size! At this scale, the solar system has a radius of nearly 10 feet, but you can't actually SEE any of the planets to scale! You can barely even see the Sun itself!!! And we're only talking about OUR solar system? Neptune, after all, is only 30 AU from the Sun! Alpha Centauri, our closest neighbor, is 277,600 AU. Or roughly 41,500,000,000,000km. On my scale, I'd have to put Alpha Centauri 830,000 inches away. That's 69,167 feet. That's 13 MILES away.

So what does all of this mean? In his book Taking Back Astronomy, Dr. Jason Lisle says:

"...the vastness and beauty of the universe declare God's glory. God could have chosen to create only the earth, sun and moon, and life would have been possible; but instead He chose to make a universe immense beyond imagination to give us just a small taste of His incredible magnificence." (emphasis mine)

What else is there to say on this, but:

"The heavens delcare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork."