Author Archives: Dave

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 20, 2015

Posted under

Creation, Genesis, Origins, Radio Show

If the Bible is right about creation, why doesn’t it say anything about dinosaurs?

Dinosaurs are a topic of great fascination. Whether it be through incredible CGI in popular movies, massive skeletal displays in museums or colorful pictures in children’s books, dinosaurs have captured the imagination of many people. For some dinosaurs are seen as a trump card disproving creation. Some ask if God created the dinosaurs then why aren’t there any still alive today. Some ask if God created dinosaurs why doesn’t it say anything about dinosaurs in the Bible. Some think that because dinosaurs are so different from anything alive today they must have lived eons ago and thus the Bible’s description of creation is wrong.

All of these assumptions and conclusions can easily be answered with a little consideration of what the Bible teaches. The Bible does talk about dinosaurs, directly and indirectly, though it doesn’t use the word dinosaur. The reason the Bible does not use the word dinosaur is very simple. The first major English translation of the Bible still being used today is the King James Version. The King James was translated in 1611. The word dinosaur was not coined until the early 1840’s by a scientist named Richard Owen. Any reference to dinosaur’s before that date would have used a different word or words. In the Biblical passages that describe great beasts reminiscent of dinosaurs the newer Bible translations often use the same words used in the King James translation. Simply put, the word dinosaur is not found in the Bible because of it’s relatively recent invention.

Though the word dinosaur is not found in the Bible, what is found are descriptions of beasts that appear to be dinosaurs. Two such descriptions stand out from the boo of Job. A creature called Behemoth is described in Job 40, and Job 41 describes a beast known as Leviathan. Neither of these are fictitious animals and they are creatures that would have lived in the region around Job at the time he was alive. About 4,000 years ago God instructed a man to remember a pair of massive animals that he would have seen and been familiar with. The description of Behemoth in Job 40:15-24 pictures a massive creature that eats grass like cattle, has bones of great strength, has colossal strength, lives in swampy regions and around streams, is confident against all foes because of it’s great strength and has a tail like a cedar tree. Some are tempted to suggest the Behemoth was just a large elephant or rhinoceros, yet no creature other than a dinosaur fits the descriptions of massive size and strength coupled with a tree-like tail. Though the Bible does not use the word dinosaur, it certainly describes dinosaur like creatures.

God created all animals on the fifth and sixth days of creation. This includes the lumbering dinosaurs like the Apatosaurus, the fast moving dinosaurs like Velociraptors, the soaring dinosaurs like Pterodactyls (yes, I know they are not technically dinosaurs) and the swimming dinosaurs like Plesiosaurs. After creation man sinned against God and brought the curse of sin on the whole world. This curse includes suffering and death. As a result of man’s sin, many species of animals have gone extinct in the past and are going extinct today. Though some of the dinosaurs were unique and awe-inspiring, their size and strength does not mean they were not created by God. Though all the dinosaurs are extinct today, their disappearance from the Earth does not mean they were not created by God. God created all animals, including the dinosaurs. Man’s sin is responsible for their extinction, not evolutionary epochs.

Tune in this Sunday at noon on WRUP 92.7 FM to hear the first half of a special roundtable discussion about creation and evolution.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 18, 2015

Posted under

Current Events, Life Questions, Marriage

What does the Bible say about divorce?

Divorce is a major problem in our nation. The current statistics suggests half of all couples who marry will get a divorce. Though the recent marriage debates have been focused on homosexual marriage, divorce is an issue dealt with in the Bible. The Bible addresses divorce in clear and concise language. The Bible also makes a couple statements about divorce that are not immediately clear and understandable. In an article of this nature space and time do not allow a thorough discussion of all the passages related to divorce. Therefore, the focus in this particle article will be the clear Bible passages about divorce. The more difficult questions and passages relating to divorce will be left to be addressed by themselves in later articles.

God designed marriage to be permanent. Genesis 2 tells that God created man, woman and marriage. In God’s creation work He gave the parameters for marriage and by which all marriages are still bound. Genesis 2:21 says, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they two shall be one flesh.” In Mark 10 Jesus is asked about the lawfulness of divorce for any reason. In His answer, Jesus quotes Genesis 2 and then adds this statement, “What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put assunder.” Marriage is designed by God to be a permanent union of one man and one woman. Divorce is a violation of that Divine direction. The original created order still orders marriage.

Because of man’s sin God does at times permit divorce. The question about divorce brought to Jesus in Mark 10 found it’s Biblical support in Deuteronomy 24. The Old Testament law provided an orderly means for a man to divorce his wife if he found some uncleanness in her. The law of Moses provided reasonable instructions for civil divorces to maintain order in the state and to provide protection for those involved in divorce. These Old Testament instructions do not require or approve of divorce, but give direction for orderly civil conduction a difficult matter. In Matthew 19:9 Jesus refers to Deuteronomy 24 and tells the uncleanness for which divorce is allowable. “Whoseover shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” Jesus says divorce is permissible in cases of sexual unfaithfulness.

One other Biblical passage seems to permit divorce, 1 Corinthians 7. In that chapter Paul says that in the case of an unsaved spouse leaving a saved spouse, the Christians is to let him (or her) go. The Christian is not to seek a divorce, but if the unbeliever divorces him, the Christian is not to oppose it. Sexual unfaithfulness and an unbeliever’s desertion are the only two exceptions found in the Bible which permit divorce. These exceptions are not indications of general approval for divorce, but provide a measure of protection to more or less innocent spouses in a couple specific cases.

God never commands divorce, even in those cases in which divorce is permitted. The one married to an adulterer is not bound by the Bible to get a divorce. In fact, the Bible gives specific examples of individuals who were married to serial adulterers and remained married to the glory of God. The believer was never to court divorce from an unbeliever. He was instead to promote a healthy, whole union for the eternal benefit of the children and the unsaved spouse. Divorced is at times permitted but never commanded.

In the end the issue when discussing marriage and divorce is not an issue of happiness, freedom, tolerance and mental health. The issue is what God’s Word says. God designed every marriage to be permanent. Man’s continued sin corrupts that design, but the plan remains unchanged. Every marriage is a union put together by God and should not be torn apart by any act of man. Though God gives a couple exceptions allowing for divorce, He does so for the protection of marriage and not the frivolous dissolution of the marriage covenant upon any pretext.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 13, 2015

Posted under

Genesis, The Bible

How does the Bible explain cavemen?

In preparation for our two part radio series on Creation and Evolution, I am using March to answer some common questions about creationism. Be sure to tune in to the broadcast at noon on March 22, 2015 to hear part one in which our pastor’s round table tackles the topic of evolution.

Some of the most common objections to Biblical Creationism (the belief that God created everything out of nothing in six days less than ten thousand years ago) come from mistaken ideas about extinct animals and paleolithic people. Because evolution asserts that hominids progressively increased in vertical mobility and intellectual capacity, cavemen are often seen as a knuckle drugging, monosyllabic phenomena unexplainable by the Bible. What does the Bible say about cavemen? Can the Bible explain cavemen?

The Bible does not specifically mention cavemen (though it does talk about several men who lived in caves at some time in their lives). Cavemen as we think of them were not described until the modern model of evolution advanced the speculations of a connected chain of increasingly intelligent hominids.

Though the Bible is silent about cavemen in particular, it does describe an event which would have forced a large portion of the human population to live in very primitive conditions. This event would have driven many people away from their cities to settle difficult regions of the world. In Genesis 11 the Bible tells of a time a couple hundred years after the flood when mankind joined together in rebellion against God. God punished man’s rebellion by causing every family group to speak a language different and then by scattering the families across the world.

These people groups traveled through inhospitable regions and then settled areas still recovering from the devastation of the flood. The sudden loss of connection with the rest of humanity would have resulted in many vital skills and technology being lost to each family. Modern examples may help guide our thinking here. Were the farmers who planted Kansas and Nebraska intellectually inferior because they lived in sod huts? Were the Indians who roamed America less intelligent because they lived in tents of animal hide and only had bow and arrow weapons? We have somehow equated technological advancement with great intellect. We assume because a people were living in caves and wearing furs (though their clothing choices is a bit of an assumption as well) they must have been dumber than we are. These people were not stupid, but rather pioneers in a post-apocalyptic world.

The cavemen were not biological inferiors who had to eventually give way to more evolved homo sapiens. The reality is “cavemen” are genetically human. Typically we consider Neanderthals (or Neandertals if you’re committed to keeping up with the popular spelling) and Cro-Magnon are consider cavemen. Both groups are readily identifiable as humans. They fall well within the normal variations for a people group, and both could live in our world today without attracting any particular attention. They were men and women created by God in His image who survived in a difficult world still reeling in the aftermath of Noah’s flood.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 6, 2015

Posted under

Genesis, Life Questions, Origins

Is Evolution like Mathematics?

On the last two Sundays of March the Everlasting Truths team will be airing a two part special broadcast on the debate between creation and evolution. In the weeks leading up to that broadcast, I will be answering several common questions related to origins, science and the Bible.

Many who are of a scientific bent lament the folly of those who believe in creation and accuse creationists of rejecting science. They scoff at creationists and say things like, “rejecting evolution is like rejecting modern medicine” or ask in disbelief, “do you refuse to believe 2+2=4, as well?”. The assertion, at times implied but most often stated is that evolution is proven science. Evolution is just like bacterial and viral models of medicine or like the certainty of basic mathematical equations. Is this a valid claim?

Without arguing about evidence or presuppositions, the legitimacy of this allegation can be considered through a right understanding of the different methods by which scientific conclusions are reached. The first, and primary means, is through what is often referred to as the scientific method. The scientific method is the process by which a problem is considered, a hypothetical solution is suggested, predictions are made, tests are performed, results are analyzed, the hypothesis is refined, more tests are run and after a long series of proving and disproving possible hypotheses, a model is developed which provides a generally accepted answer to the original problem.

The second means of reaching scientific conclusions is used in those cases where direct testing is not possible. In this method a problem is considered, a hypothetical solution is suggested, predictions are made, available evidence is analyzed, and the hypotheses and predictions are refined to agree with the available evidence. As new evidence becomes available the hypothesized model is then refined further and further.

Medical sciences are for the most part observational sciences. An explanation for the source of a disease can by suggested, tested, observed, refined and repeated until the genuine source can be shown with a high degree of certainty. Most mathematics fall into the same category. Much of science takes place in the realms of observational science. However, a number of scientific endeavors take place in the other realm, the realm of conjectural sciences. These kinds of sciences include some portions of quantum physics, consideration of the ultimate structure of the universe (or multiverse if you subscribe to that hypothesis), questions regarding the growth of the universe and beliefs about the development of mankind. The fact that a branch of science is not entirely observational does not make it illegitimate. However, one must recognize the answers provided by conjectural sciences are not of the same quality or reliability as those provided by observational sciences.

Evolution is a valid scientific model. It offers a possible explanation by which to explain the origins of all things. As a scientific model it is constantly being refined as additional data is discovered. However, comparing the evolutionary model to a well-proven scientific theory, like gravitational theory, is nonsense. Evolution is not testable by repeatable experiments. It can only be compared to observations made by scientists in the world and adjusted to match the current observations. Despite its wide acceptance among scientists, evolution is not like math and medicine.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 4, 2015

Posted under

Christian living

Comments

4 Comments

What is fasting?

Fasting is a concept found scattered throughout the Bible and is the voluntary abstaining from all food for a set period of time. The Bible only refers to fasting in relation to food, never to fasting from things or favorite activities. This does not mean Scriptures do not discuss forsaking possessions or temporarily abstaining from specific activities, but it never refers to such self-denials as a fast. Only the refraining from food for a brief time is identified as fasting.

In discussing the question of fasting, it is important to note the Bible nowhere commands Christians to fast. In Matthew 6 and 9 Jesus assumes His followers will fast, but neither He nor any of the apostles every command fasting. Fasting is a voluntary abstaining from food for a spiritual purpose.

Biblical fasting is not for weight loss, internal cleansing or some other physical purpose. Fasting serves a spiritual purpse, but it is not some kind of spiritual hunger strike. One does not fast as a way of getting extra spiritual power or to twist God’s arm into granting a specific request. The Bible only gives a limited amount of information about fasting and does not give us any specific instructions that detail the purpose of fasting. This lack of detailed direction does not mean we are left to our own speculation. The information about fasting found in the Bible provides a clear picture of the attitudes that should motivate fasting.

The Old Testament exclusively refers to fasting in times of intense sorrow and suffering. The Israelites fasted in mourning during times of death, in preparation for battle it seemed the nation was doomed to lose and in grief over their sin. The vast majority of Biblical references to fasting are found in the Old Testament and all of them are directly related to deep sorrow.

The New Testament references to fasting are very few. Aside from passing references to people who fasted, the instructive examples of fasting in the New Testament can be summed up in three categories. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their public displays of fasting and taught His disciples to fast in secret. Jesus fasted for forty days in the wilderness at the beginning of His public ministry. The third category of fasting is that which took place when men were appointed to leadership positions in the church.

The two kinds of positive examples of fasting in the New Testament have one thing in common. Fasting took place at the beginning of serious, life threatening Christian ministry. Of course, Jesus ministry was life threatening, since it was destined to end in His death on the cross. The ministry to which Paul and Barnabas were commissioned in Acts 13 was a ministry that would lead to them into the face of intense persecution, physical suffering and personal loss. The elders put in place over the churches in Acts 14 were stepping into ministry leadership in the middle of communities which had already shown themselves to be violently opposed to the preaching of Jesus. Fasting in the New Testament has a direct connection to God’s servants stepping out into dangerous ministry.

The Bible seems to offer one uniform picture of fasting. Fasting is a response of deep sorrow. It seems to most often be a reflection of deep sorrow for sin or loss. The conclusion to be drawn from the examples of fasting in the Bible is that fasting is an expression of a desperate longing for God’s protection and direction in times of sin or great difficulty.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

February 19, 2015

Posted under

Uncategorized

What is Ash Wednesday?

Ash Wednesday is the day which begins the season of Lent (more on that in a later answer) and is observed by those who follow the liturgical church calendar. Typically the church calendar is followed by Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and Episcopalians, though in recent years more and more Protestant groups have also begun to observe Ash Wednesday and Lent.

Ash Wednesday is described as a day of penitence set aside in remembrance of one’s own sin and mortality. Ash Wednesday begins the observer’s preparation for the Holy Week and Easter. On Ash Wednesday the observer usually attends a special church service during which the minister marks each person’s forehead with ashes while quoting Genesis 3:19, “For dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return.” The imposition of ashes is a reminder of the individual’s guilt before God and the consequences of that guilt, death. Many also keep Ash Wednesday as a day of fasting. Ash Wednesday begins Lent with the reminder of sin and leads the observer to an extended time of penitence and contrition.

Ash Wednesday is a tradition taken from the practices of some churches beginning in the 400’s AD. Ash Wednesday nor it’s equivalent is found anywhere in the pages of the Bible. Biblical examples of people tearing their clothes and covering themselves with ashes can be found, but these were not part of a ritual observance. The ashes found in the Bible are ashes of deep sorrow, often at times of extreme loss. While observing Ash Wednesday is not forbidden in the Bible, it does carry with it some troubling theological assumptions.

Ash Wednesday and Lent are closely associated with penitence for sin. Penitence is usually something greater than sorrow for sin and is different from repentance. Penitence is closelu associated with penance and typically communicates some activity being done by the sinner to show his sorrow or to make amends for the wrong done. The performance of some religious act as an expression of sorrow is not in line with the Biblical gospel nor is it the response to sin called for by the gospel. The Bible commands repentance for sin, turning to God for salvation, without any effort or works on the part of the sinner. Instead, the Bible teaches that a gospel which requires some personal act of obedience for salvation is in fact a false gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

Is it a sin to participate in Ash Wednesday? Just as the Bible does not prescribe its observance, so the Bible does not forbid its observance. If one feels compelled to observe Ash Wednesday and Lent, he needs to carefully examine his own mind and practice to ensure the observation does not include theological assumptions and practices contrary to the simple message of the gospel. Jesus is God the Son who died on the cross to pay the punishment for sin in place of men. Jesus has been restored to life and is now reigning in heaven, just as the Bible foretold, and completely pardons those those who will believe Him. Those who trust Him and none else for salvation, will be saved. Liturgical observances may be helpful reminders of Biblical truth, but they do not replace or supplement the work of Jesus on the cross.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

February 16, 2015

Posted under

Christianity, Church, The Bible

How was it decided what books were included in the New Testament?

From the very beginning of the church, the groups and people who received letters from the apostles recognized those writings as inspired by God. This was true of both the Old and New Testament. Prior to Jesus, the writings of the prophets were received as the Word of God. After Jesus the writings of the apostles were received as the Word of God. The individual churches who received a particular writing knew it was from God. Those writings were then passed around among the churches. In fact, several books of the Bible were not written to individual churches but to entire people groups or several churches in a particular region (for example, Matthew, Mark, John, Colossians, Hebrews, James, John, Peter, Jude, Revelation). Some letters were written to individuals, which were then shared with a single church and then passed on to other churches. (such as, Luke, Acts, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 2 & 3 John).

The churches recognized these letters as inspired by God from the very beginning. This is made plain in 2 Peter 3:16. Peter says that Paul’s writings are sometimes hard to understand, and those who are unstable twist Paul’s Words, just like they do the other Scriptures. Peter considers Paul’s writings the Word of God, even though they are at times difficult to understand. In Paul’s letter to Timothy he quotes the gospel of Luke and declares it is Scripture. In 1 Thessalonians Paul claims his writings are the Word of God. The apostles knew they were writing God’s Word and they knew that other writings of the apostles were inspired Scripture.

Because of the way in which the New Testament was written and distributed, there were times when false letters claiming to be apostolic were passed around the church. Because the writings of the apostles were sent to churches spread across widespread regions of the Roman empire some churches did not receive copies of certain books until decades after the books had been written. At that later point, and often without apostolic oversight, churches and groups of churches had to be able to decide between the true Biblical books and those which were false. To help make this determination, the church identified several criteria to identify genuine Biblical books.

First, the book had to have apostolic authority. For a book to be Scriptures it was to have been written by an apostle or under the direct supervision of an apostle. Second, the book could not contradict books already recognized as Biblical. Third, everything contained in the writing had to be true. Nothing inspired by God would contain errors or fraudulent claims. Any book found to be erroneous was rejected as not genuine Scripture. Last, the book had to have already been accepted by the church. A writing that was not recognized in any church as Biblical could not suddenly be elevated to be upheld as Biblical. The writing had to be accepted as Biblical by those who received it before it could be accepted as Biblical by the church at large.

At no point in history did anyone have an official meeting with all the possible books in front of them and decide if those books were going to be considered as Biblical. History tells us a few specific books of the Bible were not recognized by all the church until later and after much consideration. Many false books were rejected by the church, on the local and regional levels. In the end the formation of the New Testament was not the result of men deciding which books belonged, but of God moving holy men to write His Word. The churches that received His Word recognized the marks of authentic, Divine truth and acknowledged such writings to be the Bible.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

February 13, 2015

Posted under

Genesis

Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6?

Genesis 6:1-4 says, “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

The identification of the sons of God referred to in this passage is very difficult. The Bible gives us no definite information on which to reach a firm conclusion. We may never know for certain what is the right answer. However, a plausible guess can be offered. When faced a difficult Biblical question with limited Biblical information to build from, search for an answer that is most reasonable, includes the least amount of unprovable conjecture and best lines up with what is known from other, clear, teachings in the Bible.

After Adam and Eve sinned, they had two sons, Cain and Abel. In a fit of rage, Cain killed Abel and was driven into a distant land called Nod because of his rebellion against God. Cain married and had kids and the kids had kids and so forth. After Cain was driven out, Adam and Eve had another son named Seth. Seth and his family apparently stayed in the region with Adam and Eve. A major part of Seth’s family remained faithful and obedient to God while Cain’s family continued in rebellion against God.

During the days of Noah the entire world was divided into two population groups, those who worshiped God and those who didn’t. It is my opinion that the males of Seth’s family who continued to worship God were called the sons of God.  Adam lived for nearly a thousand years after being created by God in the garden of Eden. Those of Adam’s family that stayed with him and continued to worship God might very reasonably be called the children of God. Those who did not might very well have been called the children of men.

What about the phrase, “the same became mighty men . . . men of renown”? Some have connected the statement about giants in the earth with the men of renown born as a result of the coupling of the sons of God and daughters of men. However, Genesis 6:4 does not say that. The verse says there were giants on the earth and also the descendants of the sons of God and daughters of men became men of renown. The men of renown need not be gigantic beings or some sort of demigod. The mighty men are nothing more than the great men of the pre-flood days, probably those mentioned in Genesis 4.

I think the sons of God were the obedient descendants of Seth. As the world’s population increased, the descendants of Seth and the descendants of Cain began to mingle and intermarry, thus the sons of God married the daughters of men.