My kind of guy!
Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Christian fundamentalist evangelist and tax protester. He is a controversial figure in the Young Earth creationist movement whose ministry focuses on denial of scientific theories in the fields of biology (evolution), geophysics, and cosmology in favor of a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative found in the Bible. Hovind’s views, which combine elements of creation science and conspiracy theory, are dismissed by the scientific community as fringe theory and pseudo-scholarship. He has been criticized by Young Earth Creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis for his continued use of discredited arguments that have been abandoned by others in the movement.
Hovind established Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) in 1989 and Dinosaur Adventure Land in 2001 in Pensacola, Florida. He frequently spoke on Young Earth creationism in schools, churches, debates, and on radio and television broadcasts. His son Eric Hovind took over operation of CSE after Hovind began serving a ten-year prison sentence in January 2007 for federal convictions for failing to pay taxes, obstructing federal agents, and structuring cash transactions.
Today I want to make my rebuttal of a friends defense for Larkin Rose’s expressed position on God/ Deism.
Larken Rose Recognizes the fingerprint of Intelligence within the incredible design of living things yet appears ambivalent towards any further thought or discussion about the ramifications of this Revelation.
He reminds me of the late A Flew… the once High priest of Atheism who in the face of the discoveries of Modern science esp the complexity of living things abandoned his Atheism for belief in Intelligent design… yet never made the full traverse to Bible believing Faith in THE LORD.
Flew was an honest thinker yet ran out of Time…whereas Larken Rose still has time to discover the truth… yet his attitude appears to me to be that of a Man who does not really want to go down that road…and I question his motives.
I argue why Deism may once have been forgivable/ understandable in the distant past, yet is inexcusable today, and that now Reason and Logic are on the side of the Theist.
While both entail the belief in a Creator God, what distinguishes Deism from Theism is that Deism rejects Divine interventions in the affairs of Men… No Miracles to circumvent the laws of Nature… and esp No Divine special Revelations to mankind.
It will be necessary for me to skip over large portions of history and related material for the sake of brevity such as the Deism of the 18th century.
(I will have to do a separate Blog post on these important aspects of this topic at some later date, and insert a link to it here)
Watch Larken Rose Here…
*********
Ten or more years ago I was asked to debate Hamilton based Atheists for the existence of the Christian God.
One of my opponents was Garry Mallett from Act.
Now The only reason I have mentioned this debate is because the 2nd part of my argument was the logical assumption that *If there is in fact a God (in the Full context of the word) and that he made us human beings…as Rational, conscious beings… that it would be a reasonable assumption to think that surely he would communicate with us some how… who he is… why he made us…etc rather than just leaving us Ignorant about such things.
That was my premise for why it is rational to at least consider the possibility that the Bible’s claim to be the Divine Revelation from the Creator of the Universe to be a plausible possibility at least… and that the honest thinking person having first concluded that the Universe and Living things are best understood as the products of intelligent design… that following upon that, that The Bible answers the questions that naturally flow on…. The *Who* is this Great designer of the Universe… and what message does he have for us… his Conscious Rational Moral Free Agent Creations… and most importantly… that such a Revelation is precisely what the rational mind would expect from the God who is there… rather than silence.
This is an argument that places Theism as superior to mere Deism and in fact renders belief in Deism today to be a cop out…poor reasoning at best… mostly willful ignorance.
Deism and Theism both draw upon what has been described as ‘Natural religion’… Ideas about God derived from looking at Nature… looking at what has been described as ‘The Book of God’s works’.
Yet Theism makes an additional claim that we have a second Book that we may also gain direct and infallible knowledge about God.. The Book of his actual words.
Deism/ Natural Religion is great up to certain point, yet severely limited as it can never tell us Human beings *who God is*… only that he is there… and that he is super intelligent and super powerful, and that there is some sort of Objective moral law which We Human beings ought to at least try and live by… that gives our Moral sence some legitimate foundation and purpose… rather than simply being some sort of illusion… mere sentiment… mere feelings.
An Idea such as ‘Kharma’, or ‘Reaping what you sow’… These are the sorts of ideas human beings have arrived at via contemplating nature… ‘Do unto others as you would have done unto you’ … ‘Be Good’… we know that’Theft is evil’…because we hate it when someone steals from us… so dont steal from others… yet still none of this has anything higher than our own opinion to rest upon… or the opinion of ‘wise others’… and is therefore not impervious to arguments of evil men that assert that all such moralizations are vacuous.
Dark minds may posit the question… Maybe the Deity is Malevolent?
Do not Floods and Earthquakes signal that our creator is far from a caring God! ????
Is the only Moral Rule …contrary to what the wowzers would have us believe…that the Strong may subject the weak?
Are they trying to subject the strong to whiles of the weak?
What the heck is really going on?
Deism cant definitively answer this… yet it gives those whom cling to it a certain self-justification for not being Nihilistic… for claiming they are Moral and good. (something that is necessary because of what the bible describes as our innate knowledge/ consciousness of Good and evil)
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:…”
St Paul. Romans 1:20.
Yet Deism says *Nobody can claim to really know*.
Now I love many of the Great heathen thinkers of classical times, whom both believed a God exists, and that Humanity should be moral, and because of the times and places in which *they lived* I accept that they really had taken ‘Natural religion’ to its highest forms and that they had no ‘Rungs upon which they could possibly ascend higher and closer to God’, and that they were Good, wise, Moral men…In the context of how good any man might be under such circumstances. (Separated/ aliens from Israel, mostly living before the advent of Christ)
It is at this plateau that many of the Great Heathen moral thinkers had arrived.
The Stoic Marcus Aurelius is supposed to have said…
Though Aurelius lived post-Christ and had ‘herd’ about the Christians and held negative opinions about them, I am not sure to what degree he had any real first hand communications with them, or any familiarity with the Old testament/ Book of Genesis, thus I tend to consider his situation as very similar to that of the *Pre-Christ* Gentile thinkers… Aliens from the Divine revelation.
He was a very interesting thinker…God will judge him. Here is an interesting link to this Topic
Now As a Christian Theist who believes the Bible, I know there are Mountains of the most vital truths missing from this Natural/Deistic Faith position because I have the Divine Revelation… The Holy inspired and preserved words of God Almighty himself esp the Facts That Humanity is under a curse because of our Sin, and that our Sin separates us from God and puts us in danger of His Judgement and Damnation.
*It is possible*… because it is so obvious… without the aid of scripture to apprehend by the power of reason alone Humanities fallen/ sinful condition… our wickedness… our depravity… our Cruelty…. and perhaps from this a rationale may be conceived of the need to somehow appease the anger of the God(s)… for justice sake… all sorts of weird Ideas have been proposed… *Yet via reason it would be impossible to conceive of the doctrine of Christs virgin birth, and substitutional atonement for our sins, and resurrection*…from nature alone.
Indeed many Naturally minded people find these Doctrines repugnant… which leads to my main contentions for this blog about Deists living today in western civilization… and their willful ignorance/ rejection of the Divine Revelation… the Bible in which all these doctrines are laid out in the most Logical fashion from the very beginning in Genesis.
As I have said Deism is severely handicapped to what degree it can reveal the nature of God to us… limited in its certainty of moral precepts, etc, none the less *Today*…far from these limits as being considered by trendy thinkers as pitfalls… these people actually *enjoy* them!
Most of these are people *Today* … follow a trend that became fashionable from the end of the Great reformation who… for various reasons…good or bad… *hate organised religion* (which tends to be where Theistic claims of having ‘Divine revelation’ are most prevalent) … they also enjoy what they see as ‘the Freedom to do as they please… the only moral restraints being their own conscience… and esp that Deism can make no emphatic claims of Divine Judgement for moral failures… it cant even emphatically state the validity of any Human Judgement derived from Nature.
They will say that ‘Reason’ is the only Authority they will subject themselves to, and as they have reached to limits of Reason… they cannot be subject to any higher Moral authority or law.
Philosophers love to quote Hume … “you cant get an ‘Ought from an Is”.
Its Funny though that ordinary people seem to be able to do just that without much trouble appealing to sentiment… they are not moved by arguments that say we can have no confidence in these… in fact to my thinking …the rational approach to this mystery of consciousness to the ideas of Good and evil is not to say ‘We cant ever know’… but instead to set out *in faith* on a Pilgrimage to discover some means by which our sentiments can find Objective validation… It is a quest of discovery for the Divine revelation from the Intelligent Creator whose existence is testified to by his Natural handiwork.
And It is an Irony that in a work by the great skeptic himself David Hume called ‘Dialogues concerning Natural religion’ in which there is a debate about the existence of God, in which Hume deploys his skeptical arguments in the person of ‘Philo’, yet stunningly… in the final analysis his Book ends by giving the victory to the Theist ‘Cleanthes’!
My contention at the Debate was that not only did the Deity Communicate his existence and expectations of Humanity via Prophets and the written word… He intervened into Human affairs in the Most personal manor…. He visited us… and Walked among us… God was manifest in the flesh.
“Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:…”
Now when you add up all the components I have briefly discussed above you ought to be able to grasp why it is that I myself am a Theist… a Bible believer… That the fact that we westerners have easy access to the King James Bible and the book of Genesis therein, that willfully seeking to remain ignorant of the Divine revelation is inexcusable… and why it is that I have a pet dislike for modern Deism… esp its corruption/heresy of what I call Christian Deism which I see as a pathetic retreat from true Christian Theistic faith…caused by a weakness in faith and Bad reasoning… in the face of Atheist sophistry. (Topic for another Post)
I actually struggle to contain my contempt!
I need to take 5… and chill… and remember that it is only by Gods grace that I myself am a Christian at all.
I need to remember *How alien* I once was… How utterly incapable of apprehending the existence of God let alone the truthfulness of the Bible!
It is with all this in mind that I decided to keep calm and write this post..
Recently A friend of mine tried to justify the Deism of one of his Favorite thinkers Larkin Rose, which I had critisised as being pathetic… because he refused to make the most basic inference that Intelligent design demands *GOD* and that from this obvious conclusion… if he was an honest thinker… would demand he then begin a personal pilgrimage to discover *Who* this Grand designer is.
My friend began to repair to the arguments *of Classical Deism* and the limits that Logic faced in that direction… as if that excuse… which of course appears quite valid when looking back to heathen lands… and times before Christ… aliens to the Divine Revelation, Yet This blogpost is my express rebuttal to that argument when applied to modern thinkers like Larkin.
It is invalid for Thinkers today to simply rest on that ancient Plateau… because they live post Christ and have access to the Bible and history.
This makes them fully culpable for rejecting Jesus Christ.
Socrates on the other hand was not privy to the Bible… and I even conjecture that he would have become a Christian had he been given the opportunity… so many of his conclusions about Divine things being in perfect harmony with the scriptures… that he never had opportunity to read.
I say that If Socrates would have considered the Gargantuan explanatory power for the first chapters in the book of Genesis…plus all the rest… the Biblical explanation for the existence of Evil…The explanation of why God has separated himself from mankind… why we die… why there are Natural disasters, etc etc that it is very possible that he would have realised that this divine revelation gives a great logical basis for Biblical theistic faith when one applies it to the world about him.
That in fact the Bible *Is the Revelation* of the Intelligent designer of everything…his message to us his creatures… esp telling us *Who he is*… and what is *Really* going on.
So I question why it is that though Larken Rose sees through the delusion of atheistic evolution, he still is apathetic towards discovering *Who God is* and challenge him to Read the King James Bible… to really contemplate it’s message… and that in doing so he would no longer be in a position to argue that Logic ends at the plateau of Natural religion.
The Bible is a logical extension from the Plateau at the top of the Mountain… upwards out of the stratosphere all the way… a direct line of communication to the Deity… a logical vindication of Bible believing christian Theism.
Of course Satan and his minions have been attacking the Bible, and via sophistry undermining faith in its veracity as The Bible is the Ultimate Fortress of God for the believer. It is the Ultimate Lighthouse in the storm of life Shining its beams upon the treacherous Rocks of peril, and a Guide of Safe passage… salvation to every soul who sees its light and navigates into the Harbour of God’s love and Grace.
Satan is the enemy Of God and Men’s souls…The Father of Lies… it was by cunning craftiness that he was able to deceive Eve, and get her to disbelieve Gods word and to Eat of the forbidden fruit, and he has been at this game the whole time… Deceiving… yet the word of God remains like a Rock
Happy Resurrection Day!
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Protestant, 1611 King James Bible believer, Dispensationalist, Christian Libertarian.
The last paragraphs of Humes Dialouges concerning Natural religion…
If the whole of Natural Theology, as some people seem to maintain, resolves itself into one simple, though somewhat ambiguous, at least undefined proposition, That the cause or causes of order in the universe probably bear some remote analogy to human intelligence: If this proposition be not capable of extension, variation, or more particular explication: If it affords no inference that affects human life, or can be the source of any action or forbearance: And if the analogy, imperfect as it is, can be carried no farther than to the human intelligence; and cannot be transferred, with any appearance of probability, to the other qualities of the mind: If this really be the case, what can the most inquisitive, contemplative, and religious man do more than give a plain, philosophical assent to the proposition, as often as it occurs; and believe that the arguments, on which it is established, exceed the objections, which lie against it? Some astonishment indeed will naturally arise from the greatness of the object: Some melancholy from its obscurity: Some contempt of human reason, that it can give no solution more satisfactory with regard to so extraordinary and magnificent a question. But believe me, Cleanthes, the most natural sentiment, which a well-disposed mind will feel on this occasion, is a longing desire and expectation, that heaven would be pleased to dissipate, at least alleviate this profound ignorance, by affording some more particular revelation to mankind, and making discoveries of the nature, attributes, and operations of the divine object of our faith. A person, seasoned with a just sense of the imperfections of natural reason, will fly to revealed truth with the greatest avidity: While the haughty Dogmatist, persuaded, that he can erect a complete system of Theology by the mere help of philosophy,
KS 228
disdains any farther aid, and rejects this adventitious instructor. To be a philosophical Sceptic is, in a man of letters, the first and most essential step towards being a sound, believing Christian; a proposition, which I would willingly recommend to the attention of Pamphilus: And I hope Cleanthes will forgive me for interposing so far in the education and instruction of his pupil.
D 12.34
Cleanthes and Philo pursued not this conversation much farther; and as nothing ever made greater impression on me, than all the reasonings of that day; so, I confess, that, upon a serious review of the whole, I cannot but think, that Philo’s principles are more probable than Demea’s; but that those of Cleanthes approach still nearer to the truth.
How Old is this planet? Get This straight… The Bible *does not* set a date for the creation of *The Planet Earth*. A person does not have to embrace ‘Young Earth’ Creationism to be a committed Bible believer.
This is a subject that though I have discussed many times on line, I ought to have blogged my definitive argument before now… given how important it is to defense of the Bible believers position in the trustworthiness of the Bible.
Tonight I will at least make a start.
My opening statement makes my position clear, so that it only remains for me to prove/ argue my point.
So many people on all sides of the Atheism vs Christian Theism debate are convinced that a necessary corollary of claiming to believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God (esp the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis) is that such a view *demands* also embracing the arguments of that reviled group of Christians known as ‘Young Earth creationists’ …. whom argue that *The Bible says* God Made the Universe… and the Earth… a mere 6000 years ago.
This date they have arrived at using an Historical Chronology tracing backwards the lineage of Christ to Adam … a practice that has been going on since at least the 17th century… see here the methodology of Ussher chronology
Though this period of time is not precisely recorded and requires some ‘educated guesses’, Most calculations vary by a mere decade, so that the Basic argument… that according to the Bible God made Adam approximately 6000 years ago… is sound.
So then it appears to many that to believe that God created the Earth for Adam and Eve, requires a person to believe the *Earth itself* was created *5 days* prior to his creation of Adam…. so in faith… that is precisely what millions of YEC Christians choose to believe.
In support for their faith, (like myself) they are aware that the Theory of Evolution is Full of holes… most Bible believers in fact see the theory of Evolution (of Man from Ape, from Rodent, from amphibian, from fish, from worm, from germ…) to be the very height of foolishness and absurdity, and also appreciate the *true advances in the science of Biology and genetics* continually validate the ancient claims of scripture… such as the species being locked into ‘Kinds’, and that the entire human race… is *one family* all carrying the genetic tags of being the offspring from a *single woman*… Mitochondrial Eve.
The Myth of Evolution… requires the Magic and imagination of Countless Millions of Years… and countless numbers of fortuitous unguided accidents to blindly transform Magic Bugs that spontaneously generated from the lifeless mud…into people, and so this Godless ideology conveniently postulates *an ancient Earth…in an ancient self assembling/ evolving Universe.
How Old?… well Every Time Evolutionists state their ‘Scientific Facts’… it is only a matter of months rather than years that *some newly discovered ‘Truth’, forces them to extend the Date of the creation of the universe Backwards by hundreds of millions… sometimes billions of years… proving the whole business to be highly dubious… Guesswork… based upon naive ignorance.
And foolish imaginations run wild… the more Billions of Years the Atheists claim … somehow the mystical powers of evolution are supposed to be *more believable*… as to their way of thinking…this multiplies the number of times their Zombie Goddess ‘Mother nature’ gets to roll her dice. They imagine that Germs can … slowly slowly…. become people…
On the other hand the YE creationists *Dont require to pre-suppose a Multi-billion year Timescale for their cosmology… on the contrary… by their interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis appears to Forbade such a Time-frame… They insist the Bible only allows a time scale of a magnitude in the very low thousands of years… that is the pre-supposition they labour under… and contend for.
Without continuing down this diversion, it is sufficient for my purposes to have pointed out the ideological presuppositions, and dubious nature of the ground upon which the the Bible Critics stand to oppose the YE Creationists, and the basis at the heart of Y E Creationist thinking.
Both groups are keen to subject the Data taken from observation and experiment to the explanatory power of their own bents.
Now having to some degree identified the basic positions of the antagonists… that are supposed to stand as a dichotomy.
An ‘Either- Or choice that people must assemble under one banner or the other…. Bible believers must be Young Earth Creationists… People who accept the theory of Evolution… must Reject the Book of Genesis as being Literally believable, and assume that the planet Earth has existed for Billions of years (last count I herd was the Universe is now supposed to being 13 billion years old, and the Earth 4 Billion.)…
Because of the bundles of suppositions entailed in the two camps, The pseudo-scientific Ideas of Darwinian Evolution has driven a rift within the Masses of people whom call themselves ‘Christians… so that in what is now being called ‘the post Christian Era’… a growing percentage of Christians have abandoned faith in the inerrancy of the Scriptures… and walking enmasse to join the camp of the Atheist Bible rejectors… and like them… choosing to place their faith in *Evolutionary Scientists* rather than the literal veracity of the Scriptures.
And they do this without so much a wink…. they claim that in abandoning the traditional Christian beliefs that they are acting in a more ‘enlightened manor’… and are shedding off ‘an ancient superstition’… that only continues to be embraced by Religious whackos….. Luddites whom have no grasp of science.
Ie… Though these Modern Bible rejecting Christians are now Standing with the infidels… and embracing their Skeptical rationale with respect to the believability and veracity of the Bible… they nonetheless claim *That they are the Holy defenders of the faith!*
That *They are saving Christianity from the dustbin*… by synthesizing Evolution with a Neo-Christianity.
This Form of Christianity *Puts Human Scholarship* and *Evolutionary anthropology*… and Many of the Tenets of Materialism… in authority … Not The Bible… that is rendered to be… a collection of Myths and Fables… only believed by the primitive mind.
This is how the modern liberal Christian sees the ‘The cult’ of Young Earth creationism…’The Cult’ of King James Bible believers…. etc.
Thus the Modern Liberal Christians put *Rationalism* ahead of Faith in Divine revelation and preservation of the scriptures.
And what is the greatest tragedy is that they do not appreciate that they have been absolutely deceived… that they have abandoned the high ground… and retreated in the face of Atheist delusions.
They are also now Free to ‘cherry pick’ what portions of the scriptures they find ‘pleasing’… and reject everything else as some sort of Human error or folly.
To them the Bible is no longer a supernatural book, but concur with the atheist anthropologist that the bible is just another collection of ancient religious texts that has been exposed to all the Human factors … priest-craft, etc… over the millennia.
With Glee they abandon *any scripture* that is difficult to defend… such as Noahs Flood, Joshua’s extermination of the Canaanites, The Doctrine of Hell, The doctrine that Homosexuality is sinful, The doctrine that woman ought to voluntarily subordinate themselves to their husbands, etc etc.
Satan laughing spreads his wings.
So when we stand back, we can perceive just how disastrous Darwin’s Ideas have been to Christendom, and how they have caused a great loss of Faith in the literal truthfulness of the Book of Genesis, and in many of the most fundamental christian values… in favor of Godless liberalisms.
Bible believers are becoming an endangered species.
Their faith is under constant attack… not just from Atheist Infidels… but also now from so-called Christian infidels… this Division of Christianity can very accurately be understood as Christian *Theists* who hold the traditional veiw that the book of Genesis is trustworthy and literally accurate, whereas the Modern Liberal Christian whom embraces Evolution may justly be described as ‘A Christian Deist’.
It is now time to state my own position more clearly.
Let me state that while I agree with the Young Earth types that the theory of Evolution is false…and that God Created Mankind as a special and distinct creature totally unrelated in the hereditary sence to apes, fish, etc… thus My cosmology does not demand aeons of time past… nonetheless,…intuitively… when I examine the geology and geography of the world about me, I find the supposition that the Earth has existed for Many aeons as the most plausible proposition.
I do not deny that The YEC’s have produced many interesting scientific arguments and evidences that undermine the assumptions of the Evolutionists time-frame, yet still I tend to agree with the sceptics of YE Creationism about the age of the Earth being a mere 6000 years old.
And Below I will seek to show you how my interpretation of the scriptures allows me to have a foot in *both camps*… thus I contend that the Dichotomy is false… ie That it is possible to be a Believer in the veracity of the Book of Genesis… and still accept the probability that the Earth is of ancient origin.
Unfortunately for me *my position* is not welcomed by either of the two antagonistic groups… yet for opposite reasons.
What is of the greatest weight, and why I disagree with the young Earth creationist interpretation of the First chapters of Genesis is that they make a fundamental error… they miss the fact that ‘The Earth’ as mentioned in these verses *does not represent the creation of *The Planet Earth* but the restoration of *The Dry Land* from a prior state of void inundation.
The importance of this is appreciated when you realise that Genesis chapter one is not the absolute beginning… the Ex nihilo creation of the Universe, world, etc for humanity… but the restoration of the planet and especially the emergence of *Dry land*… that pre-existed in a submerged state of Darkness and deluge… for an indeterminate period of time.
Let me now take you on a journey through time *as I believe the Bible teaches*… which comes to light with a deeper understanding of the scriptures… revealing the fact that A Bible believer *Ought not to assume* the Universe and the Earth are relatively recent creations… and that such a young view only results from an erroneous interpretation.
Above is a Chart by the Late Great Dispensationalist Clarence Larkin. (1850-1924) which shows the existence of Earth Before Genesis 1…
What needs to be understood is that there are two *Different* beginnings in the scriptures.
The one we are discussing in Genesis, and one in the first chapter of the Gospel of John….
John 1Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
Now it is my contention that this beginning spoken of in John is the real beginning of all creation… the Chronology of events (dispensational scheme) may be understood as follows…
First… before the first ‘beginning’ there was just God the Trinity.
Then he made the angels in heaven (Lucifer and co).
Then God …the pre-incarnate Jesus/The Word made the Universe and the original Earth (This is when the stars of heaven/Angels sang in wonder (Isaiah).
This was in the ancient past possibly billions of years ago.
I believe God created life on earth and put the Dinosaurs here.
Lucifer and the angels would walk upon the earth too.
Next was the Great Rebellion of Lucifer, and the beginning/ origin of evil.
In consequence… God’s Judgement was forthcoming.
God not only judged Lucifer and co but also destroyed the earth/ and maybe even the whole universe by flood.
All the above happened *Before the Time of the Book of Genesis.*
It is *now* that the *2nd beginning* mentioned in the Bible begins… Genesis Chapter 1 starts with the Earth and Universe already in existence… but in a state of Darkness and void. (Text at bottom of this post).
This is when the earth (dry land…not planet) was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep (The scriptures tell us God did not originally create the world without form or void in Isaiah)
…‘Time’ went by and then Gods Spirit moved across the face of the waters.
Genesis 1Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day”…. etc
Here we have the second beginning, or the preparation of the earth for Adam and mankind. Now *this beginning* would have happened in the recent past around 4000bc. This is when God abated the waters and re-established the universe for Mankind…after the fall of Lucifer and the scene was set for the story of the fall of Man.
And it is this *Second beginning* *Virtually Everybody* mistakes as being the time God created the planet Earth, and the universe.
Thus it is at this point… the creation of Adam, that I begin to concur with many of the truly traditional doctrines of theistic Christianity embraced by the Young Earthers… ie that the Book of Genesis is Literally true with regards to the Creation of Mankind, their Fall into sin and separation from God… the story of Noahs flood and God’s judgement of the Wicked… etc.
All things that the Modern Liberal Christian Deist recoils from.
… the rest of the Biblical narrative carries on… From Noah… through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel)…
Another Hidden Spiritual gem that comes to light via this doctrine is the appreciation that when God chose to destroy Wicked humanity by Flood… that he was in fact in keeping with a previous precedent of Judgment *already established*.
Noahs Flood was *the second flood*… a Second judgement of wickedness… The first happened when Lucifer Rebelled… the second when the Earth filled with Violent and wicked Children of Adam.
This is why though I endorse the Book of Genesis, and the whole Bible as being the inspired and preserved revelation from God that I contend such Bible believing faith does not corner me into also having to believe in a young Earth.
So what Age do I suppose the Earth to be?
*I dont know* 🙂
I dont have even a ball park figure… 100 thousand…1 million… 1000 million years?
Probably millions of years is my conjecture.
What is important to state is that The Bible does not say.
I understand *why* the various vested interests seek to overthrow the ideas of their antagonists, I am on my guard… and watching how any novel ‘proofs’ are fielded, and contended with.
I will say that this doctrine teaches us that the Earth has suffered at least two major cataclysms… of a Global scale…and that the Geological evidence is there… yet falsely ascribed to ‘Ice ages’ rather than Divine Floods.
This is a worthy topic for another Blog post.
I must say that though I do not endorse their ‘Young Earth’ premises, I am impressed by much of their ‘outside the orthodox box’ Scientific arguments, such as their evidence that Dinosaur Fossils probably are nowhere as old as the Evolutionists have claimed…
One of the traps of science is how erroneous ideas can become entrenched as ‘Orthodoxy’… and vested interest form that seek to protect these ‘orthodox’ views from challenges… and so via un-objective bias Bad Ideas can remain in currency long after they ought to have been thrown out. We are witnessing this as true not only with 150 years of Darwinism and their failure to conclusively establish anything near a believable lineage of Human evolution (or anything else)… but also with regards to *How Oil reserves are formed*, *That Dinosaur Fossils contain soft tissue*, That Fat in our diets is the chief cause of western obesity, etc etc.
The world needs people capable of questioning ‘orthodoxy’ and of pursuing un-orthodox ideas to see where they lead because so much can be learned when the mind has been unfettered from pre-conceptions and dares to imagine new possibilities.
So it is that though I dont endorse YE Biblical premises as to the age of the Earth, none the less it is exciting to see the sorts of Challenges their un-orthodox thinking is producing.
2.
Important note: It is essential to apprehend the monumental difference between the theory of the ‘Darwinian Evolution’ of life, from the natural processes that are at work in the greater universe… the Laws of thermodynamics, Motion, gravity, etc… by which the whole universe is undergoing constant transformation. that can be thought of as the Hands of a clock changing position via the Cogs … as the spring slowly looses its tension… and the pendulum inevitably reaches a point of rest.
If we are to call the continuous results of the Blind yet Law-bound natural processes of the Material world ‘Evolution’ … then only a handful of dullards will not accept the veracity of these mechanistic activities… ie I in no way dispute the argument that with vast periods of time… the coalescence of clouds of particulate matter could form larger bodies… Barren Rocks, ice comets, etc, and that in fact these very forces are what maintain the semi-stable ‘Galaxies and solar systems.
It is astounding to me that Myriads of sheeple cannot apprehend *The stark contrast* between the sorts of phenomena that can be rightly explained and understood as a result of the interactions of the blind forces of Nature, from that most different and special classification of phenomena that can only be rationally understood as *intelligently assembled* … to the degree that both A fish… and a submarine belong under the same qualification… segregated from such things as Rough Diamonds and ocean currents. (which though at a deeper level are themselves intelligently ordered… they function in blind obedience to simple Laws)
It is at this juncture that the assertions in ‘Payleys Watch’ Lords Rational supreme over the Absurdities of Dawkins ‘Blind watchmaker’… and all the ridiculous Atheist rantings about Celestial teapots, Multiverses, etc.
3.
It is worth noting here that the march of Science has in fact *Vindicated faith in the scriptures* in that today it is well understood by Science… that the universe did indeed *have a beginning* … which was an article of Biblical Faith poo pooed by Atheist materialists whom asserted the universe was eternal.
They were proven wrong… and in such a monumental fashion that the whole materialist argument has been proven false.
The Laws that Govern the Universe are not supreme, but temporal… and so greater… super-naturalism is now the fully vindicated *Rational position*… The Bibles assertion that the universe had a beginning and will also have an end… is now something *virtually everyone concedes.
A Greater *un-created Supernatural reality *of logical necessity* exists* from which this temporal universe… and Mankind… came into being… The Fundamental being of Reality… God.
Vindicating the scripture that says Gods certain existence is easily seen by the things that are made.
“…For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” Rom 1vs20
You would think that such a devastating Death punch to infidelity would render Materialist Atheism an abandoned superstition… yet so fanatical is the Zeal of the Godless to reject the Bible, that they choose to bury their heads in the sand… They Leap like frogs from their sinking lily pad onto another… pretending the knowledge that the universe had a beginning as being a support for their ‘reformed atheism’… that now hinges on the idea of a Godless Big Bang… and the slow evolution of the Universe via the blind forces of physics as I have already mentioned as being always at work (postscript 2.).
4.
I understand the basic dynamics of their Godless theory… how from their measurements of the size of the Universe they compute a timescale, and Datum for the Big Bang.
I understand the rationale they employ as to *How they attempt to explain the existence of things like our moon*… using computer model simulations… inputting the values of the natural forces… postulating imaginary planet X of convenient size and velocity… working in conveniently calculated time frames… in fortuitous collision angles… stacking the Deck completely… and then claiming the resulting ‘result’ as a confirmation of their scientific Objectivity and the certitude of their whole Evolutionary premises.
They pretend that all their loading of the dice is somehow conclusive proof that God did not thoughtfully order the universe… that it is a mere fluke the The Earth, moon and sun are all so precisely arranged so as to be so fantastically conducive to the sustenance of life.
They delude themselves that they have proven *The whole shebang* to be Godless, Purposeless, meaningless, …
From all this I hope that my readers have apprehended that while I perceive the convoluted plausibility that Natural forces… astronomic impacts… might conceivably… in theory… produce phenomena *like the moon* … a Dead dusty Rock… that this in itself doe not *Prove* the moon was in fact made that way.
It is a symptom of the incredulous modern mind… so trapped in the naturalistic box… that it finds contemplation of anything spiritual, or miraculous painfully unbearable
There is no Science that disproves the idea that God made the universe almost exactly as it appears to us today.
Newton believed this.
He was convinced that the perfect proportionality of the cosmos smacks of the Divine.
The assertion that the moons was formed by natural means is simply an article of faith… stemming from an aversion to Super-naturalism.
Some Modern Liberal Christians whom fully embrace Naturalistic evolution will not wink at declaring that “God made everything… via evolution”.
They are deluding themselves via foolish sophistry….equivocating … ie Re-defining the Term ‘Evolution’ from it’s essential characteristic… that of being an ‘Un-purposed’ ‘unguided’ series of happenstances… into some sort of Divine plan….
I have always argued that if there was *No Earth*… *No Life*… No People… No cars and truck, etc… just a universe full of Burning Stars, and Barren Rocks… like the moon… like Venus, Mars, etc… well then *That sort of Universe* *would be wholly explicable in atheistic terms… Yet The existence of these *Super-natural* things absolutely refutes Atheism.
These things I deem to be *Intelligently designed*… some with the extra special quality of possessing *A soul*… consciousness… all things that *cannot be understood via the purely Materialist paradigm… though Darwinian Evolution does its very best to attempt this very feat.
*Which is in itself the fundamental driving force behind the religious fanaticism of the Atheist materialists*
They are hell bent on maintaining a belief that they have No God to thank for their own existence… No God to answer for how they go about their lives… they must maintain this delusion… at all costs… They simply *cannot allow* the Bible to be believed as scientifically or historically valid.
They delude themselves that they have a rational and scientific basis for their faith… boy are they in for a surprise!
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Just love it when after the Evolutionists wax lyrical about ‘Their discovery’ of a Cataclysmic Flood … merely thousands of years ago that Joe blerts out that their assertion that Mankind came from a Shrew was way harder to accept than their assertions about the mega Flood!
🙂
They of course claim their dating of the flood @ 10 000 years ago is ‘solid’, and dont fail to say that Cataclysms (like the supposed Comet that wiped out the Dinosaurs) are the impetus of Evolution!
Pause and contemplate just how absurd that idea is… Disasters foster evolution!
I will expand on this as time permits, yet I will simply say that This ‘new evidence’ of the Flood, like so many facts that I have gleaned is not the biased opinions of vested interests trying to validate the Bible, but comes from those who claim the bible is a myth!
As much as 90% of the supporting evidence I have found comes from such sources.
You just have to recognise the implications of what is being presented, and have the nouse not to be deluded by their Qwazi-excuses and personal bais that they try and foist upon the hard data.
Not only does this take away any infidels ability to claim the facts are subjective fabrications… it also just goes to show how incredulous the Atheists are themselves… that they can stare straight at the evidence that proves the bible is true… yet miss the boat completely.
They have blinders on…. Satan Laughing, spreads his wings.
The Truth is that with the process of time, and the progress of science more of What we Christians believed by Faith becomes grounded in Scientific fact, and with the advance of Biblical theism… it is atheism that is in Retreat!
Atheism exists in an ever decreasing ‘Gap’ in Human knowledge.
Hang your heads in shame all you liberal Theologians who have abandoned faith in the scriptures in favour of Infidel philosophies.
Nor should we just focus on the Judgement of God upon the wickedness of Humanity, for the Story of Noah is not just about destruction, but also about Salvation, the Arc being a type of Christ and the new life of the redeemed.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
1611 King James Bible believing Christian Dispensationalist.
Here’s a Biblical argument for euthanasing the terminally ill.
The argument relies on a couple of reasonable assumptions which I now make explicit.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. …
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. (KJV)
I assume that God gave us plants for all sorts of purposes, not just to eat. Creating the known universe, including our solar system, our planet and all life upon it including us was quite a feat. The account given in the Book of Genesis, of the origin of God’s green earth, is necessarily highly abbreviated. It cannot reasonably be argued that God did not intend us to use trees for building material as well as fruit, nor can it reasonably be argued that God did not intend us to use Cyperus papyrus to make the manuscripts that the Books of the Bible were originally written on, notwithstanding that these non-nutritional uses aren’t specifically mentioned in Chapter 1 of the Book of Genesis.
I also assume that we can tell what a plant is for simply by looking at its actual uses. Take any plant. What’s it good for?
Now I’m fond of using Genesis 1:29 (“I have given you every herb bearing seed”) as an argument for legalising cannabis. The Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party exists to legalise cannabis for recreational, spiritual, medicinal and industrial purposes. I think the ALCP’s cause is righteous. And I don’t think it’s eisegetical to suggest that God gave us cannabis for our recreational use among other things but I do acknowledge that it can reasonably be argued that getting high is not among the uses God intended for it. No matter, I don’t think principled exceptions disprove the general rule.
Sometimes I meet the objection, but what about deadly nightshade? Did God give that to us to eat too? But this objection just lends further credence to my view that God gave us plants for more than just food. So what about belladonna? Well, what’s deadly nightshade good for? It turns out that belladonna is a medicine and dispensable to a healthy diet.
Belladonna tinctures, decoctions, and powders, as well as alkaloid salt mixtures, are still produced for pharmaceutical use, and these are often standardised at 1037 parts hyoscyamine to 194 parts atropine and 65 parts scopolamine. The alkaloids are compounded with phenobarbital and/or kaolin and pectin for use in various functional gastrointestinal disorders. The tincture, used for identical purposes, remains in most pharmacopoeias, with a similar tincture of Datura stramonium having been in the US Pharmacopoeia at least until the late 1930s. The combination of belladonna and opium, in powder, tincture, or alkaloid form, is particularly useful by mouth or as a suppository for diarrhoea and some forms of visceral pain
Which brings us to the miracle plant that is the topic of this post, the opium poppy. Surely, God intended us to use this plant for the strongest of strong pain relief! Morphine is the predominant alkaloid found in the opium poppy, and in the 21st century it is still the analgesic of choice for pain management in the terminally ill.
Jesus himself is said to have been offered a drink containing opium (according to one interpretation) on the cross, but declined to accept.
They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. (KJV)
Now to the argument. Morphine is not just an analgesic. It is also a respiratory depressant. It slows breathing and, in sufficiently high doses, slows breathing to a stop. Its effects as a respiratory depressant are inseparable from its effects as an analgesic, both brought about by activation of the central nervous system’s μ-opioid receptors. Is it by design that these two remarkable effects of morphine are, as it were, yoked together? I suggest that it is.
I suggest that morphine’s design ensures that when a terminally ill patient is in severe pain, and the dose of morphine administered is increased appropriately, it also tends to kill the patient. That’s euthanasia by any other name.
If you don’t say what you mean and mean what you say, you will likely be misunderstood.
The trouble is, even if you do say what you mean and mean what you say, you will still likely be misunderstood!
Sad but true.
It all goes back to the Babel incident recorded in the Book of Genesis.
Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. (NIV)
No, it’s not. Our language is still confused! People can’t seem to speak clearly. Ambiguity is ubiquitous. Even if we do say what we mean and mean what we say … it takes two to tango. Communication is as much the listener’s responsibility as the speaker’s. People can’t seem to speak clearly, and they can’t seem to listen clearly either. They’ll hear you say what they thought you meant. Even before you said it.
Even if what you meant is what you said and what you said is what you meant, you will still likely be misunderstood!
Here’s a recent case study. It’s an edited snippet of a conversation I had on Facebook with a libertarian friend. (No prizes for guessing whom!)
Do you agree that a government should minimise the unjust harm the government actively inflicts on its own citizens? Yes or No?
No it must be absolutely eliminated…and it is *we the people* who do this…. not the government itself. *they dont make the rules. We do. They merely enforce the duties we delegate to them…. Government for the People… by the people.
Their Duty is to *uphold our rights*….. whether or not we Harm ourselves to a greater or lesser extent…. via ignorance or choice.
When you say Governments unjust harm should be ‘minimised’ rather than eliminated, you are saying that there is a tolerable level unjust harm that is allowable….
That’s not what I’m saying at all. Or is it?!
verb: minimise
reduce (something, especially something undesirable) to the smallest possible amount or degree.
To minimise harm is to reduce harm to the smallest possible amount or degree.
To eliminate harm is to reduce harm to zero.
To minimise harm or to eliminate harm completely? These come to the exact same thing if it turns out that the smallest possible amount of harm is zero! The question is, consistent with its ongoing role as a properly functioning proper government, what is the smallest possible amount of unjust harm the government can actively inflict on its own citizens? Is it, in fact, zero?
It’s not zero.
What is the proper function of a proper government? My friend says that government’s duty
is to *uphold our rights*
but what the hell does that even mean? Uphold? Wat.
According to my understanding of libertarianism, the government really has only two proper functions, viz., defence of the realm and administration of justice.
For defence of the realm, we have the Ministry of Defence … and (arguably) the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (but not Trade).
For administration of justice, we have the Ministry of Justice … and the subsidiary Ministry of Police and Ministry of Corrections (so-called).
The police are there to apprehend those who infringe our rights. The prison system is there to punish the perpetrators, according to principles of justice. To “uphold” our rights is merely to apprehend those who infringe our rights and bring them to justice … after the fact. Strictly speaking, according to my libertarian philosophy, the police have no business preventing crime. That’s what private security companies are for.
Now, let’s consider the government’s proper function of administering justice. Because of the very nature of earthly justice systems, it turns out that the smallest possible amount of unjust harm a government may inflict on its own citizens is greater than zero.
Sad but true.
In administering justice, earthly justice systems are prone to two basic kinds of error. Punishing the innocent and letting the guilty walk free. These two errors are not independent.
We could eliminate the first kind of error—punishing the innocent—by letting everyone walk free. But that would be a cop-out. It would not be administering justice at all.
We could eliminate the second kind of error—letting the guilty walk free—by locking everyone up. But that would be to unjustly harm the innocent en masse. It would not be administering justice at all.
In practice, our justice system is heavily weighted towards avoiding the second kind of error. As a result, very few innocent people are ever sent to prison. As a result, very many guilty people walk free.
Governments harm people. Even proper libertarian governments. Unfortunately, there is a tolerable level of unjust harm that is allowable. It’s just a harsh fact of life but one that we must accept.
NORML NZ Press Statement for Immediate Release: 24/04/2014
Citizens denied access to public space by Hamilton City Council to celebrate Hamilton J Day
The Hamilton branch of the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws’ request to use the Hamilton Lake Domain Stage to hold its annual J Day gathering in Hamilton has been denied by the Hamilton City Council. The Council is claiming the event violates the Hamilton City Smoke-Free Environment Policy.
This event is primarily a political protest, involving activists, supporters, musicians, political party candidates and other speakers, but it is also a rare opportunity for the community to come together and discuss evidence based health and justice policies and to connect with others in their community that share their views.
“None of the event information provided to the Council by NORML, or any of NORML’s materials promoting this event, make any mention of an intention to violate a smoking prohibition, and we made it clear that we had offered to help with extra Council signage and include constant announcements to remind attendees that the Council has a smoking prohibition in all City parks to be fully in compliance with their smoke free policy,” said event organiser and Hamilton NORML member Gary Chiles.
NORML has said that it considers the action of the Council to be a direct violation of the organisation and its supporters’ democratic rights to gather and protest against the injustice of New Zealand’s cannabis prohibition, and also an unreasonable assumption on the part of the Council that an event clearly promoted as a law reform protest is promoting behaviour inconsistent with their smoke-free policy.
NORML invites all Hamilton supporters of cannabis law reform to gather peacefully to celebrate J Day at the Lake Domain Stage Saturday 3rd May at 12:00 as planned.
We have a democratic right to protest and a right to freedom of speech under the Bill of Rights Act, and we have every intention of exercising those rights.
A group feeding Hamilton’s needy say the council is forcing them out of Garden Place to stop more homeless people coming to the area.
But the council says while they have received complaints about the group feeding the homeless, their primary concern is the fact that those involved don’t have the appropriate permit to operate in a public.
Now they’re denying people the opportunity to gather in a public space and celebrate a wonder plant that God placed on this green earth explicitly for our use!
Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.”
Big ups to Hamilton J Day organiser Gary Chiles for standing fast in the face of the Hamilton City Council’s authoritarian tantrums.
It is not for our elected representatives to lord it over those whom they are supposed to serve.
I went to see the Noah movie last night.
I was not expecting it to be an accurate portrayal of the Biblical Noah, and was fully prepared for Hollywood licence…. why let the truth get in the way of a good story?
Thus I have been sceptical of the bleating s from Christian commentators…. so I did’t bother to read them… and was determined to make up my own mind…. hoping to find something positive… ie that perhaps it may at least get people thinking about the Book of Genesis.
I like Big Budget movies with Special effects.
I think the real Russell Crowe is a Plonker… yet he’s good at his trade and usually enjoyable to watch… yet his portrayal of Noah was disturbing… unpleasant.
I can appreciate that it was a necessary for the script for Crowe to portray Noah as absolutely single minded in his convictions that God intended to absolutely destroy Humanity… though this was a massive departure from what The Bible says… and as a consequence Crowe’s Noah comes across as absolutely heartless…. a religious Fanatic… and this is a great dis-service to the Biblical Noah whom preached to the world about the coming flood… only to be mocked and jeered at.
The Movie makes out Noah flatly refused anyone’s plea to enter the salvation of the Ark… which is Tantamount to Christ refusing to save sinners…. The Genesis Ark being a Type of God’s mercy and Salvation in Christ.
I will mitigate this criticism in that the Magnitude of the situation did call for Steel resolve and monumental… unwavering Faith in the justness of God’s judgement.
Crow’s Noah was that… and later in the movie Mrs Noah articulates the weight that Noah had Borne …esp being a Caring and Humane Man.
The movie Noah heartlessly leaves Ham’s Girlfriend to be crushed to death, just so they could stitch in another unpleasant and Anti-biblical construct… That in the post Deluvian world Ham and Japheth would take wives of their nieces.
No Doubt the producers relished this ‘innovation’ as it is patently designed to make audiences recoil at the idea that the Bible contains incest… re- procreation from the Children of Adam and Eve.
I will mitigate this critisism only for the shear fact that to believe the Book of Genesis is a literal historical account, it is necessary to accept that Adam and Eve’s children *did* pro-create together.
Yet there was no Law against it in that age, nor was there the same level of De-generation as is the case today… People lived 1000 years back then.
I do think that this part of the plot does evidence the producers desire to use this movie to discredit the Bible… not to enhance Faith… yet would you expect anything less from Hollywood these days?
It would be silly to go to a movie like this and yet feel you had been defrauded of your money.
Rabid Non-Christians like Ricard Dawkins would enjoy seeing Christians squirming in their seats!
Considering myself a more open mined, tolerant, and freer thinker than the average Christian I was hoping to find more virtue in this movie… they really did contrive things to such an extent that regretfully I must say that the bleetings of Evangelicals like Ray Comfort are not without substance.
One virtue which cannot be denied is that this movie is stimulating conversation on a very important subject… and no doubt some people will turn to Christ as a result.
Others may loose their faith…
Half way through the movie now, another interesting yet thoroughly contrary part of the plot was that the Fallen Angels of Genesis 6 had become ‘Watchers’…. Stoney Giants who contrary to the scriptures were benevolent beings who despite having to contend with the violence of humanity, still longed to be restored to communion with the Creator, and decided to help Noah build the Ark and protect it from being over-run by the Evil hordes.
They acted like the 300!
Brave warriors willing to face overwhelming odds to protect Noah’s family and the Ark.
The Highlight of the movie for me was when these Watchers began to be overpowered that they realised that God Almighty was merciful towards them and that upon death they were to be restored to Heaven!
Sitting alone amongst the crowd I was moved to silently shed a tear or two.
Heroic self-sacrifice and the hope of God’s mercy are themes which strike deep in my heart….. even though this part of the movie was an absolute fabrication.
I dont think it is necessary to dwell on the contrived storyline that Crowe’s Noah was determined to kill his own grandchildren…. a truly despicable portrayal… attempting to stitch in events of Abraham and Isaac… That Men of Faith are capable of the most inhumane atrocities.
It matters not that Isaac was spared… as were the grand daughters in this tale…. Hollywood’s purpose was served.
It was portrayed that Noah had to defy God, to save the innocent.
A Test?
Did Noah Fail?
No… not according to Emma Watson who played Shem’s wife.
Noah chose mercy and love… over blind obedience.
Maybe…. Ultimately… in the end Hollywood’s Noah learned the greatest Religious lesson of all.
A Straw man argument as far as the Book of Genesis is concerned.
Some positive yet grim aspects of the movie was that the Ark looked believably constructed.
They caused the Animals to drop into a Hibernation via the use of drugs…. a common speculation as to the logistics of how 8 people were able to tend to so many beasts…. not to mention inter-species conflicts.
They attempted to portray the depravity of The Godless… the justification for God’s Judgement.
I do not think the movie overstated the horror of the flood itself… it’s probably not possible to do that!… and so It was good to visualise the sort of terrible fate that consumed the lost… even if it makes some folk question the Love of God.
Ray Winstone’s portrayal of the Pride of Rebellious Humanity was awesome.
The seed of Cain…. ‘Why wont God commune with me?’
Hell bent, He determined to Dominate the world be shear lawless brutality… to spite God.
To kill was the mark of manhood.
Ultimately I think This Movie is what you would expect from people who dont believe the flood ever happened… don’t believe the Book of Genesis is anything more than fables… and so there can be no real harm done by bastardising the story.
Indeed the infidel no doubt considers the fact that this movie will work to discourage faith in the scriptures as it’s greatest virtue.
Anthony Hopkins as Methuselah.
I will Finnish my commentary simply by saying that I myself believe the Book of Genesis is Literal history… and that the flood did occur.
It is a well establish artefact of historic tradition… almost universally attested to… even if it is unpleasant to consider such all consuming Divine judgement.
Reality and truth are Objective… not determined by our sentiments, and i am appalled by modern liberal Christians whom attempt to sidestep the uncomfortable truths written in the Bible by simply pretending that they are myths… no flood… no massacres… no hell… etc.
The Story of the Flood is absolutely relevant today… and it is Ironic that I am writing these words on Easter Saturday… a festival which has dubiously … via the tides of history come to be associated with the Death Burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ… events which St Paul preached were God’s Grace in action.
The sinless Christ… the Scape Goat… took on the sins of Humanity and was Judged by God… the wages of sin being Death…. he was Crucified.
Yet after 3 days in the grave he rose victorious over sin and death… God via St Paul’s preaching the Good news that whosoever believes that Christ died for their sins and rose again the third day… calling upon the Name of the Lord… they shall be Saved from the coming judgement of God!
Christ is our Ark.
God’s judgement is again drawing near upon a corrupt and violent Mankind.
To pretend that God does not judge is a great lie… a terrible delusion.
The Story of Noah is a warning to be heeded…
Ignore it at your peril.
People surrounded by evil are looking for salvation…. they need to hear the Gospel of Gods Grace… Come to the Ark!
There is salvation in Christ!
God is not Heartless… yet he will judge the wickedness of humanity.
He has provided a way of salvation via faith.
He has given you the choice.
The power is in your own hands.
There is a terrible time approaching under the Anti-Christ, and God’s judgement will again be upon Humanity as he pours out his wrath upon a world which has rejected Christ.
So my friends Will you put your trust in the Word of God or in the vain imaginations of the infidel?
Tim Wikiriwhi
Protestant Christian, King James Bible believer, Dispensationalist, Libertarian
See FaceBook Page ‘Noah Movie Australia’ >>>Here<<<
Jesus warns.... Matt 24vs21-5, 37-38
"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Behold, I have told you before."
"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
2 Timothy 3
King James Version (KJV)
3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.
10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
******************************
Read more....
Noah’s Ark given the seaworthy seal of approval by physicists. NZ Herald
Don Brash is in the news again following today’s publication of his autobiography Incredible Luck. True to form, the NZ Herald focuses on the most salacious bits of the book.
In a warts-and-all chapter covering his personal life, Dr Brash tackles head-on his reputation for being a womaniser. But beyond arguing that men have an “extremely powerful biological urge to have sex”, he struggles to explain why he had extra-marital affairs which ultimately took a huge toll on his personal life and plunged him into a deep trough of depression.
Dr Brash writes that adultery was certainly not part of his Christian upbringing, but argues “that the great majority of human males are programmed to find women sexually attractive”.
He realised, of course, that some men were gay. “I have never suspected, even for a single moment, that I might be gay.”
I take it as read(-blooded) that Brash is right. Men do, indeed, have an extremely powerful biological urge to have sex and the great majority of human males are programmed to find women sexually attractive. The question is, what best explains this primal fact? Creationism or evolutionism?
Evolutionism is premised on survival and reproduction. More precisely, evolutionism is premised on survival to reproduce. The DNA of individual organisms that don’t reproduce doesn’t make it into the next or subsequent generations. It’s that simple. Virginity is both anomalous and an evolutionary death-knell. How many of your ancestors were virgins? I bet none.
Evolutionism offers a compelling explanation of the male libido.
We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.
So says Richard Dawkins in his classic The Selfish Gene. And the experience of being male surely bears out the claim. Over the years, my own libido has got me into heaps of trouble, including relationships with women. I even reproduced! But I survived. 🙂 (And I’m older and wiser now, of course.)
It’s not that there aren’t problems with the evolutionist account. Of course, there are, and there’s one big problem in particular, viz., the origin of sex itself. The first forms of life (according to the theory of evolution) were single-celled organisms or simple multi-celled organisms that reproduced by a process of asexual reproduction called budding. It’s a mystery when, why and how the first two such organisms got together and said, “Fuck budding, let’s be fuck buddies.” I expect my evolutionist readers will have some fanciful accounts to share in the comments section below.
So, what’s the best creationist explanation of the male libido? Well, one explanation springs immediately to mind. In Genesis 1, God created mankind in his own image
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. … (NIV)
But, men being men … did God seriously expect that we were simply going to obey his command to “be fruitful and increase in number” without a great deal of whining and complaining and general disobedience? No! So he made sure that we’d be fruitful and increase in number by giving us sex drives—quite literally—on steroids!
There’s nothing wrong with responsible drug dealing. It’s an honest trade.
Some of my best friends are drug dealers. 🙂
But what does the Bible say about drug dealing? I thought I’d briefly research the question … but I quickly realised that briefly researching what the Bible says about drug dealing is not a live option!
There’s a school of thought according to which the sins of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, in penalty for which they and their cities were destroyed, included drug dealing and drug-fuelled debauchery. The same school of thought has it that the so-called sorcery that Paul the Apostle rails against several times in his Epistles is actually drug dealing. Supposedly, ‘sorcery’ is a mistranslation of the Greek word, pharmakeia. That makes sense, because it’s the same Greek word from which we get the English words pharmacy, pharmacist, pharmaceutical, pharmacopeia, etc. And, apparently, the Bible mentions two drug dealers by name. (They’re Simon and Elymas, mentioned in Acts 8 and Acts 13 respectively.)
I’m not going to get into this debate. (I found a lengthy discussion here for those interested.)
Anyway, there’s an alternative to the strictly scholarly approach to studying the Bible on any given issue, and that’s the prayerful approach. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to me about drug dealing!
This leapt off the page at me the first time I read it. (I’m baffled as to why I haven’t seen this particular verse mentioned in any of the discussion forums I briefly perused.)
Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! (NIV)
I think what Jesus is teaching here is actually something akin to our modern-day notion of host responsibility. (Notwithstanding that stunt he pulled at the Wedding at Cana.)
Sometimes drugs do cause people to stumble. (Alcohol, literally so.) They’re notorious for it. The plain fact of the matter is that some people can’t handle drugs, that’s why we have reality. And Jesus is here issuing a warning to drug dealers. Be very careful whom you deal drugs to. Best restrict your customer base to responsible adults, whom you trust not to get themselves—and, thereby, you—into trouble.
The Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority is seeking
input from interested parties into the development of regulations to support the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (the Act) which came into force on 18 July 2013.
The Psychoactive Substances Regulations will provide the operational detail on how the Act will work.
Once in force, regulations will end the interim provisions of the part of the Act to which they apply, bringing the full regime into effect. This paper consults on proposals for regulations relating to licensing, product approval processes, labelling and packaging details, place of sale and advertising, and fees and levies.
It’s an exercise in mitigating evil. Evil because regulations are actually prohibitive—if government defines the one way they will allow something they are really prohibiting all other ways.
The time is now to tell the government what the one way they will allow something should be.
Here are the leading questions to which Peter Dunne, the prohibitionist wolf in sheep’s clothing, is seeking answers.
Is the list of proposed information requirements for licence applications comprehensive enough? If not, what else should be required, and why?
Should retail licence applications be accompanied by evidence of compliance with a local approved products policy if one is in effect in the applicant’s area?
Should retail licence applications be accompanied by evidence of compliance with a generic local approved products policy if no policy is in effect in the applicant’s area?
Are the factors the Authority should take into account when determining whether a licence applicant is a fit and proper person or whether a body corporate is of good repute in section 16(2) enough? The section 16(2) factors are:
whether the applicant has been convicted of a relevant offence
whether there has been a serious or repeated failure by the applicant to comply with any requirement of the Act
whether there are other grounds for considering that the applicant is likely to fail to comply with any requirement of the Act
any other matter that the Authority considers relevant.
If you think these factors are not enough, please give examples of additional factors the Authority should consider.
Should the regulations require applicants to provide details of their involvement in other regulatory regimes, such as alcohol licensing processes?
What records should the regulations require licence holders to keep?
How long should licence holders be required to keep records for?
Do you think there are factors or issues that the Authority should consider when setting discretionary conditions? If so, please provide details.
Should the regulations prescribe other matters the Authority must take into account when deciding on an application? If yes, what should these matters be?
Do you agree a product approval application should include information on proposed manufacturing methods and how they will comply with the Psychoactive Substances Code of Manufacturing Practice?
Do you think any further particulars, information, documents or other material should be prescribed in the regulations? If yes, what should these be?
Do you agree with the proposal that the regulations require applications to contain information and data on the toxicity, pharmacology and related clinical effects of the psychoactive substance they are seeking approval for?
Do you agree with the proposal that the regulations require product approval applications to contain information and data on:
the psychoactive potential and related behavioural effects of the substance
the addictive potential
the proposed directions for use
previous use, including use in clinical trials and in the wider population?
Are the proposed requirements and restrictions on labelling sufficient? If not, please make specific suggestions for further requirements and restrictions.
Are the proposed requirements relating to health warnings sufficient? If not, please make specific suggestions for further requirements (for example, advice on what to do in the case of an overdose).
Are the proposed packaging requirements and restrictions sufficient? If not, please make specific suggestions for further requirements.
Do you agree with the proposal to restrict a packet to one dose? Please give reasons for your answer.
Do you agree with the proposal that a dose, in whatever form the product takes, is split wherever possible?
Do you think there should be restrictions on the form products can take? If so, what forms do you think should and shouldn’t be allowed?
Do you think there should be restrictions or requirements on the storage of psychoactive substances? If so, what should the restrictions or requirements be?
Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set for the storage of approved products? If so, what should they be?
Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set regarding the display of approved products? If so, what should they be?
Do you think restrictions or requirements should be set regarding the disposal of approved products? If so, what should they be?
Do you think there should be signage requirements in the regulations? If so, please give specific suggestions.
Do you think the regulations should specify further places where approved products may not be sold? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements for advertisements of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements on internet sales of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
Do you think the regulations should prescribe restrictions or requirements on the advertising of approved products? If so, please provide specific suggestions.
Do you agree with the proposed fees for the different licences? If not, please provide specific suggestions.
Do you support a fixed fee or an hourly charge for processing applications for product approvals?
Should fees be set for other specific functions? If yes, please state what they should be set for.
Do you agree with the proposed list of items and process for setting levies? If not, please provide specific suggestions.
What have you been being smoking?
Submitters should be aware that the Psychoactive Substances Regulations adopted under the PSA will apply to cannabis if cannabis is removed from the schedules to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
Removing cannabis from the MODA is the most probable path to legalising cannabis at this juncture. (But hell of a messy. The PSA approves products, not substances and certainly not plants. It would have to be rewritten to accommodate cannabis.)
All other drugs not classified as either foods or medicines would also be subject to these regulations if the MODA is simply repealed. (Why the hell not? It’s well past time that the maximum penalty for committing a consenting act between adults—which is what drug dealing is—was downgraded from life imprisonment to something a little less draconian.)
