Interpreting Scripture

420626768_7f2f87765bIt is generally agreed by laymen and Biblical scholars alike that the best way to interpret the meaning of Scripture is to compare it to itself (that is, cross-referencing with itself), and that a good rule is that the Bible should be taken as literal unless is obviously means otherwise, as is obviously the case with Psalms or Revelations.

Yet when the topic of Creation and the Flood is discussed, the rules suddenly change and we are told that Scripture should also be interpreted by “science” whenever the two disagree. 

Essentially what is implied-consciously or not- is that the Christian worldview is to be subordinate to all other worldviews, particularly the currently reigning secular worldview. Whenever there is a disagreement between these two, the Bible is always the one that is reinterpreted. It is claimed that the “science” of the secular worldview is the acme of human knowledge and as such all other forms of knowledge must be subservient.

But what is meant by the term ‘science’? It seems that the two terms ‘science’ and ‘naturalistic evolution’ are used synonymously. It is certainly true that most of the public have the fallacious impression that ‘science’ inherently means naturalistic evolution to the exclusion of all other worldviews such as YEC, OLC, theistic evolution etc. And vice versa it is believed that naturalistic evolution has exclusive rights over the term ‘science’, to the exclusion of all other worldviews (Hence why so many religious people feel compelled to reject all ‘science’ outright; they wrongly think that in order to reject evolution they must also reject ‘science’).

Science certainly is a powerful explanatory tool for acquiring knowledge. Therefore because naturalistic evolution claims exclusive rights over ‘science’ it is wrongly assumed that ‘naturalistic evolution’ must similarly be regarded as just as powerful and authoritative by synonymous association alone. Thus, it is claimed that the philosophical worldview of naturalism must be the rule to which all other worldviews conform.

It is for this reason alone that the Biblical account of origins is demanded by secularists to be subservient and must genuflect to their own worldview of naturalistic evolution. 

What secularists are erroneously claiming is that any Biblical idea that conflicts with science is wrong.

But what they really mean is that any Biblical idea that conflicts with their philosophy of naturalism is wrong! It has NOTHING to do with science at all!

But what must be remembered is that science is rather like statistics; you can pick or ignore whatever pieces of science that you like to suit whatever worldview you like; YEC, OEC, IDism, theistic evolution, deistic evolution, atheistic evolution etc, the fact is that ALL worldviews have some sort of science behind them.

So in the end we see that scientific evidence actually does comport with Scripture-rather; it is only the philosophical worldview of naturalistic evolution that does not fit with Scripture. And considering that it was originally designed to oppose the Biblical model, the fact that the two conflict should come as no surprise to anyone.

The conflict is not between ‘science’ vs the Bible at all. Instead the real conflict is between the worldviews naturalism vs the Bible, as well as between naturalistic science vs Biblical science.

So what Christians are actually doing when trying to compromise the Bible with evolution is making the Bible subservient to the most popular worldview of today in a vain attempt to avoid embarrassment in the face of ungodly man, rather than being concerned with truth in the face of God. 

Should the perspicacious Word of God really be subservient to the capricious vogue of man?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Letter Sent to My Local Member for Parliament

Hello,

I am quite concerned in hearing about the Federal Parliament’s intentions in allowing homosexual couples to marry, giving the same status to homosexual unions as heterosexual unions. This incidentally, and most importantly, legitimises the rescinding of the right that children have always had to the psychological necessity of both a mother and a father.

What I see as the problem here, is that for proper psychological development in children, they need to have both feminine and masculine roll models in the same house. Preadolescent humans have been designed to develop under certain strict biological conditions, and having the feminine and masculine influences of both the mother and a father one is one of the most important.
I do not for a minute, think that anyone would seriously assert that a parental couple of the same sex would be in any way equal to a heterosexual couple in providing distinct feminine and masculine attributes to a child’s development. Be it male or female children, both sexes need close feminine and masculine influences. Even a male or female roll model ‘popping around’, or taking the child of a homosexual couple out fishing or shopping could never replace the 24hour attentive support and influence that a heterosexual couple will inherently provide.

I fear that two parents of the same sex could easily lead to some form of psychological imbalances in the delicate mind of a developing child. We are talking about the psychological wellbeing of the most vulnerable people in our society. At the very least the Government needs to conduct thorough research to make sure that legitimising homosexual marriage doesn’t also legitimise a detrimental environment for so many children. It would be quite irresponsible to make such an extraordinary decision with such far-reaching consequences based on whim.

While the rights of a homosexual couple to some form of legalized cohabitation must certainly be taken into account, the wellbeing of a child’s development must be paramount, above and beyond the desires of the parents.
This is true not just in the case of homosexual couples, but also other forms of cohabitation such as polygamy and bigamy. These other forms of cohabitation are not sanctioned by the state for a very good reason; they are detrimental to the most vulnerable people in the ‘family’; the children. 

If the Government can, in anyway, prevent any child growing up in such a poor psychological environment, then it most certainly should, especially when it can do so in such a basic way as prohibiting homosexuals, polygamists and bigamists from marriage.

While I do disagree with homosexuality as such, I am by no means homophobic. I have close family members who are gay and we get on extremely well, so one could not dismiss my opinions as mere homophobic bigotry.
As I see it, this proposed legislation or law will result in children growing up in conditions that are unnecessarily detrimental to the child’s psychological development. This I believe is unacceptable.

Regards,
Timothy

P.S. Below is a link to an article that I found quite informative. I highly recommend that you take a look:

http://www.jubileecentre.org/resources/the_causes_of_homosexuality_what_science_tells_us

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Man and Dinosaurs Together?

One contentious facet of Young Earth Creationism is the belief that humans walked the earth with dinosaurs only 4000 years ago.

Can you spot the Dinosaur in this ancient carving?

This belief is rubbished by evolutionists because it is in complete contradiction with their own beliefs. They believe that dinosaurs ceased to exist over 65 million years ago. 

They come to this conclusion because their interpretation of the earth’s rocks shows no fossilised dinosaurs which is dated by radiometric dating methods to be younger than 65 million years.

The dating methods that produce these dates are not the topic of this particular article, and have been adequately refuted many times by others.

The reason why this logic is fundamentally flawed is that it relies on the absence of evidence, rather than the presence of evidence. This is a logical fallacy called an Argument from Ignorance.

Even if we accept their false dates for the sake of the argument (which I will for this article), the absence of fossils from a certain period of hypothetical time does not mean that that particular animal did not live at that particular time.

Three basic ways that a species of animal could be alive and not leave fossils is if 1) it moved to an environment where the fossilization process just didn’t occur. 2) a species population size temporarily and dramatically decreased to a size where fossilization would never occur. Or 3) we just haven’t found any fossils yet! Remember that palaeontologists have only dug a few miniscule little holes when compared to the vast volumes of fossil laden soils of the earth’s surface.

But what is even more significant is that even according to the evolutionist’s own models, it is incontrovertibly accepted that species routinely lived for vast amounts of time without ever leaving even a hint of fossil evidence!

Some gaps are so large that when put in context of the whole fossil record, the gaps turn into vast chasms, some as large as three quarters of the whole fossil record!

The fact is that, even assuming the corrupt radiometric dates of the theory of evolution for arguments sake, if the fossil record fails to record the existence of a species for such vast amounts of time, then how can we trust the alleged finely graduated sequence of evolution that is claimed of the fossil record?

Similarly, how can we really trust that dinosaurs haven’t been on earth in the last 65 million years (assuming the evolutionist’s theory) based on an absence of fossils, when other species are claimed by evolutionists to live for hundreds of millions of years without leaving any fossil evidence at all???

So when all this is combined with the corrupt dates ascribed to the fossils, we have even more reason to disregard the alleged evolutionary history as nothing more than dubious speculation.

And no amount of dubious speculation, no matter how frequently and dogmatically parroted, will ever match the veracity of the clear and omniscient word of God.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Atheism-The Social Parasite

Atheism and society in general can be accurately portrayed metaphorically as the symbiotic relationship between a parasite and its host.

Atheism thinks of itself as being a fully functioning, self sustainable, belief system that should be the sole worldview in society, a society that has rid itself of religion. As a metaphor, this is akin to a parasite believing that it could survive, and be better off, without its host.

But we all know that a parasite can’t live without it’s host, because by definition, for a parasite to propagate and survive on its own, it needs various things from its host that it is utterly incapable of providing by itself. A parasite who espoused such beliefs would be said to be in a state of megalomaniacal delusion.

The same can be said to be the case for atheism. For any belief system or worldview to propagate and survive on its own, it must possess certain qualities that fulfil the human psychology and thus nurtures a functioning society. It must offer secure moral and ethical foundations to prevent nihilism from wrecking society. Foundational aspects such as sound reasoning for adhering to rules and laws; treating others with respect; liberty to allow basic human freedoms; etc. Without these basic aspects of a functioning society, society and civilization would quickly breakdown.

But In fact, atheism provides none of these things! Atheism only provides a subjective existence. You do what you want, when you want, why you want, how you want. If there is no god to set and enforce the rules, then the rules are made by the strongest.

This is thoroughly demonstrated when you look to societies from history that have replaced religion as the their social compass with atheism and science. Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mao ZeDong’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia all eliminated their native religions as their moral and ethical compasses and instead followed their self fulfilling subjective doctrine of atheist driven Communism. We all know what horrors ensued thence.

The fact is that they disavowed the existence of a higher power, thus they saw fit to do whatever their power over the population allowed.

The nature of atheism is such that it does not provide any form of moral or ethical basis. It is at heart ‘amoral’. This means that by itself, atheism could never survive. The only reason that atheism is as prevalent as it is in society today, is because it is benefiting from ‘sucking the moral blood’ of the religious society; It is incapable of providing the sustenance of morality that Christianity, and religion in general, DOES inherently have at its core.

Atheists claim to be self fulfilled only because it crudely copies Christian morality, whereas atheism alone actually provides NO grounds for any morality or ethics; atheism is only seen to be ‘intellectually fulfilling’ because it hijacks, and hides behind, the good name of real science and Christian ethics. It is only when you look closely that you see that science offers no support to the atheist faith what so ever.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Men, Women and Equality in the Household

 

There is a common misconception in the wider community that there is an inherent inequality between males and females in the traditional roles of women being at home raising the children and doing the housework, and the males as the breadwinners.

While I certainly take exception to certain minor parts of this model, on a whole it is the most viable and accurate mode of conjugal living.

I certainly abhor the extreme end of this model of the still-common practice in lower socio-economic households of the female doing all the cooking, cleaning, maintenance of the children and general running of the house for all the hours that she isn’t sleeping, while the man simply parks his obese arse on the couch drinking himself into a stupor after a mere 8 hour shift at work.

While there is no doubt that these conjugal roles are egregiously wrong, I personally believe that the traditional role of the ‘stay at home mum’ is basically right, and despite common thought, it is by no means an inferior lifestyle.

The current trend in Western society is for women to strive for a career as the most important goal in life, ahead, and sometimes instead of, child bearing. This ostensibly labelled ’emancipatory’ vision of woman in modern society often manifests in significant peer pressure on women who genuinely want to devote their energy and time to their children rather than a superficial career.

The role of the stay at home mum is often vociferously frowned upon as a vastly inferior and antiquated mode of existence.

But is this really so? While it is certainly beneficial for women to participate in the work-place to various degrees, I challenge anybody to explain how the 24hr attentive role of carefully raising and instructing your delicate and intellectually burgeoning children in the moral code and beliefs that you value is in any way less important than the perfunctory and mundane duties of a run-of-the-mill job.

In fact, I would go as far as saying that the traditional role of the woman running the household is actually more important than the mere 8hr shift at work of so many males. While this may even sound a touch patronising to women, you really have to look past the petty and superficial cultural aspersions that are cast upon the traditional roles of men and woman in the household. Surely getting the conjugal mix right is far more important than just thoughtlessly adhering to popular social conjugal trends.

I contend that the roles of both the breadwinning and head-of-the-household male, and the pedagogy and house running of the female are certainly different- in fact they are just as different and polarized as males and females themselves- but these differences are complementary, but most important are EQUAL!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Noah’s Ark

Noah’s Ark, the Bible records this giant boat as being over 135 meters long, 22 wide and 13 meters high! People baulk at the idea of Noah’s Ark being real. They automatically think that such a prodigious structure couldn’t possibly have been built in such an ancient culture.

It is certainly easy to question the veracity of the Ark narrative when we have no physical evidence left of such a structure, but we can’t legitimately discard the narrative on these grounds alone. After all, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What we need to do is to look back at ancient history and look for other prodigious structures to see what ancient people really were capable of.

For example, surely the Great Pyramid of Giza could be considered a structure of similar magnitude to the Ark. The biggest of the Giza pyramids originally measured over 145 meters tall and each side 230 meters long. Such a structure required over 2.3 million blocks of stone. Still to this day- when we have the technology to send people to the moon and genetically engineer organisms- nobody knows how these giant pyramids were constructed.

Ask yourself, would anyone seriously believe historical accounts of immensely giant pyramidal structures the size of the Great Pyramid if the structure didn’t still exist? Certainly not. Scholars would certainly claim that the stories were either entirely myth or highly exaggerated accounts of much smaller structures.

I’m sure most people would agree that the Great Pyramid of Giza is considerably more sophisticated and a substantially more of a monumental achievement than Noah’s wooden Ark.

When we look at some of the amazing structures that the ancient people of history were able to achieve- giant structures which still stand many thousands of years later- then suddenly the task that Noah had in building the Ark seems quite reasonable in comparison.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Should Christians Follow the Old Testament Law?

Mathew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

A superficial reading of this passage seems to say that Jesus is affirming the validity of the Old Testament Law which would make them still binding for Christ’s followers.

But what did Jesus truly mean by this statement? One point is certainly true, Christ did not come to totally eliminate all the Old Testament laws and start from a blank canvass, we can certainly rule this out.

In this quote Jesus was really stressing the point that His mission wasn’t to invalidate all of God’s prior teachings and render them obsolete and defunct. He was making the point that the Law and prophecies of old were setting the stage for Christ’s arrival to fulfil them! God’s interactions with the Israelites of the Old Testament were only ‘Part 1’ of God’s ultimate plan. Jesus was explaining that He was here to instigate ‘Part 2’; the salvation.

So having pointed out that Jesus wasn’t going to scrap the Old Law, what then was his plan for the Old Law? Well, we know that Jesus did abolish many aspects of the old Law. For instance Mathew 5:38-39 states:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

Here Jesus is quoting Exodus 21:23-24 which says ”But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,”

So we can see that Jesus is definitely abolishing at least parts of the Old Law. So this begs the question as to what He really meant when He said that he did not come to abolish the Old Law.

The second part of Mathew 5:17 explains what He did come to do; fulfil the Law and the Prophets.

The whole of the Old Testament is full of prophecies of the Messiah’s coming and what He was to achieve. This would make sense if we look at the Old Testament as being a prelude, or setting the stage, for Christ’s arrival.

Jesus further fulfilled the Old Testament by taking the Ten Commandments and further refining them:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.” Mathew 5:21-22

Also:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Mathew 5:27-28

So knowing what we now know, we see that when Jesus said “I have not come to abolish“, He meant that He had no intention of totally wiping away the Old Law and starting fresh, but instead He used it as the foundation of the God’s new Covenant, and built upon it. The Old Law served as a vital basis for Jesus’ new message. He verified parts, trimmed parts and embellished other parts.

So to answer the original question; “Should Christians Follow the Old Testament Law?”

No. We are not to follow the Old Law, but we are to follow Christ’s fulfilment of it. We are to follow Jesus’ new teachings over the superseded Old Law:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment