LOOKING TO PRAISE AND WORSHIP JESUS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. 18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son, or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].

Thursday, January 31, 2008


To be pampered, flattered, and applauded by men,
is a poor, base thing, that is not worth having.

To be despised, to be spit upon, to be caricatured, and to
be jeered, is the highest honor that a Christian can have.

Th world despises Christ......

Do not imagine that it is possible, fairly
and squarely, to preach Jesus Christ and
His Gospel without raising opposition.

There is no hope of faithfully preaching
Christ without being called disrespectful
names, regarded as a fool and reckoned
among the vulgar and ignorant. Some kind
of ugly name will always be appended to
the preacher of the true Gospel.

Brethren, expect it and accept it!
Bid farewell to a quiet life, if you
resolve to be true to Jesus.

Nothing excites such animosity
as the preaching of Jesus!

The carnal mind rages
at the Cross of Christ!

That which would be to men the greatest
comfort and the greatest joy if they were
in their right minds, is their direst hate
because sin has perverted their judgments.

Of course nobody opposes
an indistinct, colorless, please
everybody gospel that is not
worth anything.

But speak clearly and distinctly the doctrine
of the great Sacrifice and you will bring upon
your head a shower of opposition.

The carnal mind rages at the Cross of Christ!


"And the world hates them because they do not
belong to the world, just as I do not." John 17:14


Blogger jazzycat said...

Great Spurgeon quote. Boy have you set up my next post as I will cite an example of this very thing in our culture today. It will be yet another example of the theme of my last two or three posts.

All of these points are revealed to us in Scripture.

January 31, 2008 10:14 PM

Blogger Maalie said...

JD, I promise you I am not going to, day by day, attempt to tackle everything you put up. But I respectfully ask that you please consider these thoughts.
JD, I really do understand what you are trying to say here. But when you say "Nothing excites such animosity as the preaching of Jesus" I believe that is largely untrue. Sadly, I would say that, mostly, it excites indifference. And indifference is, axiomatically, not exciting.

Now, I ask you in all sincerity, what is a person, maybe a child who may be on the brink of joining your ranks, to make of such statements as:

your prayers are not seasoned with soul food

For the seasoned Christian, we most often sin in ways we don’t even realize

we aren’t talking about a performance based prayer theology

I suggest this is not preaching the word of Christ, they are the confusing words of man. It sounds like the sort of "business-speak" jargon one tends to hear these days, and is vague to the point of being meaningless.

I think that if you are really going to convince people to join you, you have to give some REAL explanations here, real answers and not dodge them in flowery words, metaphor, analogy, tautology and rhetoric.

For example, do you really take care to avoid wearing clothes without more than one kind of thread? And if not why not?; how do Christians explain how Koalas (for example) made their way thousands of miles from Australia to the Middle East (transporting with them a supply of their exclusive diet of eucalyptus leaves), locate Noah and his ark, survive for 40 days with two million pairs of other animals and make it all the back to Australia? We DON'T have to discuss the origin of the earth to do that; we just have to take into account what you and I and everyone else already knows about the capacity of animals to undertake massive migrations like this.

May I respectfully point out that it is not just "Me" (Maalie) that asks themselves these questions every day. There are millions who might be attracted to Christianity if they were given some "leeway" in the interpretation of these writings. I am afraid that to simply: "It must be so because it is in the scriptures" is not going to be good enough.

I considered myself a Christian (though probably not in your definition of the word) until comparatively recently, but it is writings like this which contradict the experience of everyday life that is emptying our churches.

I give you my word of honour that I am not attempting to make you feel that you are "To be despised, to be spit upon, to be caricatured, and to be jeered". I am merely seeking a couple of answers from those who purport to know the answers.

February 01, 2008 4:47 AM

Blogger lorenzothellama said...

Maalie, you are never going to get any answers from these people. Noah, Old Testament Law and all the other such problems you encounter don't make a Christian. A Christian is someone who follows Christ and His teachings. Christ said, love God, love thy neighbour and love each other.

All this other twaddle is just theology. Rabbis will spend their whole lives discussing whether Job was a righteous man or lived in times of righteous men. It doesn't matter. It's all irrelevent.

February 01, 2008 5:44 AM

Blogger Maalie said...

Lorenzo, I don't think I can agree that it is considered to be all twaddle. J.D. wrote elsewhere:

when we try and round off the sharp corners of the gospel in order to play nice (placate our unbelieving friends), then we are indeed compromising...

That is my biggest problem. It appears to be "all or nothing" and at the moment my experience and knowledge precludes that. I just need some help with this.

February 01, 2008 6:34 AM

Blogger lorenzothellama said...

It's only all or nothing with the fundamentalists.

A lot of the Old Testament is history and can be confirmed by archeology. Some of it is stories and parables and some of it is the law of the old people of Palastine.

February 01, 2008 8:13 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...

1 Corinthians 1:18-31

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks[b] foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Glory Only in the Lord

26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”

February 01, 2008 8:16 AM

Blogger jazzycat said...

Christianity 101

February 01, 2008 8:36 AM

Blogger lorenzothellama said...

We are not talking about the cross, we are talking about the Old Testament.

February 01, 2008 9:02 AM

Blogger Daniel said...

Maalie, the instruction (in Lev 19:19) not to wear a garment made up of both linen and wool comes in a string of similar instructions - animals were not to be coupled with animals of another species, and each field was supposed to have only one crop, and not a mix of both.

These were legitimate commands, that is the Israelites really were instructed (and expected) to keep these commands, but the purpose of the command was itself instructional.

I am reminded of the movie the Karate Kid. Wax on, wax off. You remember the scene I am sure. The fellow makes his student paint the house in a special way, and polish the cars in a special way - not because he wants to turn the lad into his personal slave, but because in doing these things he is actually gaining proficiency in "blocking" attacks.

Okay, in real life, you can wax all the cars you want, it isn't going to help you one bit in a real fight - but the dramatization in the movie serves as an example of what is being done in Leviticus 19:19 - the instruction God gave for the Isrealites not to mix fabric was not merely about mixing fabric, it was representative of greater things - which is why it is found in a list of similar items - each pictures a similar scenario, the combining of things that (according to God) ought not to be combined.

There are two questions that a right thinking person should ask at this point: [1] - does God really expect us to interpret more out of this verse than is written - that is, is it right to presume that God is speaking about more than mixing fabrics? Do we have the freedom to presume thus? the other question would be [2] if we can draw more from the passage than a literal application, what would be a sound teaching to draw from this verse?

The first question is answered by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:9-10, For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Here Paul shows that it was always God's intention that the instruction given to the Levites was also written for our sake - that we might take instruction in the principle behind the instruction. The instruction in Leviticus is really an application of a deeper principle, and Paul teaches us here that it is the principle that God is concerned about.

The answer to the other question then is (what is the principle that God is teaching in Leviticus 19:19 when he instructs the Israelites not to combine two fabrics in one garment?) is answered both by the context in which the instruction is given, and the principle itself. The principle is keeping holy things holy. Now "holy" just means set apart for a particular use - so the instruction is to keep the things that are supposed to be separate from combining.

Now that is easiest to see in livestock - don't try breeding cows with goats - that would be an abomination, that is, it would be against the program God made. If we truly trust and respect God, we trust and respect the order that he gave to things, and wouldn't try and and breed goats and cows together - but there is more instruction in this than merely "don't do this because I said so" - the reality is that if you did try to cross the two it wouldn't be beneficial to anyone. You would waste your time and accomplish nothing of any value. Likewise with the field - plants typically have different sunlight, water, and soil needs. Some seeds flourish in acidic soil, some in water, and in arid places, etc. If you sow seed together in the same soil you are going to have more work than you planned. So too with fabric. I mean they didn't exactly have the quality of cloth we have today, mixing burlap made from camel hair with a goatskin tunic was usually a recipe for disaster. People didn't have a large wardrobe back then - you had (typically) one outfit that you wore until it was worn out, and then you got another. The instruction is practical.

But the principle behind the instruction is plain as well - you Israel - are not to mix yourselves with the nations around you - you are to be set apart to me. The various laws that were given to reinforce this separation are many - and for good reason. The reason that both Israel and Judah went into exile was because by mixing themselves with the other nations, they received the religious influences of other nations into themselves and in doing so corrupted themselves.

Now, for us today, we are not bound by the levitical law which was in effect under the Mosaic covenant. We are (we who are in Christ) under the new covenant in Christ's blood - a covenant that has nothing to do with combining fabrics. The purpose for that commandment (so that Israel would not mix with other nations) is no longer valid, and therefore God did not carry over the old command into the new covenant. We in the new covenant therefore are not expected to keep that particular command - but the principle behind it is still a real, and wise principle - that is, that we do ourselves harm when we dilute our religion by incorporating into it the practices, philosophies, and loves that the world values.

I must go to work, or I would explain the ark to you as well, its purpose, its instruction for us, and the math that shows clearly the ark was more than big enough to hold everything God put in it.

Grace to you.

February 01, 2008 9:04 AM

Blogger Gayla said...

Daniel, thank you. Thank you for that gracious teaching and explanation. I, for one, very much appreciate it.

February 01, 2008 9:33 AM

Blogger Maalie said...

Daniel, I am deeply appreciative of you taking the trouble to explain this to me, when others have avoided it. I agree that there are some points you have clarified; but there are others I shall have to work on.
You said:
>if we can draw more from the passage than a literal application, what would be a sound teaching to draw from this verse?

Does this mean that there are some things written in the scriptures that are not to be interpreted literally but we should seek lessons that we must draw from them? I can accept that and it would go a long way to resolving my disquiet.

>the math that shows clearly the ark was more than big enough to hold everything God put in it.

But I'm afraid that at the moment I cannot agree with the literal meaning of that. Forgive me, I am a professional biologist. Is the key to this "everything God put in it"? Because I assure you that an Ark of those dimensions would not hold some two million species. You speak in analogy to me, so my I ask you to consider the size of your nearest zoo park, work out the number of animals per unit area and calculate for yourself how much room would be required for two million.

Moreover, it does not explain the phenomenal migrations that would be required for pairs of two million (estimate) species converging from the far flung quarters of the globe. I chose Koalas simply as illustrative. The very notion of a pair of them swimming across the Indian Ocean from Australia, and then crossing India and the Himalayas to get to find Noah's Ark is simply preposterous.

February 01, 2008 10:05 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...


The Cross is exactly what this very post was about. The apostle Paul, a most learned man, came into Corinth fully knowledgable of their philosophies, fully knowledgable of what their poets had written, fully knowledgable of the prevailing thought of their region and day...


His entry into that region for for one reason only - 1 Corinthians 2:2 "2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

All else is just "twaddle". It is just a waste of time and not central to the issue of man's standing before a Holy God on judgment day.

February 01, 2008 11:12 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Now, for those people who feel convicted by God the Holy Spirit, that they are sinners before a Holy God, that aside from His mercy and grace, shown in Christ going to the cross, they have no right standing before God in and of themselves, this converation will continue.

February 01, 2008 12:16 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

"For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

February 01, 2008 12:19 PM

Blogger Daniel said...

Maalie, I am thankful that what I have mentioned gives some ease to your disquiet. You asked, Does this mean that there are some things written in the scriptures that are not to be interpreted literally but we should seek lessons that we must draw from them? I can accept that and it would go a long way to resolving my disquiet.

In answer to that, and briefly, as I am at the office, I would say that we must qualify every interpretation according to both reason and biblical precedent; that is, scripture teaches that certain things in the old testament were written not only to those who were receiving the instruction firsthand but also for us in the church age; but we want to be clear - while there are instructions that are linked to the Mosaic Covenant, which are not linked to the new, and while the principles behind those instructions carry on even unto our age - to instruct us in godliness - yet we have no liberty to dismiss out of hand any text as purely figurative simply because there is a principle behind it. We want to be careful because we have no authority to pick and choose what we will interpret literally and what we will interpret figuratively - if scripture is using literal language we ought to interpret it literally regardless of how unpopular such an interpretation is to our modern senses. But that doesn't mean we are to obey things that were for another covenant (as I hope I alluded to in my previous comment) - it simply means that we are to take instruction from all the word, and to presume it to be factual for the time it was written, and relevant to our own instruction, not in keeping the letter, but in receiving instruction from the principle behind the letter.

In your example of the koalas, you had them migrating in a post-flood world. If the bible is correct, there was no "Australia" until after the flood. We may speculate that since we have several continents now, their must have been several continents before the flood - but that would presume upon a lot of things - some of which seem to contradict the biblical account. Prior to the flood scripture tells us that the earth was watered by a mist that covered the earth, and not by rain. Likewise, we know that the prismatic effect of light passing through water produces the rainbow effect - yet the rainbow only comes into "being" as it were, after the waters recede. I am not suggesting that it had to be this way - but what if the waters that are presently in the ocean were once in the heavens? Genesis seems to paint that picture - of a water filled heavens (skies) - that is a canopy of water vapor. Having such a thick vapor barrier would explain a lot of things, but it isn't my goal to suggest that this is what happened - it is only my goal to say that prior to the receding of the waters after the flood we have no real account of what the earth looked like - and so if the text says that God called animals, then we have no reason (other than speculative prejudice) to suggest that whatever migration took place *must* have required the crossing of great bodies of water. We really have no data on what the world looked like - and if the bible is correct (and I believe it is), then we should at least leave room in our speculation, to allow that perhaps, if nothing else, there was enough connected land to allow for such a migration.

Now as to the 2 million such species - how many of them do you think are larger than your fist? I mean we all know that cows, sheep, horses, elephants, rhinos, bears, tigers, etc. are "big" - but seriously, they are in the vast minority. Furthermore, there is no reason to presume that every animal that came into the ark was in fact a full grown specimen. To be sure, we have no reason to conclude that it was even necessary to bring two of every breed within a species. Take horses for instance, there are many breeds, but they are all horses. Breeders for centuries have bred horses for certain characteristics - and when a line of horses becomes known for that emphasized characteristic we call that a "breed" - but seriously - it is just a horse, and if we put all the horses in the world together in one place and allowed them to breed homogeneously - it wouldn't take too many generations to equalize the bunch of them into one "breed" again.

My point is that for a thing to be a different species requires that it be just that - and not simply a distinct subclass of a more general species - a subclass I say, that would disappear if we were to pool of the species and let them mate indiscriminately.

Which is not to say that the only way the ark could work is if we trim down the numbers, and trim down the sizes - but it is to say that we cannot allow some large number to represent more than it does. A typical bug-zapper left for a couple of years may well eventually kill 100,000 bugs - but you could fit all their carcases in a four liter pail. I mean - the number is big, but the reality is that even 100,000 insects don't take up all that much space.

So too, when we actually stop letting the magnitude of a number impress us, and look to what that number is actually representing - we are no longer impressed by the magnitude of it.

I would also suggest we remember that we are talking about God too. Moses went 80 days without eating or drinking - not because he had a great stamina, but because the Lord sustained him. The lions did not attack Daniel in the lion's den because God sent his angel to close their mouths - and the prophet whom God told not to eat in the land where he prophesied, but how came into the house of another prophet and ate with him - a lion found him on the road and slew him - and when they came to get his body the lion was just sitting there - neither killing the donkey, nor eating the prophet, nor attacking those who came to gather his body - which is to remind us that God is God - and if he is going to put a bunch of animals in a boat to save them from the flood - we have no grounds to presume - especially given that God has clearly shown himself able to do more than what we consider to be "natural" - I say, we have no grounds to insist that even food or water were necessary for the animals, or that they would have been restless, or any such things.

If God is God, there is no good reason to deny what the bible says about Noah, or to demand it be some sort of allegory. The history stands up to scrutiny if one is willing to actually examine it. We do well to appreciate the magnitude of what was done - but let us not be mesmerized by mere numbers, but look and see if they represent what we imagine them to represent.

One need only go to a farm, where they raise chickens for food and see 4500 chickens crammed into stacked cages in a 20 x 20 x 10 foot space, and one will begin to realize that most of us haven't the talent for equating big numbers with volume.

Anyway - I don't really have the time to carry on this discussion - which is pretty lame on my part I am afraid - but I tell you that I am a fellow, like yourself, who is not inclined to believe things just because someone else believes them. If I thought for a moment that the ark wasn't big enough to hold all the animals God put in it, I would certainly give up on my faith altogether.

Yet I have learned this much about faith - instead of assuming the bible is wrong in everything it says, I assume it is right in everything it says, and in those places where my understanding of the world around me seems to contradict what scripture says - instead of presuming that scripture is wrong, I presume my understanding of the world around me is wrong - and I have always found that this has been the case.

I have found that God's word is sure, and that I have no need to dissect it into two piles: the "this is what they believed and wrote because they were ignorant cavemen" pile and the "this jives with what science has proven" pile. I find that science has actually proven very little, but assumes a whole lot.

To be sure, that was the criticism leveled against Christianity - that it presumed itself to be correct, and in that presumption was ignoring what was true. Yet if that was ever the case, it has certainly become the reverse - science presumes that there is no God, and that if there is He is certainly inconsequential or negligible - and whatever He may be, it is certain that He is definitely not the God of the bible. In presuming that there is no God, science becomes guilty of the very ignorance and faith it imagines itself to be above.

There are several places on the web where serious scrutiny and scientific examination of the biblical account is given, I encourage you to seek them out to satisfy your curiosity if nothing else.

February 01, 2008 12:42 PM

Blogger donsands said...

Christ Jesus, the Man who loved like no other man, and was always doing good, and was honest, and was full of mercy and truth, and was pure kindness, was hated and killed.

The people cried out crucify Him! They beat Him, and mocked Him, and He was sinless and perfect in His lowliness and meekness.

How much more will this world hate us when we walk in His love by faith. For our testimonies and love is not perfect, and we surely may show ourselves to be harsh and unforgiving at times; and even hypocrites.
But by His grace we can always ask for forgiveness, and apologize for our demeanor; though we need never apologize for the Cross, and for the truth of Christ crucified and risen, and for the Truth of the Holy Writ.

I love to hear Spurgeon. he is the prince of preachers.

Thanks for the good post, and the comments were quite nice to read as well.

February 01, 2008 12:57 PM

Blogger Maalie said...

Daniel, once again I thank you for the enormous trouble you have taken to explain these things to me, not just by throwing back more verses of the bible back at me, but by using your own explanations in your own words - I really do appreciate that. You can be sure that I will study your words. You will appreciate that as a biologist (biochemistry and ecology being my specialities) that there are some points you make about speciation and the timing of events that I will have to reflect on. For example, I know that man has been walking the earth for some three million years, and we have a very good understanding about the geology of the earth going back some millions of years.

Nevertheless, you can be sure I will consider it in the light of what you have told me. In the meantime I am going on a birding holiday to Spain shortly, so I will leave you alone for a while, and wish peace to all readers here. Thank you. Jim.

February 01, 2008 1:07 PM

Blogger Daniel said...

Jim (Maalie) - a parting thought with regards to things that happened millions of years ago.

Historical records really only go back about 10,000 years at most - which means that in order to say that a thing is older than 10,000 years, or that such and such happened a million, or a billion years ago we are in fact speculating about it without any evidence.

Take carbon dating for example; We find a piece of pottery that we know came from such and such a dynasty which other verifiable historical relics tells us took place about 5000 years ago. We examine the amount of carbon in the pottery, and now we have a benchmark with which to compare other pieces of similar pottery from the same region. If we find some other piece of pottery in the same area and of the same materials, but known to be only 1000 years old, we now have two points of reference and can give a reasonable estimate about how old some other similar piece of pottery in that area is - the more dated pottery from that area that we find, the more assured we can be that our estimations are correct.

But we see that the half life of carbon, while uniform in a laboratory, is hardly so in real life - likewise, it varies radically between even one substance and another - such that the behavior of carbon in some scrap of paper we find from 1000 years ago may be radically different than the behavior of carbon in a bone, or some other such thing.

I mention this because unless we have a verifiable, incontrovertible benchmark, the best we can say is that if our base presumptions are in fact accurate, then the earth is so old and if our presumptions are accurate then such and such may have taken place at such and such a time - but I am of the opinion that presuming that all things that took place before history follow some homogeneous course back in time is, frankly, a little too convenient. There are very few linear graphs in science after all, are there?

My point is that science becomes science when after making an hypothesis we can demonstrate through reproducible experiment that our hypothesis is true. In the grand day of science we used to respect what the word "theory" meant - it meant that given the ridiculously limited scope of our understanding and utterly myopic vision we have all all that could possibly be tested against a thing - we have found that, at least within the small prescribed environment we are observing - that our experiments are bearing out our speculations.

Science becomes religion the moment we presume as law, what is in fact theory. Science becomes religion the moment we deny other postulates, not because they can be proven false, but because we simply believe our own postulates more.

I was a very strong proponent of evolution before the Spirit of God entered into me and changed everything there was to change in me. Not that I was some hoodwinked fool, at least I don't imagine it was so - but rather that I refused to believe it, because if God was real, and all the bible was true - why was it that God was invisible TO ME?!?? A God who would hide himself from me, and make himself so unbelievable to me - and then judge me for sinning in a world where he allowed sin to be so pleasurable, and made religion so abominable to my tastes - how could such a God exist?

My own greatest hurdle actually had very little to do with science, but had much to do with my own prejudiced and uninformed opinion of the character of God, and of my twisted understanding of his relationship to his creation. My pride was in the way. I told myself that I was too intelligent to buy into the whole Christian thing - but I knew myself to be a damnable sinner, and even though God made no sense to me and my powers of reasoning - yet he was gracious to me, and opened my eyes when I surrendered to him.

After that I suddenly was ten times more scientific than I had ever been - but instead of dismissing God, I found that I could only see God all the more, and that what was passing itself off as knowledge in the world was the most arrogant presumptuous folly I could ever envision - I marvel that I spent decades in ignorance.

Which I suppose sounds very pompous; you know, like: "I used to be like you, but then I saw the light, and now I am so much better and smarter and wiser than I used to be" which by extension suggests that I think myself better, wiser, and smarter than someone else. Let me say this - while I know myself to be a bright person, yet I don't think for a moment that what I understand to be true has come to me by my own merit. If I see or am blind that final day will make known - but I don't mention these things to magnify my own self, or to minimize another. It may well be that I am a fool, on a fool's errand, and full of idiocy, delusion, and lies - but whatever I am, I am utterly content in it, be it ignorance or wisdom. All that I understand knits together into a seamless whole, and I find myself no longer tossed about by the fears and dreads that used to characterize my understanding - the more I know the bible, the more it makes sense, the more these things explain themselves.

I am ready to surrender anything I believe if it can be shown to be false, and I am unwilling to embrace a thing simply because many others do. Were I the last man on earth who believed that science that is built on speculation is only as good as the speculation, then I should not be ashamed for that - I call that "good" science. My hope is that you will examine how much of what you believe is actually founded upon speculation, it may be that you will surprise yourself.

Grace and Peace Jim.

February 01, 2008 2:22 PM

Blogger Susan said...

I am no scientist, but I would like to add a thought to the mix about science and the dating of earth's actual age.

In addition to the point Daniel made about the not-always-exact certainty of carbon dating, my father (a retired mechanical engineer) made a point once to me that if the speed of light is a constant, then things such as carbon dating and other scientific methods are more certain.

However, if the speed of light is a variable, then these equations are not so certain.

I have read in recent (ie, past five to 10 years) articles in various scientific magazines that there are scientists who believe the speed of light is a variable. The articles detailed why, but not being a scientist, I am at a lack to provide such detail - however, I'm sure the information is out there for anyone interested.

So I don't think it's possible to state with absolute certainty that we "know" the age of fossils or the earth is millions of years old.

I'm of the mindset myself that the Jewish calendar year (about 5768) is probably closer to the truth. They base their dating, of course, on Scripture, which I believe to be absolutely true.

February 01, 2008 11:08 PM

Blogger lorenzothellama said...

Oh then if carbon dating is unreliable, it is quite likely that the Turin Shroud is genuine.

February 02, 2008 5:04 AM

Blogger Susan said...


I never stated that carbon dating is unreliable. I merely pointed out that it is questionable; There is no guarantee that carbon dating is accurate, and this is based on several factors - two of which being the shelf life of carbon (as Daniel noted) and the speed of light possibly being variable (which several scientists believe), not constant.

February 02, 2008 10:48 AM

Blogger Susan said...

Incidentally, the shroud of Turin is what it is - regardless of whatever age it may be. It exists. It may or may not be Jesus' burial shroud. It won't change the faith of God's people no matter what it is (or isn't).

February 02, 2008 10:51 AM

Blogger jazzycat said...

God is not bound by time restraints or the scientific laws he created. It seems to me that he could get an awful lot done in a day and it would appear like millions of years to human beings observing things after the fact.

I think we get too hung up on these time issues. Godless evolutionists love to make all kinds of assumptions while all the while avoiding the elephant in the room: Why is there something instead of nothing?

February 02, 2008 11:16 AM

Blogger jazzycat said...

As Daniel pointed out, evolutionists have inserted faith into their science.

February 02, 2008 11:20 AM

Blogger Susan said...

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Not only that, but why is that something not in a state of chaos? Order doesn't appear from nothing.
In other words, if you passed a brick house, would you assume that a brick factory must have exploded?

February 02, 2008 4:25 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

My dogs love to go for walks.

Let's say that it is very late at night - in fact, the wee hours of the morning. Something spooks my dog(s), and the only way to calm them is to take them for a walk. The walk starts out peaceful and pleasant. All the neighbors are in bed, all lights are out. Dark, quiet and calm is the neighborhood. As the walk continues I pass old widower Larry's house. I notice something... a fire is burning in his living room, which is in the front of his house. I know that he is in bed in his bedroom, which is located in the back of his house. I also know that he takes his hearing aids out when he goes to bed. Here the fire alarms are screaming in his house, for I can hear them from the street; but I know old Larry can't hear them without his hearing aid. He is fast asleep. Unless I take the time to wake him he will burn in the fire...

Daniel's excellent response to Jim's disquiet was so very good; so spot on. Now when Jim returns from Spain he will answer Daniel's response. They will then go back and forth. The dabate will prolly end in an impasse, there being no common staring point as Daniel's faith is in the Bible, while Jim's is in science. Jim will walk away from the debate perceiving that he presented a water tight case. Many his friends, observing the discusion, will say, "Jim, way to go! You showed that creationist a thing or two!" Jim goes to bed that night with a sweet taste of victory in his mouth. The only thing is, though he gained the whole world's admiration for standing up to that creationist, this very night his soul is required of him.

Jim, God commands you to repent, put your faith in Jesus Christ as your only hope of salvation. For, you see, you are now like that Larry in the story above. There is a fire burning. I'm trying to warn you...

February 02, 2008 9:54 PM

Blogger Daniel said...

My impression is that Jim was (and is) sincere. Perhaps I missed some previous conversation? Either way, His concerns are not frivolous or ill tempered, they seem just the sort of thing a person would want answers to.

February 05, 2008 7:35 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

Yes, it is true that you were not aware of previous conversations. I've had to delete some comments for foul language. I DO have reasons for writing the things that I do.

February 06, 2008 7:07 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...

However, your comments are good for those who actually ARE sincere in their search.

February 06, 2008 7:41 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...

From Cristina's post...

"Nothing excites such animosity
as the preaching of Jesus!

The carnal mind rages
at the Cross of Christ!"

You'll note the subject matter here - Christ and Him crucified.

That is CENTRAL. When preaching that message some listeners (readers) will try to derail the message by asking questions that are irrelevant. That is not to be allowed. The preaching of Christ and Him crucified is all that matters. When a listener to that message is under conviction of the Holy Spirit that message will be all that matters to him/her too. All else is a waste of time, PERIOD.

February 06, 2008 1:09 PM

Blogger jazzycat said...

Note! Maalie has been banned from this blog three times and has not honored this request. I banned him once myself for mocking Scripture and insulting the living God that we here at Bluecollar hold in reverance. Beginning around the Jan 16 post Maalie and others from the U.K. began to leave comments. My Jan 19 post chronicles some of the verbal insults that we received. There is no doubt in my view that his intentions have not been sincere and he crossed the line in being disrespectful from the beginning.

Daniel has given an excellent answer to his objections and I can't help but notice that he has not answered Daniel's latest comment. Why? If he is truly sincere, he will engage Daniels points rather than run away.

February 07, 2008 4:56 PM


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home