Nelg

I hope I didn't cause the closure of the thread. My intent is the defense of the faith from those attacking FAITH in Christ. Apologetics is an important part of faith. It is giving reasons for the hope we have in Christ. If one cannot defend their faith it is doubtful if they have faith. If the force of evidence is against Christian beliefs, they should be rejected. The tendency to redefine faith as the acceptance of things for which there is no proof is both contradictory to and destructive of the Christian faith. There is no such thing as unsupportable faith. It is irrational and unchristian. If it is legitimate to believe the tenets of faith in spite of the evidence, it is equally justified to believe anything one wishes "by faith." The faith sustained throughout the Bible is against shallow, emotional commitments and on the side of only such commitments as are considered and rational. There are thousands of people who believe without any reason to believe. I see this a lot on these threads. It is a trend in Christianity which needs some attention. Bohica, presenting evidence for the reason one believes is necessary to produce the grounds for a trusting relationship in Christ. It is not harsh or prideful to present those reasons. It was Christ and the apostles who were continually debating and arguing their position from Scripture. Certainly it must be done with kindness and gentleness, but it is presented throughout the New Testament. Perception of an individuals motives are is censorious judgment, but presenting an apologetic to rectify a false belief is reasonable and essential. Unlike the mythical religions, Christianity is grounded in historical events with real content and dynamic import for human lives. As a preacher and teacher of the gospel of Christ, I am under obligation to defend the faith. I can do no other. I'm sorry this is closing. But as a long time minister of the gospel, I never get upset or angry about someone's position. I've heard it all. It is just "changes clothing" as time goes by. It is still the same error, and when recognized can be defeated with the same arguments used by Christ and the apostles. Good evening, and God bless.

That's why I am a child of God only and not part of a denomination or religion. If I didn't believe in Christ as the true God, I would be believe in nothing. But the evidence for God and Christ are too strong for reason to reject them. But for some, the evidence, no matter how much are how strong, will never be enough. They choose not to believe, so evidence means nothing to them. Agree with you that many who say they are believers and are not. They say they are "Christians" or "Jew" or "Muslim" but their lives are in the toilet. Yep, it really stinks. Don't have much time for these people either.

Iraq is getting pressure from all sides to get their financial act together. Their delays, I feel, are related to who is going to profit and how much do the politicians get from all the revenue. Corruption is the major problem for the delay to the RV. The politicians MUST make a decision and some of them are going to be unhappy. We will see how all this plays out by the end of September; if they have that long.

If they were abusing the system and doing something fraudulent, they need to be GONE.

Thaiexpat, which religion is the best? Just thought I would ask.

Thanks for the Post.

In the movie, “Rader’s of the Lost Ark,” Harrison Ford threw a “date” up into the air, hoping to catch it with his mouth and eat it. One of the co-starts, John Rhys-Davis grabbed the date before it could be consumed. He looks at a monkey who lay dead on the table after eating one of the dates. He says, “Bad dates.” “Someone inserted poison into the dates had made what was normally good a deadly evil. The New World Translation is like one of the dates mentioned above, it is deadly and will cause “spiritual death” if consumed by the reader. The translators started out using a good copy of the Greek New Testament, but by the time their “committee” from the Witnesses finished with the text and making all the changes to match their theology, the text itself became useless. When their translation came out, it was regarded by Greek scholars and textual critics as a “frightful mistranslation,” “pernicious,” and “reprehensible.” (Dr. Bruce M. Metzger). One of their critics was Dr. Julius Mantey, the co-author of A Manual Grammer of the Greek New Testament. It was written during the time he was Professor of New Testament Interpretation , Northern Baptist Theological Seminary , Chicago. It is an excellent book, which I used in my study of Greek many years ago. He calls the NWT “a shocking mistranslation.” “Obsolete and incorrect.” In his book Depth Exploration in the New Testament (1980), he states, “I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures . . . it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation.” He was also upset because he was misquoted by the JW’s in that translation (pg. 1158-1159). Dr. Mantey stated, “Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower Society) had misquoted me in support of their translation.” Concerning their translation of John 1:1 “The Word was a god,” he stated, “It is neither scholarly nor reasonable.” He is certainly correct in saying it is not scholarly. There were only five men on the translation committee, all of whom were from the Watchtower Society. Four of the five had no Hebrew or Greek training at all and had only a high school education. Fred Franz studied only two years of Greek at the University of Cincinnati. Now I don’t know about you, but when someone is going to do a translation of the Bible, I would want those individuals to have the highest educational credentials possible! I would want the best MSS on the table and access to the 5,000 other ms, texts, and quotations of the texts as one can possible get. Nor do I want 4 high-school-only educated men and 1 practically educated man doing the translation! Let’s get 100 scholars proficient in all the languages of the texts and mss. Let’s get linguists of all sorts. And let’s make sure that they are from as many religious backgrounds as possible so that the translation and texts will not be corrupted. That’s what you have in most of the accepted translations . . . of which the New World Translation is not one of them! Be warned and aware: “Bad dates!”

. . .and corruption is still flourishing.

"And you can purchase this product for $_____. The second bottle is free!" What started out as interesting material turned out sounding like an Info commercial.

Daash is smart! They know that money is needed to wage war (duhh) but they are getting the Iraqi government and banks to pay for it! Any country knows that you need to cut off the flow of funds from your enemy . . . if you want to win. It's one of the first things you do. And you cut off all supplies to the troops. So how come the USA is sending warplanes to Saudi Arabia? Why are we funding our enemies? Sounds like we are doing the same thing.

Apparently the guy failed to past the qualification test. Hello!!

LOOOOOOOnggggg Article! Corruption is the major crime in all of government around the world. There is no moral or ethical guideline or consciousness for most of those in positions of power; especially when their dealing is with the financial portion of government (which is nearly all of government). Removing the corruption is like removing honey out of peanut butter once it is mixed together. It's a nearly impossible task. Corruption by politicians is the termite infestation in the foundation of the government.

As long as they get the RV done I don't care who is in office. Once the RV takes place and money is in my account they can have Obama as president and leader, or "Shack Rattill el Rholl." Just get the RV done!!!

Agreed. However, some who read the posts may be confused and need answers. Most of what is put out by Fly is not his study, but is the standard arguments by the Watchtower Society. They must hold to their position to have a reason for rejecting Jesus as Lord and Christ. By don't so, they declare that they are not "Christian," they have not received the indwelling Spirit, and are lost. My words may not be received by Fly, but they may help someone who is seeking truth and understanding about God: the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. You are correct about trying to convince someone who has the Holy Spirit and who has studied the word of God, to believe in their false teaching is futile. My conviction of who Jesus, God in the flesh, is not based on another's words, but is a conviction born from years of study. Thus my faith is "the substance [assurance] of things hoped for the conviction [evidence] of things not seen."

Why is this surprising to anyone? You remove and deny the Creator, God, deny the inspiration and authority of the Bible, reject the moral high ground found in the Scripture, you remove the foundation for sane moral accountability. Then we establish our own moral code base on what each person thinks, punish those who go against or fail to acknowledge our own immoral actions, and then think that we are getting it right?!??!?! WOW! Now we are surprised this is happening?

God's promises to the Jewish people can only be received if they believe and trust in Jesus Christ. National Israel are only "God's people" when they come to faith in Jesus Christ. To believe that Israel still remains God's special people is a misunderstanding of Scripture. God loves the Jewish people, the people of Palestine, as well as all the tribes involved in the region. But the "children of God" and the "holy nation" is the "body of Christ," the "church." I know this is not a popular believe, but it is none-the-less true. An inordinate and blind support for Israel as "God's Chosen" nation is a completely ill-founded.

After rereading what I said, it sound rather impersonal. I just started teaching a series on "apologetics" in our Bible class on Sunday mornings. What you said in the earlier post just happened to be part of next Sunday's class, so some of my notes fit perfectly into the topic. I'm in a medium range congregation with 7 adult Bible classes. I am teaching the older adult (averaging 100 in attendance) and none of them have ever been through a class on apologetics!! I couldn't believe my ears. Of course I am not calling the class "apologetics" but "Why Believe?" I think believers are about to face a wave of "new atheism" bent on destroying religious belief (Muslim, Jewish, Christian), especially the Christian faith. The third largest "religion" in the world is now the "Nones." The Nones are those who are atheists, agnostics, and the non-religious people of the world. They have as their agenda to rid the world of all the believers by aggressive teaching their persuasion to world. My efforts will be to help the Christian withstand the tidal wave that is rising against faith, and fortify believers with answers for the unbelievers questions. Pray for my efforts.

We are created in --the image of God. This includes, among other attributes, the ability to reason. Thus, this entails the value of evidence and reason considered that motivates, inspires, and changes the heart. As Charles Hodge informs us, 
"If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its doctrines are contrary to reason. The assumption that reason and faith are incompatible; that we must become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be intended, the language of infidelity; for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational.... We can believe only what we know, i.e., what we intelligently apprehend." It seems quite popular today to hold that religious beliefs have nothing in common with reasoned inquiry and stand immune to proof or disproof. A few years ago a major newspaper stated, “Systems of belief and tenets of faith are powerful in men’s minds, but, by their very nature, do not lend themselves to proof.” Another statement along the same lines: “Faith is belief without reason. Religions oppose rational processes.” I reject both these interpretations of the nature of the Christian faith. I could never encourage anyone to accept the Christian religion against the weight of the evidence. It is my conviction that a person has nothing to gain by adhering to a falsehood, regardless of how comfortable or sacred. Any thought that an individual must suspend or renounce the use of reason in Christian faith is a contradiction. To advocate that faith in God and His word is irrational is itself irrational. The tendency to redefine faith as the acceptance of things for which there is no proof is both contradictory to and destructive of the Christian faith. There are some writers who speak in glowing terms and advocate a “leap of faith,” by which the individual accepts what his reason thinks is unsupported or unsupportable, is irrational and unchristian. Faith sustained throughout the Bible is against shallow, emotional commitments and promotes commitments that are considered and rational. "Faith is being sure of what we hoped for and the certainty (evidence) of what we do not see." (Heb 11:1)

Actually to most atheist and agnostics God is a myth and not worthy to be considered in the discussion. Belief in God has been under attack since the beginning of time. It's not new. What is new is a militant atheism which has as it's goal the elimination of belief in God. "The world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief ... ." "Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization."--Stephen Weinberg in "A Free-for-All on Science and Religion," by George Johnson, Science Times, November 21, 2006. "[Dawkins] wants to make respect for belief in God socially unacceptable ... ." "I'm quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism ... ." "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists."--Richard Dawkins "Harris argues that unless belief in God is eradicated, civilization is likely to end in a murderous sea of religious warfare ... ." "At some point, there's going to be enough pressure that it is just going to be too embarrassing to believe in God."--Sam Harris They get worse in some of their writings. They are not stupid men, just ignorant.

One of the reasons that an old earth (5 billion years) in required is to accommodate the theory of mega-evolution (evolution between species). Both evolutionists and creationists believe evolution is impossible if the universe is only a few thousand years old. Apart from the most basic issue of the controversy itself—i.e., whether creation or evolution is the correct view of origins—the single most serious area of conflict between those who accept the biblical account of creation and those who accept the theory of organic evolution (in whole or in part) is the chronological framework of history—viz., the age of the Earth. And, of course, this subject is of intense interest not only to those who promulgate atheistic evolution, but to those who are sympathetic with certain portions of that theory as well. While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem whatsoever for creationists who accept the biblical account at face value, it is the death knell to almost every variety of the evolutionary scenario. Now if one considers the biblical record, it indicates that the Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago. In contrast is the suggestion of atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists that the current age of the Cosmos can be set at 8-12 billion years (give or take a couple of billion). Complicating things further, the biblical record indicates that Christ placed all living things on the earth at creation and that man and woman were created before the end of the six day period. The evolutionary scenario postulates that all life forms gradually developed during “geologic ages” of 3.5-4.0 billion years. Man came along in one form or another, approximately 1-2 million years ago. (It changes with the evolutionary scientist.) The dilemma: there is no possible compromise between the two positions. I don’t claim to be a scientist. I am a biblical scholar (student) and teacher. I believe in the God of the Bible; accept the bible as His inspired, authoritative Word; and I am convinced by evidence that what God revealed in the Bible is true and can be understood. Since the Creator is the Author of the Bible, I trust whenever it speaks on any subject, including creation, that it is accurate in what it says. Since there is a seeming contradiction between the theories and postulations of evolutionary science and what the Creator has authored, I will trust God who does not contradict, over a science that does contradict. . What we have revealed in the Bible is the history of man from the time of God's creation of Adam and Eve. We do have around 6 to 10 thousand years of history of man. However, going by the history recorded in Scripture, mankind is 5 days younger than the earth.

We had some additions to add to the book. Actually we can function without one. No one seems to know exactly why we have it except when there is an infection in the body the appendix swells in response to it. It seems to be used by the body as a collector to warn the body of abscess and poisons present in the system. If not taken out when poisons remain, the appendix can burst and fill the body cavity with the infections present. Why do some people have ear lobes and others don't?

Dog, don't you realize that all guns are forged with evil already in them? Have you been living under a rock?! Why just the other day I saw a TV show call Dead Man's Gun, produced by Henry "The Fonz" Winkler. It is about a pistol forged in hell which brings sorrow into the lives of those who possess it. Each week, a different guest star would have the gun come into their possession in one way or another; usually they end up dead. Now I know it must be true because reality verifies the premise. Come on man, didn't you know that!!!

I wouldn't buy a magazine that didn't have more than 60 pages!

Then say as they are carting you away, "Hey, their going to pay all expenses for a two year vacation on a "funny farm!" No expenses for two years!!

Hey EE. Can you just see the first of the process. A snake crawls out of the eye, looks around for a tree and jumps off. All the other snakes look at his dead body at the base of the tree and ask, "Hey, what happened to 'Slither'?" "He is dead!" "Yah. He crawled up that tree and jumped off. Now he is dead." "Why did he do that?" "I don't know, but I know I don't want to die." Now this goes on for thousands of year until one day a feather develops from one scale of the snake. Millions have died trying to jump off rocks, trees, etc. only to die trying. Another thousand years and now there are two snakes with one or two scales which are beginning to look like feathers. One morning, millions of years later, there hatched from the egg, not a snake, but a bird! He has no idea what he is to do. He's the first bird. Now, he can't even get up to the limb of the tree to jump. He can't fly nor can he mate. Well, you get the picture. Mega-evolutionists make up things they think could have happened, but they need millions of years for it to work. Problem is . . . it's all made up from an active mind that just knows that must have been what happened. LOL.