Common Ancestor or Common Designer?

When Atheists and/or Evolutionists try to convince me that the concept of a Creator is illogical, unnecessary and contradictory to the facts, I find that a very brief conversation reveals just the opposite is true.  

Supposed missing links, rather than being in the thousands, as Darwin declared would be necessary to prove his theory, are few and far between; they are still missing!  This is because they are non-existent.  As we should expect, the fossils which are presented as missing links are embarrassing to say the least.  Ambulocetus was presented to me recently as a link between wolves and whales; not only does the structure of this animal’s head more closely resemble that of a crocodile, but the bottom half of its skeleton is missing.  The legs and tail of this creature are, therefore, pure guesswork.  But they insist that whales must have had legs at some point because they have two small bones in their lower body.  These bones are used in the sexual reproduction of the whale, and the myth of a whale being found with a mutant leg growing out of it has been long debunked.  But Ambulocetus is nearly all they’ve got and they must uphold their theory somehow.

In reality, the only link between these creatures is the little line the Evolutionist draws between their pictures.  The radical changes required in the head alone, such as the rearrangement of nostrils and the eyes shifting to the side of the head, to move from a mammalian crocodile to a whale have no substantial evidence in the fossil record, nor does the drift from wolf to croc.
No, animals produce after their own kind: Canines make canines and felines make felines; there are boundaries to the variations they can produce.  No genus can produce another, short-term or long-term.  Once the missing links are exposed as pure speculation, the Evolutionist then abandons the entire realm of fossils and turns to genetics.

Recently on youtube, 'TheScienceFoundation' declared to me that ‘the 44 chromosome man of China’ has two fused chromosomes (14 & 15), rather than the regular 46 chromosomes found in humans.  According to the Evolutionist, this therefore proves that 2A and 2B, two chromosomes found in chimps and bonobos, could easily have fused together at one time and that this is how we now have our chromosome 2.  He therefore concludes that we must share a common ancestor with chimps and bonobos.
This is not just a common argument amongst Atheists but it is the evidence presented by Evolutionists to prove that man and ape have the same granddaddy…  But it does not necessitate a common ancestor in the least, as I soon found out.

The genetic information in this inbred Chinese man (and another Turkish woman with the same trait) is exactly the same as a normal person, just repackaged.  Wild horses have 33 chromosome pairs whilst tamed horses typically have 32.  The house mouse has 40 and yet a population in the Alps was found to have just 22.  Similar experiments have been conducted on cows and sheep and shown that all fusion does is repackage the information already present.  The fusion of the chromosomes does not produce a different species, let alone a different genus (or kind) over time.
Bonobos and chimps never produce anything other than apes.  Man, even if he had 48 chromosomes at some time in the past, was still a man.

As for Chromosome 2, firstly, the fusion site and fusion event of this chromosome pair were in the ‘wrong place’.  They didn’t quite match up with the apes’ genomes.  Secondly, the 798-base core sequence at the fusion site is found throughout the human genome, whereas it is very rare in our banana-loving chums.
Then, for the cherry on the cake, I find that the sequences at the ends of the chromosomes did not bear the characteristic of having been fused at all!
More could have been read and said but enough was enough.  Once a voiced idea has been fully exposed as corrupt, as Christians, we shouldn’t waste our time with it any longer (Proverbs 17:4).

The fact that a chromosome pair in humans looks similar to two chromosomes in apes, if those two were ever fused together, no more proves common ancestry than it does a common designer.  Apes have thumbs but does this ipso facto mean we had a common ancestor?  No more than it does a common designer.  The fact is that common ancestry is a big presupposition.  Evolutionists are imposing a worldview which the evidence in no way necessitates by itself.

The difference is that when the Evolutionist points to the fossil record, they have absolutely nothing to show for their ideas.  Yet, as Creationists, we not only point to the many facets of creation which demand a comprehending Designer but, also, to His inspired book, filled with miraculously fulfilled prophecies in order to prove to us that this Designer is outside of time and that the things He desires to communicate to us are of ultimate significance.  Just with our Messiah alone, the chances of one man fulfilling the prophecies written of Him is 1 in 10 to the power of trillions of trillions (a number astronomically larger than the realms of possibility).  And, most importantly, the historical evidence weighs so heavily in favour of His life, miracles, death and even His resurrection!  Having studied law, I can say that, in a court of law, the evidence for Christ would be irrefutable. 
Jesus has confirmed that He is the Messiah who came to reconcile people to a God whom we naturally despise and do not wish to judge us for the immoral things we think and do, even though we know in our conscience that they are evil and that there is such a thing as evil.
This same Jesus taught that the creation account given us in Genesis is a perfectly accurate historical narrative.  And He quoted it as authoritative to say that ‘from the beginning of the creation God made [people] male and female.’ (Mark 10:6)
Either He is a liar, a madman or the Son of God – the truth itself.  All evidence points to the latter. 

Whilst the Evolutionist declares that his presupposition must be true because there simply cannot be a God, the Creationist fairly interprets the evidence in light of the veracity of the Bible and Jesus Christ who has demonstrated Himself to be God.  This is not science vs. religion, these are two belief systems.

On a personal note, however, having previously been on the other side of the fence, hating Bible-believing Christians, concluding that the world would be better off without them, I cannot feel any animosity even to the rudest and most childish of Atheists, such as Richard Dawkins.  Instead, I give all thanks to the God who came and revealed Himself in me, unmasking what I am and who He is, changing me from the inside out.  Nonetheless, knowing that a Creator exists on such a personal level, I can no more deny His existence than I can the existence of the woman who gave birth to me.

Hebrews 11:3  Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Matthew's made-up prophecies?

Most liberal scholars of the New Testament teach that Matthew deceitfully invented a prophecy, fulfilled by the Messiah, out of thin air:

Matthew 2:23  And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

They declare that nowhere in the Old Testament is the Messiah called a Nazarene, let alone by more than one prophet.  Even scholars at the world famous Oxford University teach this.  There is of course no truth to this claim and it is yet another proof that no matter how intelligent one is in their flesh, they will not come to the light but, rather, hate it; they would sooner call the Lord Jesus Christ a liar than even begin to admit the possibility that He is the Son of God.

But, let us observe as the Word of God defends itself:

Isaiah 11:1  And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots…
Jeremiah 23:5  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
Zechariah 3:8  Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.

In Isaiah 11:1, a clear prophecy of the Messiah, the word translated ‘Branch’ is the Hebrew word ‘Nezer’ (or ‘Netzer’).  The other two passages (among others), though they use a different word, the meaning and imagery is the same and is therefore translated as the same word in English.

Dr. Gill notes several Jewish sources to conclude that these verses were ‘a prophecy owned by the Jews themselves to belong to the Messiah…who as he was descended from Jesse's family, so by dwelling at Nazareth, he would appear to be, and would be "called a Nazarene, or Netzer, the branch"; being an inhabitant of Natzareth, or Netzer, so called from the multitude of plants and trees that grew there.’
Strong & McClintock’s Cyclopedia states that ‘Jerome mentions [this interpretation] as that given by learned (Christian) Jews in his day’.  

The only reason to deny such a beautiful and awesome fulfilment of God’s unbreakable words is a desperate need to deny the Lord Jesus Christ, to ignore the truth and run to hide in the shadows of death.  But, though they deny His glory now, their knees will not be able to stand before Him at His appearing; they shall fall before the wounds in His feet and be judged most terribly.
May God have mercy on your soul if you are one such false teacher.

Proverbs 19:21  There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

Hats or Head-coverings?

The context of Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, in chapter 11, can only be read in a logical fashion as declaring that woman are to wear head-coverings; it shows carelessness on the part of the reader to teach otherwise. I shall not argue this point here as I have done so here.
The point I want to discuss is the matter of whether the Scripture teaches that a headscarf is to be worn to the exclusion of much more recently designed headwear such as a hat.

The only time the word 'covering' is used in the NT is -
1Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
The word covering in the Greek is 'peribolaion' and this means:
‘Neuter of a presumed derivative of [“periballo” (to throw all around)]; something thrown around one, that is, a mantle, veil: - covering, vesture.’
Does that sound like a hat to you? It sounds more like a veil or head-covering which women in the New Testament wore and which the early church wore and which women wore in the western world for most of the past 2000 years. British women, for example, have been wearing headscarves for centuries and continue to do so until today. My old landlady (who was as British as spotted dick) used to wear a headscarf when she went down the road in windy Autumn and Winter. Furthermore, the word is used elsewhere to illustrate how God will fold away creation like this particular item of clothing (Hebrews 1:12). Do we fold away hats? The word for ‘covered’ in 1Corinthians 11 is ‘katakaluptō’ which also means ‘to cover wholly, that is, veil’.

Now some would contend that to translate ‘veil’ in this manner means a woman must cover her face too, but this exaggeration is disproven by the Word of God; further to the fact that Paul describes women’s long hair as a natural precedent for the head-covering and that women do not have hair on their face as men do, we read in the Scriptures of a proper veil allowing the option of covering one’s face:
Genesis 38:14-15 And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.
When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.
(Please note - from the context, Judah thought she was a prostitute because she had disguised her identity and was by the side of the road, not because she was wearing a headscarf or because she had her face covered.)
In fact, the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament translates the word ‘vail’ (or ‘shawl’) here as the same root word Paul uses in 1Corinthians – ‘periballo’.

So a veil is something that is large and flexible enough to wrap around a woman’s head, according to the NT, and large enough to have sufficient material to cover the face (for whatever reason), according to the OT.  Does this describe a hat? I can't say that it does.  It seems to describe a headscarf as worn by the early church – Clement of Alexandria writes of the veiling of women with a ‘shawl’ in 190 A.D. and Tertullian wrote a whole tract on the matter in 200 A.D., entitled The Veiling of Virgins, to combat the idea that only married women were to wear head-coverings. In it, Tertullian rejects the idea of wearing a coif (a type of cap) or hair tied up in small turbans at the front or back as these do not cover the whole head as Paul specifies. Other writers, as well as art, depict headscarves being worn by women in the early church. This was the unanimous interpretation of Paul’s wording in 1Corinthians 11.

Does this mean it is evil for a woman to wear a hat as a head-covering?
Women’s hats are a very recent development, following from the vanity of the 18th century milliners who produced huge wigs, plumed with feathers etc. for women of greater wealth and status. At a time when the men were wearing make-up and wigs too, the women went to ridiculous lengths to appear more effeminate than the men.
By the late 1800’s, women were converting and re-designing men’s hats for their own use.  Trilbies and Boaters were given ribbons and flowers and downsized and these became an acceptable piece of women’s clothing. This was the fashion at the turn of the 1900’s and was, I believe, one of many precursors to the feminist movement. It was an externalisation of the changing thoughts and worldviews of that time: ‘Women can wear the same items of clothing as men, surely women could vote like men, go to work like men, perform the same roles as men, go to battle like men’ etc.
Please do not mistake me; I do not believe that a woman wearing a woman’s hat or women’s jackets or trousers is some form of transvestism. Transvestism is a very real desire for a man or woman to dress and appear to be, as much as possible, someone of the opposite gender.  I am not declaring that women wear hats because they want others to think they are a man or because they want to appear masculine and offend God.
But I do believe that this is a worldly tradition and a very recent one at that.

So, in response to the question of whether it is evil for a woman to wear a hat as her headcovering, I would respond with two questions of my own:
From the verses we have examined above and a glance at history, does the Bible say (in the Greek) that women should wear a headscarf or a hat and why do you prefer a hat?
For those who would charge me with legalism and point out that the principle of wearing something, anything, on the woman’s head is what is important, I would ask them whether they would consider swapping the simple cup of the Lord’s Supper with a German beer stein and the wine for cherryade (some prefer the taste). Why not use pizza instead of the bread?  Why do we not baptize people in custard also? After all, it’s the spiritual principle that matters, not the elements…
I do not think women wear hats to be deliberately evil and confound what God has written, but I do think vanity can play a part in a woman’s refusal to wear a headscarf.  Yet, ‘headscarf’ is what the Greek and, therefore, the Holy Spirit actually say; whereas women’s hats appear to be a recent, worldly phenomenon.  One should earnestly examine themselves as to why they might refuse to wear a headscarf.

May women have the freedom of conscience to pray and reach a conclusion on this subject with their husbands. Above all, may none of us lose sight of the spiritual significance of what it means to be wearing a head-covering. This represents Christ and His authority over His bride. Let us discern our Lord and Saviour in the covering of our ladies’ heads, otherwise it doesn’t matter what we wear.

Romanticising the Heretics...

I marvel at how so-called Calvinists and those who profess to uphold the doctrines of grace in salvation are so inclined to romanticise certain Arminian or semi-Pelagian preachers.  I can only think this is done to come across as loving and pragmatic.  But, you can love someone who is in error without recommending the things they preach.  You can love someone by pointing out their errors and calling others to reflect on such matters and to pray for that confused individual.  But why do many Calvinists go all gooey at the thought of preachers like Leonard Ravenhill, Charles Finney or John Wesley?

Paul Washer, for instance, said this: ‘I would take a Leonard Ravenhill any day over 20 dead Calvinists’.
I can understand the desire to have zealous preaching, particularly on the subject of sin, to bring others to repentance, but to favour someone who is in error over preachers who were not, simply because the others are dead (and Ravenhill was still alive at the time), seems to be missing the point somewhat.

Paul Washer isn’t alone.  I have seen Lane’s vlog giving major kudos to Leonard Ravenhill also.  When I questioned the choice of Ravenhill, I was told by one of their followers that I was making an idol out of theology.
I do not personally consider the commands in the New Testament to ensure that we remain unleavened from false doctrines etc. to be idolatry.  I do not think the concern I have for Ravenhill strongly recommending heretics like Charles Finney and John Wesley is unfounded paranoia; the doctrines espoused by these men are and have been extremely damaging.  Keith Green, the famous pianist, was apparently very confused with the matter of justification by faith alone and the legalistic Pelagianism he had apparently learned from Finney; Ravenhill strongly encouraged Green to follow the teachings of Finney and directly caused this grievance.  Shouldn't we learn from this?

I am not saying that Ravenhill is not in the presence of the Lord now.  I am not saying that the man was not zealous and constant in prayer.  I am not saying that he did not have a sincere, spiritual care for lost souls.  I am not saying I despise or reject Leonard Ravenhill at all.  But, whilst I would have had him round for a cup of tea, this does not mean that I think the doctrines the man taught should be elevated to our pulpits and certainly not to be broadcast to the public in a youtube video.

‘If we had more sleepless nights in prayer, there would be far fewer souls to have a sleepless eternal night in hell.’
- Ravenhill, L. (1983) Revival God's Way, p. 52

If you profess to believe in God’s sovereignty in the salvation of men for His own glory and you see nothing shamefully wrong in the words above, I fear for you.

The romanticising of Amyraldians, Arminians and Pelagians of any colour must stop!  These doctrines are man-exalting and welcoming them with loving arms is to show no loving protection to the body of Christ.  In contrast to Paul Washer, I would rather have 1 liberated and spiritually awakened Calvinist than 1000 zealous preachers of false doctrines.

Are you an Anglican or an Anglican't?

...or Why Anglicanism is heretical

If one opens the Book of Common Prayer or visits The Church of England website, they will find written in ‘The ministration of Public Baptism of Infant to be used in the Church’ these words:

‘It is certain by God's Word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.’

This is basically the heretical doctrine of baptismal regeneration.  It is the popish doctrine which proposes the error that the waters of baptism can remove the sinful nature of man as a result of our fall in Adam (otherwise known as ‘original sin’).
The logical conclusion of this is that, once baptized, an individual could live a perfectly sinless life, as they would not be in bondage to sin; furthermore, such a person may have no need of Christ at all.

This is blasphemous and illogical for numerous reasons.  And this is why Anglicanism or Episcopalianism is heretical.   There have been many good Christians and ministers in the C of E.  But, the truth is, they were used of God in spite of the C of E.

At least the Book of Common Prayer recognises that the primary form of baptism for infants should be immersion, unless the child is infirm etc.

May God lead Christ’s sheep out of this mess or to reform this Protestant group for the good of England.  The question every Anglican needs to ask themselves is: Can we remove any sins, purely by the will of the baptizer and through some mystical power of the baptismal waters? Or can only the imputed righteousness through faith in Christ and the power of His redeeming blood, wrought in the soul by almighty God, cleanse a man from sin?

Hebrews 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.