Empty Philosophy

Colossians 2:8  Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

The wise men of this world, considered geniuses and prodigies, whilst capable of developing many useful things with the materials we have access to in this world, are automatically stunted in terms of any philosophical thought.  As one who has been called by Christ from my hatred of God to the truth and given a new heart to love that truth, I recognise that the true treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ (Colossians 2:3).  The word philosophy comes from the Greek word meaning ‘the love of wisdom’.  But if one does not have a love of Christ, they can never truly love wisdom and never truly be equipped to understand the world around us philosophically, as the Lord Jesus is the eternal purpose of all things (Ephesians 3:11).

For example, the Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) talks are conducted worldwide and bring the very best minds from various fields and faculties of study or development and allow them to share ‘great ideas’ with one another and the world.  The aim is to make a more collective effort in tackling problems, develop society and to better understand ourselves and the world around us.  Some of the technological advances proposed are mind-bogglingly advanced.  But it becomes apparent that general understanding and development have been hindered by the casting aside of any thought that all things in this universe would have been created with purpose by a wise Creator.  Whilst some display how remarkable spider’s silk is compared to man-made Kevlar and express its almost endless applications, electronic, surgical etc., others describe how trial and error led to the deaths of thousands of animals before they realised that the solution to the increasing desertification of fertile land was as simple as observing the natural processes which should normally occur to prevent it. 

Biomimeticists seek to mimic nature, but observe how greatly this has been hindered by the Reductionist, ‘Atheistic’ paradigm which sees no purposeful intelligence in creation, but rather sees the universe as some convenient accident full of happy coincidences and that nature, therefore, may very well not have patterns and materials etc. to be harnessed and used properly, in good stewardship. 

Nevertheless, these intelligent minds believe this worldview to be absolutely correct, allowing no thoughts to be shared to the contrary.  They remove videos in which glands in the brain are discussed which release naturally release chemicals to allow a sense of there being a spiritual existence interacting with the physical.  The implications of this are apparently too great.  It appears that people are without excuse for denying God, just as we are told by the Lord (Romans 1:20).

But, as they profess themselves to be wise, let us analyse this mindset philosophically to show that this worldview is not just a hindrance to the areas of science founded by Creationists, but is also based on that empty philosophy which we are warned of in the Bible:

The philosophy of the Reductionist asserts that all men begin a thought-process or indeed any process by assuming the universe exists.  They feel uncertain as to whether the universe they inhabit actually exists and so the further ‘assumption’ that a Creator of this possible universe exists is an unnecessary addition.  This is ridiculous. 
Firstly, we must ask whether the brain-dead are assuming the universe exists and assuming their own existence – assumptions which require a conscious and competent mind; secondly, we must ask who it is that is doing the assuming to begin with.  A being of some sort, a self-conscious and self-aware being; they did not choose to become aware of themselves or conscious of the life they are living and the universe within which they do so.  But, nonetheless, here they are, inescapably so.  In fact, tell the person who suffers from chronic pain that they are simply assuming the universe exists; if this is merely an assumption, they can be corrected at any time and cease to exist, ending all pain.  But even the most devout of Buddhists can still be found sitting cross-legged on their bottoms in a monastery atop Tibet.  It appears that the simple and obvious adage still works best: ‘I am thinking, therefore I am existing’ – Descartes.

Now, we can look at another philosophical argument, the Kalām cosmological argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist.
Therefore,
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

So, we can say that this well-ordered universe, which bears life on this tiny jewel of planet, has a cause.  Either it is the God of Jesus Christ, the awaited Messiah and Saviour of all mankind who came, fulfilling hundreds of prophecies, the chances of which are astronomically beyond that of the recognised realms of possibility; or the cause of this universe is some unknown accident, a strangely happy coincidence which caused the exact fine-tuning of the universe.  This is not to mention how life and the miraculous processes found within it have only ever been disproven to have come about by chance.

The options left for the Reductionist are either accepting what they believe to be the improbable – that there is an intelligent and infinite Creator; or accepting the impossible and hoping the facts might eventually make it sound more probable.  Sadly, they choose the latter.

James Glattfelder, earlier this year at a TED talk in Zurich admitted: ‘No one really knows why the thoughts in our heads should actually relate to the fundamental workings of the universe’.  Those who know their God know why.  But those who accept the impossible, who willing believe a lie, they shall continue to stumble into such quagmires.

2Timothy 2:13  If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Looking for a grain of truth in Pinto's Tares Among the Wheat

The fairly high-budget documentary by Christ Pinto, titled Tares Among the Wheat somehow seeks to connect modern translation efforts of the Bible with Roman Catholicism.  In order to accomplish this, some truly bogus claims need to be espoused by Pinto.  

The first is the sloppy and untruthful mingling of higher criticism with textual criticism.  Although Pinto does make some effort to say that textual criticism is a good thing, he tries to make out that it was created by a Roman Catholic called Richard Simon, well into the counter-Reformation.  Even Erasmus, who produced the basis for the King James Version, conducted textual criticism and he of course predated this Roman Catholic, Simon.
And another thing, whilst on the subject of Erasmus, he is made out to be some big hero, yet he was a Papist.  Anyone outside of the process of developing the King James Version, who has anything to do with Rome, is not met with the same pleasant narration by Pinto.  This is hypocrisy.  Either everything to do with Roman Catholicism is evil, in which case Pinto must reject Erasmus and the King James Version too; or he bases the merit of manuscripts and translation on their own integrity, in which case Pinto cannot throw out all modern translations as he pleases.  These are the only two options.
But, to conclude this point, to suggest that the textual criticism which has produced all English translations of the Bible, not just modern ones, is a part of higher criticism and some attack on the Bible is nonsense.  Charles Spurgeon, one of the greatest preachers ever known, was integral in fighting against higher criticism in the late 1800’s, yet here is what he said of textual criticism:

'Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and Authorised Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments.'
- Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 1881, p. 342

Another point is that he continuously presents Sinaiticus as having been discovered in a ‘trash can’ waiting to be burned with other pieces of paper being used for kindling.  This is an old myth; the truth is that Tischendorf found some mouldy old leaves of the Septuagint Greek Old Testament being burned and tried to save them.  When he returned many years later to the Greek Orthodox monastery, he was talking about that text with one of the monks who then presented from his cell, wrapped in scarlet, Sinaiticus.

Aside from the many smaller contentions one might have with this film, however, Pinto’s main argument for the dismissal of Sinaiticus and any translation which has considered its text in the translation process, is the revival of an argument by another man of the 19^th century called Constantine Simonides.
Sir Frederick Kenyon (1863-1952) was perhaps the leading expert on the text of the New Testament in the first half of the 20th century and presents the matter thus:
‘Since the year 1856 an ingenious Greek, named Constantine Simonides, had been creating a considerable sensation by producing quantities of Greek manuscripts professing to be of fabulous antiquity--such as a Homer in almost prehistoric style of writing, a lost Egyptian historian, a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel on papyrus, written fifteen years after the Ascension, and other portions of the New Testament dating from the first century.  These productions enjoyed a short period of notoriety, and were then exposed as forgeries.  Among the scholars concerned in the exposure was [Constantine] Tischendorf [the discoverer of the Sinaiticus manuscript--ed.]; and the revenge taken by Simonides was distinctly humorous.  While stoutly maintaining the genuineness of his own wares, he admitted that he had written one manuscript which passed as being very ancient, and that was the Codex Sinaiticus, the discovery of which had been so triumphantly proclaimed by Tischendorf!  The idea was ingenious, but it would not bear investigation.  Apart from the internal evidence of the text itself, the variation in which no forger, however clever, could have invented, it was shown that Simonides could not have completed the task in the time which he professed to have taken, and that there was no such edition of the Greek Bible as that from which he professed to have copied it.  This little cloud on the credit of the newly-discovered manuscript therefore rapidly passed away…’ - Kenyon (1941, 4^th ed.) Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, p. 130

Scrivener, the producer of the Greek Textus Receptus followed by the King James translators, indirectly dismisses Simonides’ claims: ‘The claim of Simonides [was] to be the sole writer of a book which must have consisted when complete of about 730 leaves, or 1460 pages of very large size (Collation, &c. p. xxxii), and that too within the compass of eight or ten months’, which, as Scrivener then calculates in the relevant footnote, would mean that ‘He would have written about 20,000 separate uncial letters every day.’  He continues, ‘it is at all events quite plain, as well from internal considerations as from minute peculiarities in the writing, such as the frequent use of the apostrophus and of [another] mark on some sheets and their complete absence from others (Collation, &c. pp. xvi-xviii; xxxii; xxxvii), that at least two, and probably more, persons have been employed on the several parts of the volume – footnote – Prothero (Memoir of H. Bradshaw, pp. 92-118) reprints a letter of Bradshaw from Guardian, Jan. 28, 1863, worth studying: —“Simonides died hard, and to the very end was supported by a few dupes of his ingenious mendacity.” (p.99)’ - Scrivener (1883, 3^rd ed.) A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., pp. 155-156

With all the amateur dramatics over and done, Pinto wonders how it is that no one has heard of Simonides and why scholars and even his fellow King James Version Only-ists do not seem to regard Simonides’ remarkable testimony in history.  It is quite simply because it is entirely apparent to everyone qualified enough to make an opinion at the time and since that Simonides clearly did not write Sinaiticus.  The reason no one sees it as a valid argument and no one attempts to use this as a valid argument is because it is not a valid argument.

See also a debate on the subject of the film between Pinto and Professor James White:
http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2013/12/is-codex-sinaiticus-is-modern-forgery.html

Reformed or Misinformed - a brief examination of Paedobaptism in Reformed churches

Many of the Reformed churches use the Reformed Psalter to sing metrical Psalms.  At the back of the Psalter, in the same vain as the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, there is a liturgy for the administration of what many of these fellow-Protestants incorrectly believe to be Baptism.  Here is the thanksgiving of such a false baptism:

'Almighty God and merciful Father, we thank and praise thee, that thou hast forgiven us and our children all our sins, through the blood of thy Son Jesus Christ and received us through thy Holy Spirit, as members of thine only begotten Son, and adopted us to be thy children , and sealed and confirmed the same unto us by holy baptism.'

Firstly, it must be recognised that this is a declaration that the baby is born again.  They have all their sins forgiven, have been washed in Christ's blood, have been sealed by the Holy Spirit and are indeed members of Christ's body and children of God.  According to the New Testament, all the verses relating to these statements declare that this baby has eternal life and will never perish.

e.g. John 6:39-40 & 44  And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 

Notice that to be consistent, the Reformed churches must recognise that these babies have eternal life and shall never be lost.  And, yet, what does the rest of the thanksgiving say?

'We beseech thee...that thou wilt be pleased always to govern this baptized person by thy Holy Spirit...that they may acknowledge thy fatherly goodness...shown to them...'

Note, these churches recognise that their baptized children can and do turn from God and live as though they are dead in sin and have no desire of Christ and the will of God.  But, as they  believe their children have been regenerated and made members of Christ's body from their sprinkling, they must either: 

Recognise that they believe a Christian can lose their salvation and therefore not only deny the words of Christ (above) but also deny foundational Calvinistic doctrines and admit that they are actually Arminians; or

Recognise that they believe their carnal, Christ-despising children are somehow filled with the Spirit of a perfect and Holy God, to which they must be give an explanation as to why God is not disciplining His children as a good Father (Hebrews 12:5-11).

The Canons too declare that 'the election made by [God] can neither be suspended nor altered, revoked, or annulled; neither can his chosen ones be cast off, nor their number reduced' and that 'parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.'  And, yet, it also declares 'the calling according to his purpose cannot be revoked, the merit of Christ as well as his interceding and preserving cannot be nullified, and the sealing of the Holy Spirit can neither be invalidated nor wiped out.'

Therefore, for these who profess to believe that salvation cannot be lost is to believe that their children are children of God.  Only the pope would declare that he can command the Holy Spirit to enter another and assure them of salvation when, to all appearances, that person does not know God nor bear the fruits of His Spirit.  But the Reformed ministers who follow this liturgy do the same continually.  They blaspheme by calling upon God to do what is His prerogative alone to perform; they demand grace and salvation and then popishly pronounce another deaf, spiritually dead reprobate to be saved.  This remains even more absurd than when the great mass of apostate, free-will, Semi-Pelagians call people to walk up to the altar to say the sinner's prayer and then pronounce them all 'saved!'  It is more ridiculous and unscriptural because a baby cannot in the least understand what is occurring.

Romans 10:13-14  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

For a fuller study on the subject of Infant Sprinkling and Baptism, this booklet may be of interest:

http://www.gospelmissionbooks.com/product_info.php?products_id=3743&osCsid=7pb0bdlapnnlag8ka0cdk5n9m3

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.