Video Placeholder

Monday, August 24, 2015

Testing Roman Catholicism - Introduction

Roman Catholics have made the claim over and over that they are the church going back to Jesus. Is this true? It turns out there is a super easy way to answer this question with scripture. See, the New Testament was an inspired 1st century document of the early early church! Therefore, if the Catholic teachings match with the New Testament, then we can conclude the Catholics are right. However, if the New Testament blatantly contradicts the Catholic church's doctrine, then we must conclude that the Catholics are wrong and their church thus created after the first church of the 1st century. After all, what better historical evidence in the first century could we have than the New Testament? In the future I will post in this series much scripture that examines the Roman Catholic church to see if they are the same church as the 1st century church. The results may shock you!

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Rick Jacoby's Pro-Israel Moments Examined - Part 1

This is the beginning of a series focusing on and reviewing biblically many videos that have popped up online by the name of “Israel Moments Examined”. The author of these videos is Rick Jacoby, a dispensational Christian who believes the nation of Israel is still God’s chosen people. In these videos, he reviews other non-dispensational videos done by Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church. While the focus of this series is not on Anderson (since he is a man who has spread numerous heresies), it will be focused on debunking Rick Jacoby’s belief that Israel is still God’s chosen people besides the church. Why should I do these videos? Because I am firmly convinced from scripture that we as the church are the Israel of God, and I am against the belief that Israel as the nation is still God's chosen people. More importantly, I cannot let people be deceived on this matter.

The first video is below:


After a lengthy introduction, Rick plays the video that point the viewer to look at Ephesians 2:11-13 KJV, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” The interpretation Anderson gives is that this verse is teaching that we as Christians are now citizens of Israel (the new spiritual Israel). But then, Rick pauses the video and objects, “The point of verse 12 is they are without God, because salvation was of the Jews and you had to worship the God as the Jews did under the Old Covenant. Going through [time] now, the world comes to the Christian to learn about salvation. [Back] then, you had to go through like Rahab, [who] recognized that the God of the Jews was the God of heaven and earth. And so she was saved in that way. And so you had to recognize that you had to come to the Jews to learn about God and salvation. And so, it’s [that] they [in the passage] were strangers of the covenants of promise then and those those blessings. But the point is, they had no hope and they were without God.”

Let us now look at the passage ourselves to see what it’s saying here, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;” (Ephesians 2:11 KJV). Paul is writing to Gentile believers, and he is telling them to remember that they who are called by the Jews (the Circumcision) “Uncircumcision”... The reason for those three dots is because the thought of the sentence didn’t finish in verse 11. We must consult the rest of the text to find out the rest of the thought of the passage. But what we can see so far is that the Gentile believers were being called uncircumcised sinners by the Jews. The Jewish people, of course, was prideful of their keeping of the Abrahamic Covenant and Mosaic Covenant which both commanded circumcision for God’s people. What they had failed to realize was that now in the New Covenant with Jesus Christ, the requirements for salvation was no longer works of circumcision but rather faith on the Lord Jesus Christ alone. The passage continues, “That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:” (Ephesians 2:12 KJV). Paul is now explaining to them that at the time (at that time) of the old covenants, the Gentiles were without Jesus Christ (God Almighty) because they were not Israelites - they were alien Gentiles. They were strangers from the covenants God made only with Israel. They had no hope of salvation and were without God. Let’s continue, But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” (Ephesians 2:13 KJV). Paul is saying here that now (contrasting with back then), the Gentiles who were in Jesus Christ (Christians) who were back then far off are brought near by Christ’s sacrifice. Brought near (made nigh) to what? What the previous verse and this verse says that which was far away from them (were far off). In other words, what the Gentiles were “far off” from is now near to them by the blood of Christ. More precisely, the Gentiles who were far off from certain things are now made near to those things. What were the Gentiles “far off” from? “Christ”, “the commonwealth of Israel”, “the covenants of promise”, “hope”, and “God”. Therefore, the Gentiles (according to this scripture) who believe on Christ are brought near to Jesus Christ, the commonwealth of Israel, the covenants of promise, hope, and God. “Commonwealth” is defined in Dictionary.com as: 8. the whole body of people of a nation or state; the body politic. In other words, citizenship! Gentile believers can now share in Jesus Christ, the citizenship of Israel, the Jewish covenants made by God, hope for salvation, and God Himself. The Jewish covenants made by God, of course, refer to the Davidic Covenant made that David’s throne would last forever (in Jesus Christ) and the New Covenant made originally to national Israel in the Old Testament (as a future prophecy). Therefore, this passage is in fact saying that Christians are citizens of Israel. We are citizens of Israel in Jesus and constitute as the New Israel under the New Covenant. We have replaced Israel - we are Israel. Anderson’s interpretation is completely accurate here, and Jacoby’s interpretation is simply a mental shrugging off a detailed word for word study of this passage.

In the video, Rick Jacoby then decides to play more of Anderson’s video, where Anderson reads Ephesians 2:19 KJV, “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;”. Anderson interprets this verse similarly that this is saying believers in Jesus are “fellowcitizens” with Israel. Rick then objects and claims, “That’s not what it says. It says we are fellowcitizens with the saints. It doesn’t say we are fellowcitizens of Israel, he read that into the passage. I know this particular one has been covered before by another brother, but, he just drew a conclusion that’s not there. ‘Fellowcitizens with the saints’.”

Rick Jacoby is claiming that Ephesians 2:19 does not refer at all to being a citizen of Israel. But what does the verse really teach? “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;. Notice that Paul here contrasts the Gentile believers’ former (ye are no more) alienation (strangers and foreigners) with now instead being fellowcitizens with the “saints” and the household of God. Who are “saints”? Saints are those who are God’s people. Every Christian today is a saint. Back then with the Mosaic Covenant, those in Israel were counted as “saints” and were “the household of God”. When Paul says that the Gentile believers are no longer strangers and foreigners, he’s referring back to verse 12, “That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:” (Ephesians 2:12 KJV). The Gentiles were aliens and strangers. Here in verse 19, they are called strangers and foreigners. Paul is telling them here they are no longer strangers and foreigners. No longer strangers and foreigners from whom? The answer is in verse 12, from “Israel”! Paul is telling them in verse 19 that they are no longer strangers and foreigners from Israel, but now they were fellowcitizens with Israel! Fellowcitizens with the saints of old under the Mosaic covenant and of the household of God! Gentile believers are in this verse citizens of Israel. Anderson is correct here.

But, of course, Rick Jacoby objects to this fact and tries to rescue the distinction between Israel and the church (and rather unsuccessfully), “Let me ask you a question: was Enoch a saint? How about Noah? Were they citizens of Israel? Everybody before, let’s just say before Abraham, they were saved. They were saints, right? Adam, Seth, all those guys. Were they citizens of Israel?”

No, they were not citizens of Israel. But that’s not what Ephesians 2:19 had in mind. Ephesians 2:19 and its context clearly imply the “saints” are not the saints of all time, but the saints under the Mosaic covenant - the Jews.

“They’re a saint though. They were citizens of someplace now: Heaven. That’s what [this verse] is talking about because Christ breaking down the middle partition gave you a gate to God.”

No, that’s not what this verse is talking about. Rick gave no reason from the text or context for either his explanation of “saints” nor the idea that the citizenship in mind in Ephesians 2 is heaven instead of Israel (which was demonstrated above).

“For the Jew, their goal was to get into the land. That was what they were looking forward to, to inherit the promise of getting their inheritance in the land. Today, your inheritance is in Heaven, not Israel.”

And Rick here just committed the fallacy of equivocation.


Rick’s argument is essentially: “We as Christians cannot be citizens of Israel because our prize is not Israel, but Heaven!” Did you catch it? I’ll put it again, this time by putting parenthesis to indicate meaning to a word. Rick basically uses one word with two meanings deceptively, “We as Christians cannot be citizens of Israel (the national people) because our prize is not Israel (the geographic land), but Heaven!“ In other words, Rick’s argument is that we cannot be citizens of the national covenant Israel because we aren’t promised the prize of the land of Israel. It’s an invalid and illogical argument.

“So that’s how you’re a fellowcitizen, you’re a citizen of heaven. We’ll look at a few scriptures here to show that. Look at Ephesians chapter 1 verse 3, ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings’, ‘spiritual blessings’, ‘in heavenly places in Christ:’. You’re not a citizen of Israel here. You’re a citizen of heaven. Ephesians chapter 2 verse 6, ‘And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:’. See Colossians 1:5, ‘For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;’. Look at 1 Peter, and I’m just looking at a few verses here. Again, we can look at many more. But my goal is to not make these videos into half hour studies on [Anderson’s] errors but to show you, and then you can go finish out the study. 1 Peter chapter 1 verse 2, ‘Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.’ I’m sorry, but that’s the second [book of Peter], but that’s interesting. That’s the second epistle of Peter. But just keep that in mind, ‘precious promises’. I actually read the wrong chapter but, I think it’s neat that that word popped up. 1 Peter chapter 1 verse 3, ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,’. [Our] inheritance is in heaven, not in Israel.”

Once again, Rick Jacoby is committing the fallacy of equivocation.

“[Anderson] just did like a bait and switch kind of thing. He took a passage where Paul was taking a promise to the Jews under the Old Covenant and trying to teach you a spiritual truth out of it about how you’re now able to get to God not going through the Jews per that covenant but going through Jesus Christ who broke down the walls of partition and made us a new man.”

Paul wasn’t taking any promise from the Jews and applying it to us. Paul is plainly saying that Gentile believers are citizens of Israel.

“So you don’t become a spiritual Jew, you become a Christian, a new man, neither Jew nor Gentile.”

There is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ Jesus meaning that God shows no special favor towards the Jew over the Gentile when both are in Jesus. But all believers are citizens of Israel and spiritual Jews.

“And you’ll see as we go through these videos how [Anderson] flips and flops on that as he sees fit to teach whatever he wants to teach. If one time he’s a spiritual Jew, next time he’s a Christian. And he talks about a Gentile church.”

A spiritual Jew is a Christian. Just because one is a Gentile, that doesn’t prevent him from being a Jew in God’s eyes. That’s the entire point of Ephesians 2.

“So, anyway, hopefully that you see now that that [verse] is talking about being a citizen of heaven, fellowcitizen of the saints, not a citizen of Israel.”

Sorry but I don’t. I interpret the Bible plainly and literally, and it teaches in Ephesians 2 that we as Christians are citizens of Israel.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Post Debate Thoughts | #KJVO

Okay, I just finished my KJV debate with Braden Anderton. Some post debate thoughts:
* I believe Braden was a very proper (well mannered) debater. He didn't mock or scream like other people do (e.g. James White). He was a good opponent.
* I still am KJV-Only and believe Braden is very wrong.
* In fact, since I did not have time to answer every one of his objections, I will be preparing an article to do that very thing.

** But I was able to get across my message and my main point: the KJV is God's perfect word because 1. God promised His words would be with His people, and 2. because God has endorsed and blessed the KJV among His people as His book. No other book has had as much blessing (or even close to) as the King James Bible. Read the book that God is giving us as His preserved words and that has thousands of manuscripts behind it. Also, the modern versions are based on mainly only two corrupt manuscripts that don't agree fully in any two consecutive verses.
I am very thankful to God for this debate and to Braden for willing to debate me.
And in case you haven't...PLEASE WATCH IT!!! God Bless:
www.OddInterviews.com/Debate

Monday, July 20, 2015

Tune In To KJV Debate!

Well, now I am scheduled to be part of a live streaming YouTube debate on KJV-Onlyism. See http://oddinterviews.com/debate/ for more info.


Saturday, July 11, 2015

Why You Should NOT Support “Audacity” - Critical Review

Update (7-12-15)
Ray Comfort and Living Waters have both banned me from their page for posting this article. Read the article that Ray Comfort does not want you to see!

Introduction



Recently, I was able to watch Ray Comfort’s new upcoming film “Audacity” which deals with the subject of homosexuality. The official website synopsis is below:

“From Living Waters, creators of the award-winning TV program “The Way of the Master” and the hit movies “180” and “Evolution vs. God,” comes the powerful film “Audacity.” Executive produced by TV co-host and best-selling author Ray Comfort (Hell’s Best Kept Secret, Scientific Facts in the Bible), this film delivers an unexpected, eye-opening look at the controversial topic of homosexuality.

Peter (Travis Owens) is an aspiring comedian encouraged by his friend Ben (Ben Price, Australia’s Got Talent finalist) to perform at the local comedy club. But stage fright isn’t Peter’s only fear. When confronted with one of today’s most divisive issues, he feels compelled to speak, but can he? Challenged by his coworker Diana (Molly Ritter) to defend his convictions about homosexuality and gay marriage, will he have the courage to stand for what he believes—even at the risk of losing a friendship? And how will he respond when faced with a harrowing life-or-death experience?

“Audacity” uses a unique approach to address a very sensitive subject in contemporary society. Regardless of your views on homosexuality, you’ll gain fresh insights and a new perspective.”

This film has received a lot of commendation and praise from a lot of big Christian ministries. After watching it, however, something has to be said about it’s complete lack in Biblical truth. I will not be reviewing the acting (although I thought it was good) since the film is not about acting, but about trying to communicate Biblical truth to a lost and dying world.

Bible Version

The first concern is what Bible Peter is reading. I know with the overall message of the film, this is but a small criticism especially with souls at stake. Honestly, if this was the only flaw, I would promote the film. But it wasn’t the only flaw, nor the biggest (which I will show later). Regardless, Peter reads to himself out of the New American Standard Bible in his tablet while conversing with Diana. After Diana finds out what it is (a Bible), she asks if Peter believes what it says. He responds, “Yeah, every word. But Living Waters with Ray Comfort does not believe that there is any Bible on earth that is pure in every word. They certainly don’t believe the NASB is the pure words of God (for they commonly use the New King James Version). Rather, they believe that the original manuscripts of the Bible (which no one has, we only have copies) were inspired. Ray Comfort claims he believes they have been preserved (the readings, not the actual manuscripts), but never tried to explain where we can get a copy of this fully preserved infallible Bible he speaks of. Furthermore, he’s contradicting himself by using The Scofield Bible as his personal reading Bible, using the NKJV as his ministry Bible, and using the NASB in his film. The Scofield and NKJV are based on the Scrivener Textus Receptus whereas the NASB is based on the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text. The two texts have very different readings and words in many places. All one has to do to see this is pick up a NKJV and go to the New Testament and see how many times it says in the footnotes, “NU Text says this...” It’s almost in every page where they differ. So no, Peter does not really believe every word of his NASB. I’m glad he doesn’t, otherwise he would think that God can be deceived.

Dreams and Visions

The second concern is the film has Peter having a dream that symbolizes that he has to tell sodomites (the biblical term for homosexuals is “sodomites”, after the sin of Sodom, so I’ll refer to them as such) about the gospel otherwise they’ll go to hell. First of all, you don’t need a dream to tell you that - only scripture, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” “Effeminate” in English means a man acting like a woman (aka, a sodomite, or homosexual). Those who are effeminate will not inherit God’s kingdom. Second, someone might easily interpret this dream as a vision given by God to Peter. But God doesn’t give visions to anybody - His final word is His book (The King James Bible).

Lordship Salvation

The third concern is with the gospel message presented. In the fictional film, some of Ray Comfort’s real interviews with sodomites are promoted. In them, Ray says to a sodomite who claims to be a Christian (but, of course, isn’t), “You’ve got to repent - turn from all sin. No lying, stealing, adultery, fornication, or homosexuality. You’ve got to turn from all sin. While the intentions were noble (to point out that a sodomite cannot be a true Christian), the response was unbiblical. Who can turn from all sin? Who can completely stop sinning? Who can completely stop lying, stealing, adultery, fornication, or homosexuality before they even become Christians? No one. In fact, Christians still sin! But they sin less and less each day. It’s a process called sanctification. No one can become perfect - and if we could, we wouldn’t need Jesus! Nowhere in the Bible is anyone called to stop sinning to be saved. Nowhere. This is a false message of Lordship Salvation that Ray has been promoting for years and adds works to the gospel. All one needs to do to be saved is repent (which is sorrow for sinning against God, not a turning from sin) and trust alone in Christ, not in works. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

In fact, at the end of one conversation, Ray Comfort asks a woman when she will turn from her sins. She said, Starting today” implying that salvation and repentance is a process, not a one time event. But the Bible teaches that it is a one time event. Look at Ephesians 2:8 again, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:”

Compromise of God’s Nature

The fourth concern is with Ray’s compromise on scripture. When asked if he believed Leviticus 20:13, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,” Ray responded, “We aren’t calling for the stoning of gays! We aren’t calling for the stoning of anyone! Think of the woman caught in the act of adultery. They wanted to stone her to death. But she was repentant, she put her trust in Jesus, and He said, “Go your way, and sin no more.”” First of all, Ray is twisting John 8 and the woman caught in adultery. Let’s look at the scripture. John 8:3-5 says, “And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?” This was a trick question.
“In John 8, the religious leaders of Jesus’ day — who Jesus says were the most evil people in history (Matthew 23:35) — brought an adulteress before Jesus. These men claimed to be the great “defenders” of God’s Law, and they claim to be so very concerned about the details of the law, and outraged that they caught a woman in the very act of adultery, so they bring the woman before Jesus to see if Jesus is as passionate a defender of the Law as they are. The Law of God commanded that BOTH the man and the woman be punished (Leviticus 20:10). Yet the man is not there. WITH WHOM was the woman caught in adultery — “in the very act?” Why is the other party not here as well? We can tell already that this whole thing is a fraud and a set-up” (Source: <http://vftonline.org/VFTINC/cp/John8.htm>).
“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her...And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.” (John 8:7,9).
...as they one-by-one slithered away like snakes, leaving only the woman, it became clear that these men were probably the ones who committed adultery with her. Thus the woman could not be stoned under Old Testament law, because there were no qualified witnesses to testify against her (an absolute requirement under the law) (Deut 17:7). Thus the woman could not have been convicted of the crime of adultery under Old Testament law, so it is no wonder that Jesus did not advocate her stoning. Jesus kept the OT law perfectly.” (Source: <http://vftonline.org/VFTINC/cp/John8.htm>).
Of course, someone who doesn’t have a case to execute the death sentence of others cannot do so. This was another masterful response from God Almighty to the tempting scholars and scribes of the day.

Regardless, Jesus was not at all saying that adulterers shouldn’t be stoned (put to death), but that in fact, all of those accusing her had no evidence in accordance with the Mosaic Civil Law. It was only because of the crowd’s adultery and unmet requirements for her stoning that it was illegal to do so. Jesus was upholding the Mosaic Civil Law and it’s commands, not denigrating them. After all, they were Jesus’ own laws for the people of Israel. How should we then treat the Mosaic Civil Law? As an outdated moral code for an unintelligent and intolerant society? That’s what the sodomites and most Christians, tragically, would have you to believe. No, we should uphold the Mosaic Civil Law as the perfect civil law of God. If any nation is to be a Christian nation, it must use God’s civil laws for the country’s civil laws. What better laws of the land could be made than that of God’s laws? Yes, we as Christians should be calling the government to put sodomites to death, as well as adulterers and murderers, just as prescribed in the Mosaic Civil Law. After all, “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.” (Psalm 19:7). Of course, we are not to kill sodomites ourselves, but it is the job and duty of the government to do so. And if the government should definitely not execute the death sentence on sodomites, can anybody show me in the Bible that we should not do such a thing? There is no such verse in scripture that tells us that if anybody seriously thinks the Mosaic Civil Law is a perfect civil law, they must be intolerant. Only the ungodly say so, and Ray along with many other Christians, has given in to compromise of what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. We as Christians should be calling for the death sentence of gays as the prophetic voice to the government that they are acting ungodly. To say that Jesus broke the laws He was under and that He Himself instituted is to accuse God of being immoral and inconsistent.

What Ray should have said to refute the idea that informed Christians are not for the stoning of sodomites is that we as Christians are under the New Covenant, which is disconnected from the old Mosaic Covenant that had the stoning of sodomites. That command was for the people of Israel and ended with the death of Jesus Christ.

Ironically, this passage of the woman caught in adultery is omitted in the Nestle Aland 26th Edition Greek Text, which the NASB follows. Of course, the NASB is what was being read by Peter earlier. But, the NASB not wanting to be too controversial, instead of following the Greek text and omitting the passage, it simply puts brackets around verses 1-11, and has a footnote saying, “Later [manuscripts] add the story of the adulterous woman, numbering it as [John] 7:53-8:11”. In other words, the NASB translators didn’t think the passage belonged in the Bible and encourage the reader to think likewise, but didn’t have the courage to actually remove it from the text completely. All of this to say that it is ironic that many Christians use this teaching to try and make Jesus go against His own law, yet don’t actually believe it belongs in scripture. Whether or not Ray believes it is inspired scripture is unclear.

No “Homosexual” Before The 1900’s

The fifth concern is the answer Peter gave to the question, “How come the word “homosexuality” hasn’t been in the Bible until a few decades ago?” It is true that the first popular Bible with the word “homosexual” in it was the Revised Standard Version (1971). The King James Bible doesn’t have the word, but two words that means the same thing, “effeminate” (a man acting like a woman or vice versa), and “sodomite” (anyone participating in the sin of Sodom, aka: homosexuality). So the correct answer to the question is: it wasn’t there, but an equivalent word was. However, Peter’s answer has some faults in it. He said, “It is true that the word “homosexuality” wasn’t in there because the word hadn’t been invented yet. It was only in sometime around 1900. But the original Greek word that was in there, that’s the exact equivalent to the modern word of “homosexuality”.” The answer is faulty because it leaves another question open, “what about before 1900? Does that mean that nobody understood that Greek word as meaning “homosexual” until 1900? Does that mean all Bibles before the 1900’s were homosexual tolerant?” Because no reference was made to the English word used before “homosexual” was invented, a skeptic might easily think, “Well, I’m still in the right, because the homosexual intolerance wasn’t always in the Bible!”

Conclusion and Application

At the end of the film, Emeal (“EZ”) Zwayne (the son in law of Ray Comfort), tells the viewer, “We hope that you see [this film’s] potential to reach millions of people all around the world. There are at least five big biblical concerns with this film. It promotes Bibles other than the KJV, and claims that someone who reads them believes every word of them, when they don’t. It promotes dreams and visions as God’s communication to us today. It promotes Lordship Salvation (which teaches works salvation). It compromises the nature of God as being a law breaker. Finally, it leaves open the idea that pre-1900 Bibles were homosexual tolerant.

So what should we as Bible Believing Christians do? We should warn others about this film. This could be in the form of an independent critical review of the film, or a simple sharing of this article to warn people not to watch “Audacity”. We should not let this film impact people towards unbiblical compromises and works salvation. Instead, we should contact Living Waters and complain to them, using the Bible, that their film is unbiblical. We should ask for them to honestly review it and revise it before it is released to the public. We should also pray that God would cause this film to have no impact on anyone towards works salvation and compromise. We should finally strive to produce more biblically sound films and media that correctly responds to homosexuality in this country.

When the film comes out, just don’t watch it (unless you want to review it and see if my claims are true), and don’t share it to anyone. Don’t support Living Waters by purchasing the film or extra booklets promoted in it until they change their message.

Friday, March 27, 2015

Monday, March 9, 2015

Responding To Pastor Gabriel Hughes | Defending God's Book

After watching an anti-KJV video by "WWUTT" (see video here: http://youtu.be/hFT0KSHCpY4), I was motivated to create a complete and thorough rebuttal to all of the claims in that video. After much work, my video is finally ready.

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

A Not-So-Ancient Jawbone

Recently, a fellow young earth creationist brought to my attention a recent news report that supposedly proves the earth is old. The find is an “ancient” jawbone of a person. Here’s one article reporting this find (I will reference this article below): Jaw bone discovered in Ethiopia is oldest known human lineage remains

First, let’s get our facts straight. I learned something a few months ago from Eric Hovind and the team at Creation Today - checking for “fuzzy words”. Fuzzy words are words in sentences that expresses uncertainty about a certain claim. “Perhaps”, “possibly”, “maybe”, “could have”, “is theorized”, are all examples of fuzzy words. So let’s now look at this news report to remove the fuzzy parts and only leave the real facts:

“A lower jaw bone and five teeth discovered on a hillside in Ethiopia are the oldest remains ever found that belong to the genus Homo, the lineage that ultimately led to modern humans.”

Okay, so far so good - no fuzzy words. But this claim by itself doesn’t prove anything. In reality, this sentence is only referring to the next sentences to back it up, so let’s look there:

“Fossil hunters spotted the jaw poking out of a rocky slope in the dry and dusty Afar region of the country about 250 miles from Addis Ababa.”

That’s true, but that still doesn’t show why this is supposedly ancient. It only shows where it was found. Moving on:

“The US-led research team believes the individual lived about 2.8m years ago, when the now parched landscape was open grassland and shrubs nourished by tree-lined rivers and wetlands.”

Here we have our first fuzzy claim - that this jawbone is 2.8 million years old. This conclusion by the research team are uncertain as to the true age of this fossil. So let’s remove that sentence from the picture to only keep the facts. The report continues:

“The remains are about 400,000 years older than fossils which had previously held the record as the earliest known specimens on the Homo lineage.”

Okay, no fuzzy words here, but again, how do they know this? They certainly haven’t given any evidence so far. Let’s continue:

“The discovery sheds light on a profoundly important but poorly understood period in human evolution that played out between two and three million years ago, when humans began the crucial transformation from ape-like animals into forms that used tools and eventually began to resemble modern humans.”

Here’s another fuzzy claim - human evolution happened about 2-3 million years ago. But according to their own statements, it is poorly understood. So they really aren’t certain that human evolution even happened 2-3 million years ago. Moving on:

““This is the the first inkling we have of that transition to modern behaviour. We were no longer solving problems with our bodies but with our brains,” said Brian Villmoare at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas.”

Here’s another fuzzy claim - humans were solving problems with their brains at the supposed (and uncertain) time of this jawbone. An inkling is another way of saying a hint or a clue. In other words, the research team is unsure about what was happening at the supposed time of this jawbone. Let’s continue:

“The new fossil, found at a site called Ledi-Geraru, has a handful of primitive features in common with an ancient forerunner of modern humans called Australopithecus afarensis. The most well-known specimen, the 3m-year-old Lucy, was unearthed in 1974 in Hadar, only 40 miles from the Ledi-Geraru site. But the latest fossil has more modern traits too. Some are seen only on the Homo lineage, such as a shallower chin bone.”

Okay, no fuzzy words here. We’ll get back to this claim in just a moment. Let’s continue:

“The picture that emerges from the fossil record is that 3m years ago, the ape-like Australopithecus afarensis died out and was superseded by two very different human forms. One, called Paranthropus, had a small brain, large teeth and strong jaw muscles for chewing its food. The other was the Homo lineage, which found itself with much larger brains, a solution that turned out to be more successful.”

Another fuzzy claim. By them saying that they have this information from a “picture that emerges” (e.g. a hint, a clue, just pieces of the puzzle), they are admitting their uncertainty of this claim. Moving on:

““By finding this jaw bone we’ve figured out where that trajectory started,” said Villamoare. “This is the first Homo. It marks in all likelihood a major adaptive transition.””

Yet ANOTHER fuzzy claim. They don’t know for sure that this jawbone they found was the first human being that evolved from an ape. They think it is, but that doesn’t make it so! Moving on:

“What drove Australopithethus to extinction and led to the rise of Homo is a mystery, but researchers suspect a dramatic change in the environment transformed the landscape of eastern Africa. “It could be that there was some sort of ecological shift and humans had to evolve or go extinct,” said Villmoare.”

These are even more indicators for this paragraph that this claim is indeed a fuzzy claim. They don’t know what supposedly made man evolve from ape - they’re just speculating! Moving on:

“Other fossils recovered nearby the new human remains suggest that the region was much wetter than Hadar where Lucy was found. Remnants of antelopes, prehistoric elephants, primitive hippos, crocodiles and fish were all recovered from the Ledi-Geraru site, researchers said. Details of the discoveries are reported in two papers published in Science.”

Again, this is another fuzzy claim. These researchers can’t tell you what climate these animals lived in by simply their bones. That’s insane! Moving on:

“The human jaw was discovered in January 2013 by Chalachew Seyoum, an Ethiopian national on the team, and a student at Arizona State University. He was part of a group that had set off from camp that morning to look for fossils on a hill that was later found to be brimming with ancient bones.”

Finally! A claim that isn’t fuzzy! But they never give the reason why that hill was full of “ancient bones.” Oh well. Moving on:

“Villamoare, who was on the expedition, recalled the moment of discovery. “I heard people yelling Brian! Brian! And I went round the corner and there was Chalachew. He recognised it, and said: ‘We’ve got a human.’ It had eroded out of the stratigraphy. It was in two pieces and was missing some of the teeth, but it was clearly of the genus Homo.””

Okay, no fuzzy claims here. I’m sure it was the jawbone of a human being - I have no doubt about that. Let’s continue:

“The fossil bones are too fragmentary to give them a human species name. The jawbone could belong to Homo habilis, known as “handy man”, the earliest known species on the Homo lineage. But Villamoare is not convinced. It could be a new species that lived before Homo habilis.”

Here we go again! This is just another fuzzy claim that this fossil was a missing link to humans (Homo Sapiens). They have no reason to believe this jawbone belonged to anything other than a human. Moving on:

“Other researchers agree. In a separate paper published in Nature, Fred Spoor at University College, London, reports a virtual reconstruction of a Homo habilis skull. “By digitally exploring what Homo habilis really looked like, we could infer the nature of its ancestor, but no such fossils were known,” said Spoor. “Now the Ledi-Geraru jaw has turned up as if on request, suggesting a plausible evolutionary link between Australopithecus afarensis and Homo habilis.””

More fuzzy claims. They don’t know what Homo habilis (the previously mentioned so-called missing link “handy man”) actually looked like! They only could explore the clues of what he looked like. But they can’t just find out things like facial structure of non-bone facial features like ears, the nose, lips, etc. They can’t even find out the skin color, the eye color, or the hair color - or even that he had hair! That’s why they are “exploring”, because they don’t know, and they can’t know. Plus, they don’t even know if this jawbone they found is the missing link between Australopithecus (the famous “Lucy”) and Homo habilis (“handy man”). This is all mere speculation from a bunch of researchers who have way too much time on their hands for imagination. Moving on:

“But until more remains are found, the mystery will remain. The US-led team has been back to the site this January to look for more fossils, but Villamoare said he cannot yet talk about what they did or did not find.”

In other words, this report is admitting that this entire story they have presented us based on their interpretation of the fossils is a big fuzzy story. Since this article is over, let’s reconstruct this article with only the claims that appear to be factual:

“A lower jaw bone and five teeth discovered on a hillside in Ethiopia are the oldest remains ever found that belong to the genus Homo, the lineage that ultimately led to modern humans.

Fossil hunters spotted the jaw poking out of a rocky slope in the dry and dusty Afar region of the country about 250 miles from Addis Ababa.

The remains are about 400,000 years older than fossils which had previously held the record as the earliest known specimens on the Homo lineage.

The new fossil, found at a site called Ledi-Geraru, has a handful of primitive features in common with an ancient forerunner of modern humans called Australopithecus afarensis. The most well-known specimen, the 3m-year-old Lucy, was unearthed in 1974 in Hadar, only 40 miles from the Ledi-Geraru site. But the latest fossil has more modern traits too. Some are seen only on the Homo lineage, such as a shallower chin bone.

The human jaw was discovered in January 2013 by Chalachew Seyoum, an Ethiopian national on the team, and a student at Arizona State University. He was part of a group that had set off from camp that morning to look for fossils on a hill that was later found to be brimming with ancient bones.

Villamoare, who was on the expedition, recalled the moment of discovery. “I heard people yelling Brian! Brian! And I went round the corner and there was Chalachew. He recognised it, and said: ‘We’ve got a human.’ It had eroded out of the stratigraphy. It was in two pieces and was missing some of the teeth, but it was clearly of the genus Homo.””

Alright, now that we see this more factual version of what was discovered, we find that these claims of great age upon this jawbone is a bunch of hot air. There is no sure evidence provided that these bones are really that old. Plus, the last statement from the real article says that their entire story of the age of this jawbone and it’s supposedly evolutionary history is a fuzzy story. So, let’s further remove those indirectly admitted fuzzy claims and their evolutionary bias (for which they provide no evidence):

“A lower jaw bone and five teeth discovered on a hillside in Ethiopia belong to the genus Homo.

Fossil hunters spotted the jaw poking out of a rocky slope in the dry and dusty Afar region of the country about 250 miles from Addis Ababa.

The new fossil, found at a site called Ledi-Geraru, has a handful of features in common with Australopithecus afarensis. The most well-known specimen, Lucy, was unearthed in 1974 in Hadar, only 40 miles from the Ledi-Geraru site. But the latest fossil has more human traits such as a shallower chin bone.

The human jaw was discovered in January 2013 by Chalachew Seyoum, an Ethiopian national on the team, and a student at Arizona State University. He was part of a group that had set off from camp that morning to look for fossils on a hill that was later found to be brimming with bones.

Villamoare, who was on the expedition, recalled the moment of discovery. “I heard people yelling Brian! Brian! And I went round the corner and there was Chalachew. He recognised it, and said: ‘We’ve got a human.’ It had eroded out of the stratigraphy. It was in two pieces and was missing some of the teeth, but it was clearly of the genus Homo.””

Now that we’ve finally got ourselves a factual article, there is every indication from the facts that all the scientists found was a human jawbone. That certainly is no threat to the Biblical teaching of a young earth, nor an evidence for evolution. What seemed at first to be like solid evidence for an old earth and evolution is just a bunch of hot air and bias.

Help Free Kent Hovind Today! #FreeKent

Dr. Kent Hovind is currently facing several charges of "mail fraud" which would place him in jail for the rest of his life. But all Dr. Hovind did was mail a legal document from the jail he's at. He isn't guilty of mail fraud! But all the odds are against him right now (e.g. public defender, anti-Christian judge, biased jury, etc.) If you want more info on this case, please visit www.FreeKentHovind.com.

If you want to know how you can help free Dr. Kent Hovind, please click on the following links to call Florida Representatives and know exactly what to tell them.

Senator Bill Nelson: http://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B-c4G-fIAxuJRXE5WFlpcEc1NkU
Congressman Jeff Miller: http://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B-c4G-fIAxuJZVFBM3Y5ZU5hS00
Senator Marco Rubio: http://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B-c4G-fIAxuJWjdGWjBvakR5dTA

#FreeKent

Friday, January 16, 2015

Come see me speak on the age of the earth!

Last month, someone named Charlene emailed me an invitation to speak at the creation group she is the program chairman of. She asked me because another creation speaker who was requested can’t make it, and because she had heard a recommendation by Bill Morgan, the creation speaker who first invited me to speak at his group.

On January 27 from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM, I will be speaking at Riverside Seventh Day Baptist (not Adventist) Church at 5901 Chicago Ave. Riverside, CA 92506. The topic will be, “The Age of The Earth”. Please consider coming to this event and learning more about the Biblical and scientific evidence for a young earth. Thanks be to God.