Video Placeholder






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 the Scriptures

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.

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 go against the Mosaic Civil 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 what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. 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.


Monday, December 1, 2014

NEW UPDATED Video on Distant Starlight

On November 1, 2014, I did a presentation about distant starlight, and how it doesn’t refute the Bible’s message of the age of the earth. Later, I uploaded a copy of the video to YouTube, which had less visual quality at 360p. But just today, I uploaded the original video to YouTube, which now has 480p quality. PLUS, it includes an extra 20 minutes of the Q&A session that wasn’t in my first video. So, here is the new video:

Thursday, November 27, 2014

See me speak on the infallibility of the Bible!



On November 1, I gave a presentation at a church about distant starlight and how it isn’t a problem for creation (see that presentation here: http://youtu.be/Hc0YlcrJzik). That same day, David Soto, a pastor from another church, approached me and asked if I would consider coming to speak at his church. I answered “yes”.

On November 30, I will deliver a presentation titled, “We Can Trust The Bible”. Pastor David will be preaching before me during the church service. The service begins at 9:30 AM and ends at 11:00 AM. Please consider coming to this church this Sunday for the service.
Thanks alone to God for giving me this incredible opportunity to teach the truth and proclaim the gospel!

Sunday, November 23, 2014

My Starlight Presentation is now available!

On November 1, 2014, I did a presentation about distant starlight, and how it doesn’t refute the Bible’s message of the age of the earth. Here is the video recording of it: