Video Placeholder

Saturday, February 6, 2016

“I Admit, I've Sinned.” - The Sin of Debate

I’ve done it just about every time I opened up my (now gone) Facebook page. I’ve challenged others to do it with me, and even succeeded in a live display of this sin: public debating. I know, I know, some of you are thinking, “Well he’s gone off the deep end now! What’s so bad about public debating? Isn’t that what Ken Ham did with Bill Nye?” Well, I’m here to tell you plainly that it’s a sin. Just do a simple word study of “debate” in the King James Bible, “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,” (Romans 1:29).

Below is an excellent sermon by Pastor Bryan Denlinger outlining from the King James Bible that public debate is a sin. I hereby repent from it and will never do such again. I urge you to make the same decision...which means you might have to quit Facebook for a while. :-)

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Hillsong’s “Silent Night” Rendition Is Still Satanic

Recently, there has been a lot of buzz over Hillsong’s rendition of Silent Night (shown below):

As you would expect from watching the video, Christians were outraged over this Satanic fleshly corruption of a perfectly fine Christian song. Here are just some of the (outraged) statements made over this song:
“[Sarcastic:] Because after all, it’s just not a proper celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ without Roaring 20’s flappers, rock bands, hoochie coochie dancers, laser light shows and lots and lots of leg in a nightclub setting. Happy Birthday, Jesus, hope you like it.” ~ Geoffrey Grider
“Hillsong leads the way when it comes to “churches” featuring worldly, gigantic and expensive spectacles to attract a large audience. They are laughing all the way to the bank, too, as this global empire continues to gobble up followers around the world.” ~ Steven Kozar
“[Sarcastic:] They do Christian Christmas carrols better than the world. Look how relevant Hillsong is – not even the world has taken this song to this… level.” ~ Church Watch Central
“It was so disgusting, I couldn’t even listen to it...I mean it was so vile, so filthy...It was bad...I would say anybody going there [to Hillsong Church] is lost.” ~ Bryan Denlinger
After a few days, however, many articles started to actually defend Hillsong Church against all the above “stone casters”. One such article by the well known Michael Brown was just published on CharismaNews. Most people who read such articles are prone to accept the “explanation” without question. But I (as the proverbial stone caster) will examine this explanation from an objective and biblical basis. Michael’s comments are in italics below:
“Jesus taught that we should “not judge according to appearance, but practice righteous judgment” (John 7:24).”
Well, first off, I can see that Michael is not quoting from the King James Bible (KJB), “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24 KJB).
“Along with many others who saw the video on YouTube, I was absolutely appalled by Hillsong’s super-slick, cabaret rendition of Silent Night.”
Good! You should be appalled by it!
“Obviously, I didn’t have all the facts, but what possible explanation could there be? The whole cabaret arrangement was atrocious, inexcusable, irreverent, mocking ... The list goes on and on. Still, I did not want to speak or act without more information or a clear leading from the Lord, and while I was giving the whole matter prayerful consideration, a Twitter follower shared with me a comment made by one of the pastors at Hillsong in Australia. He explained that this despicable version of Silent Night was designed to be cringeworthy in every way—in other words, it was intended to elicit the kinds of responses that it drew—and it was written and produced to portray Herod’s alleged desire to worship the newborn King. This, then, was meant to be the world’s version of Silent Night, which was anything but holy.”
So that’s the “explanation” - this wicked song is supposed to be wicked and worldly and make people “cringe” at it. Why? Because it’s supposed to represent King Herod’s hypocritical worship of Jesus simply to impress others.

This explanation is completely false and absurd on many levels. First off, if you know anything of the Christmas story, you know that the only people King Herod wanted to impress were the wise men from the East, “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.” (Matthew 2:1-8 KJB).

As you can see, King Herod was interested in only impressing the wise men that he was a worshiper of Jesus. In contrast, Herod “demanded” with threats the priests and scribes to explain to him where Jesus was to be born. So, it only makes sense that King Herod in the Hillsong play should present this “hypocritical” song to the wise men, right? Except he doesn’t. Instead, Herod actually cues in the music before the wise men come on the scene. And apparently, the song is not designed to impress anyone in the storyline - it is only designed as a general cue for the next song in the play (which means the song has nothing to do with the storyline). See for yourself with the same Hillsong play with different performers in another location (start on minute 15:15):

Plus, there is another serious flaw to this “explanation” promoted by Michael: if this song is supposed to make you cringe, why did everybody in the audience applaud this song when it was over (watch both of the above videos again to see what I’m talking about)? If this song is supposed to make you cringe, Hillsong did a very poor job at it by having the audience give the exact opposite reaction. But what’s more important is not how the audience reacted, but how Hillsong reacted to the audience’s reaction (hint: with willing acceptance of the praise from the audience).

This is very important because we actually have a biblical account for a similar situation with another King Herod, “And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.” (Acts 12:21-23 KJB). Notice that the audience gave Herod undue praise, and when Herod reacted with acceptance of this praise, God killed Him. This is because when the author (Herod) accepts the praise of the audience (“the voice of a god”), it shows that the author agrees with the audience. That’s not just my opinion, that’s how God sees it.

Likewise, when Hillsong’s audience gave tremendous praise and applause to the song, and since Hillsong accepted it with smiles on the performers’ faces, it proves by God’s own standard that Hillsong was agreeing with their praise. Hillsong was agreeing with the audience that this was a wonderful song for Christians and not a “cringeworthy” song. What Hillsong should have done to prove that they intended this song to be hypocritical would be to have the performers sorrowfully tell the audience immediately that this song was not supposed to be good! Instead, Hillsong Church accepted and thus agreed with the audience’s praise that this Satanic fleshly rendition of Silent Night is a good song!

Even if the song was originally intended to be cringeworthy (which I seriously doubt), it became (through Hillsong’s acceptance of praise) intended to be a good Christian song. And since Hillsong was apparently okay with accepting praise for this evil performance, I’m okay with condemning it as an example of a wicked song intended to be Christian.
“The pastor also explained that later in the Christmas play, in adoration of Jesus, Silent Night was sung again, this time the right way, in stark contrast with Herod’s version.”
 Michael is referring to this song performed by the same Hillsong Church:

But even with this toned down version, Hillsong still managed to make it worldly by adding a rhythm and beat to make it more exciting to the lost. Not to mention there is no indication that this song is even supposed to be an opposite of “Herod’s” version of the song.
“But for those who completely threw them under the bus because of their cabaret version of Silent Night, this should be a cautionary lesson. It’s a lesson we should all learn well, since we will be judged in the same way that we judge others.”
By that, I know I’ll be judged by God scripturally and justly :-). How can Michael (or anyone else for that matter) claim that this evil rendition of Silent Night by Hillsong could be justified when the evidence is clearly against them? This is simply a poor excuse to dismiss the evils of Hillsong Church at any cost. We as Christians need to continue to protest this evil fleshly song and Hillsong Church for their (not Herod’s) hypocrisy.

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Testing Roman Catholicism - Intro Objections Answered

Here are some objections I have received for even thinking of holding the Roman Catholic Church to the fire of inspired first century church documents (the New Testament):

1. You can't interpret the New Testament without the Holy Mother Church!
Answer: What do you mean I can't interpret a first century document without "Holy Mother Church"? Why is it that I (and plenty of other people) can interpret other works of antiquity just fine without the Roman Catholic Church? Why does the Roman Church's interpretation reign supreme here?

The common response I get when asking these questions is: because the Roman Church is God's true church! But then I ask, "how do I know they are God's true church?" Catholic answer: because they go back to the first century! As you can see (click on to make bigger) in the diagram below, this is circular reasoning and can be dismissed as illogical.

2. You're a biased Protestant who will give credence to Protestantism and Lutheranism instead of Roman Catholicism!
Answer: No, I am not a protestant, in the strictest sense. Protestants are those who originally protested against the Catholic church in the 1500s. Modern day Protestants are commonly known as Reformed and hold to the beliefs of the original Protestants and Reformers. This would be true of any church that completely holds to any of the detailed reformed confessions and the Bible as a dualistic authority - scripture + church tradition (note: reformed guys claim sola scriptura but still treat their confession as if it were a sort of sub-scripture: not the inspired word of God but what we should believe nonetheless because it goes back in history, aka tradition). The reason I do not identify myself as a protestant or "reformed" is because I do not hold completely to any of the detailed reformed confessions. I only believe the King James Bible as God's book. I'm a Bible Believer. That doesn't mean I think Protestants are of Satan, but simply that we hold different non-essential beliefs stemming from different origins. They are my brothers in Christ. I'm grateful for the work of the Protestants to free the people from the control of the Catholic church (without which I wouldn't have the right to do this study), but that doesn't mean I follow the original reformers as a source of my doctrine. The Protestant derives his doctrinal beliefs from scripture plus the reformed tradition and I derive it straight from the Bible. So no, I'm not a biased Protestant who will give credence to strict protestantism. I'm a Bible Believer who will give credence to whatever the Bible (in this case, the New Testament) says. In that case, it will be extremely unbiased. You Catholics then have nothing to worry about! If the New Testament clearly teaches and affirms Roman Catholicism like you say it does, then I should accept it as well as an unbiased Bible Believer!

3. Forget the New Testament! Catholics existed in the first century! It's true!
Answer: all of the alleged quotes of early church fathers in support of Catholicism come after the first century. Why do you want me to avoid the New Testament? Are you afraid it might actually expose you as being of Satan?

Now that the objections are laid aside, let's dig in to the New Testament!

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!

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:

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 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!


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: <>).
“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). 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: <>).
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:, 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.