R. Albert Mohler & C. John Collins: Does Scripture Speak Definitively on the Age of the Universe?

al-mohler

Whether one traces the origins of evangelicalism to the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, or back further to the great awakenings in the 18th and 19th centuries, the age of the earth has been a pressing question throughout its history.

Evidenced by the question’s staying-power, a satisfying resolution has remained hard to come by. At bedrock the debate raises several important exegetical and theological questions addressing issues like biblical authority, the proper interpretation of opening chapters of Genesis, and the relation between scientific and theological knowledge, to name only a few of the more difficult ones.

In this year’s debate, prominent evangelical voices C. John Collins and R. Albert Mohler will debate this important question and the wider issues surrounding how one responds to it.

TIU News EFCA Theology Conference:

The creation presentation featured C. John (Jack) Collins, professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary and a scholar-in-residence this year at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS), along with R. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Their discussion, titled “Does Scripture speak about the age of the universe?” was part of the Creation Project, a three-year program at TEDS. The Templeton Religion Trust funds the project.

Both Mohler and Collins agreed that the question before them was not a matter of first-order theological orthodoxy, even if it does raise questions about other issues that lean into essentials of the faith.

Mohler argued an “old earth” interpretation opens the door for potentially dangerous theological compromises, and is not in keeping with the consensus of the historic church.

Collins countered that Scripture does not fully answer the age question, and is therefore irrelevant when interpreting the creation account.

After putting forth initial arguments, Trinity College Professor of Philosophy Chris Firestone moderated a panel discussion between Collins and Mohler.

The Flood and Noah

photo credit www.theguardian.com

Somehow these videos are still out there and youtube has not removed them. So, watch while they are still up

The Creation and Flood of Genesis

The story begins with the creation of Man and Woman, the sin committed by Adam and Eve, and the temptationby the snake, which led to their banishment from Paradise. The story continues with the first crime committed by mankind, Cain’s murder of his brother, the condemnation of God, mankind’s corruption and evil, and God’s regret for having created earth. The choice of Noah, a just and upright man to build the Ark, the flood and its clearing the way for a new mankind, the pact of the eternal Covenant between God and all living beings, are told through the clear and simple words of an old nomad shepherd. VIDEO by Victor Girona Noah’s story begins at the 65th minute.

 Noah’s Ark Movie

Genesis 1-11: Why Does It Matter? Part 1

Genesis 1-11: Why Does It Matter?
Brian Catalucci – Creation Seminar 1/5

http://answersingenesis.org | Creation Seminar Introduction and Overview PART 1 of 5 – Why Does It Matter? with Creation Speaker Brian Catalucci. Biblical and scientific reasons why we should not compromise God’s Word with evolution, including biblical and scientific evidences for a worldwide flood, why it matters what we believe, and the cost of compromise.

Bio – http://www.answersingenesis.org/event… Brian grew up in a Christian home but attended public schools that taught evolution as man’s beginnings. Brian was a fighter pilot in the Air National Guard for 20 years, and a Captain and pilot for a major national airline for over 32 years. In his early forties, he studied for a graduate degree in computer science. During that period of time, he began to realize that information was the building block of the entire universe. But where did all the information come from? He discovered that the laws of science, all of man’s inventions, and all the computer algorithms and information systems people use have already existed in nature. Humans just figured out how to use them. For the first time in his life, Brian really believed there had to be a Creator God through whom all the information in the universe came into being. He found Him in the Lord Jesus Christ.

In 1993, Brian graduated with a Master’s degree in computer science and engineering from the University Of Colorado. For 10 years, he was President of Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship (http://youngearth.org/) in Denver, Colorado, where he gave presentations and worked closely with AiG to bring many highly qualified speakers on creation topics to the Denver area. Brian has appeared on both TV and radio shows regarding Biblical and Creation Science topics, and has given many presentations all across the USA on Genesis, dinosaurs, aliens/UFOs, ancient man, and the founding fathers. He is presently an adjunct speaker for Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/) on a variety of topics, including Genesis, biblical creation, science, Christian apologetics, and the inerrancy of Scripture.

Brian has been married to his wife Lise for over 32 years and they now reside in Denver, Colorado. He is currently working on his PhD dissertation in theology and apologetics.

VIDEO by slaves4christ

Bill Nye the ‘Science Guy’ debates head of Creation Museum, Ken Ham, on evolution, earth’s origin

Photo credit www.salon.com

A synopsis of a great debate (one I was not able to watch yet, but now we have the video) whether you are from either camp, olda age earth or young age earth, here is the synopsis from foxnews,com

True to his passionate and animated TV persona, „Science Guy” Bill Nye tapped on the podium, threw up his hands and noted that science shows the Earth is „billions and billions” of years old in a debate at a Kentucky museum known for teaching that the planet’s age is only 6,000.

Nye was debating Creation Museum founder Ken Ham and promoting science in the snappy way that made him a pop culture staple as host of „Bill Nye The Science Guy” in the 1990s.

The event was meant to explore the age old question, „How did we get here?” from the perspectives of faith and science.

Ham, an Australian native who has built a thriving ministry in Kentucky, said he trusts the story of creation presented by the Bible.

„The Bible is the word of God,” Ham said. „I admit that’s where I start from.”

‘The majority of people out there, they’re interested in this topic, they don’t want debate shut down.’

– Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum

Nye delivered a passionate speech on science and challenged the museum’s teachings on the age of the earth and the Bible’s flood story. Like most scientists, Nye believes there is no credible evidence that the world is only 6,000 years old.

At times, the debate had the feel of a university lecture, with slides and long-form presentations.
Read more here – foxnews,com

VIDEO by islandonlinenews

Is Intelligent Design Scientific & How Does It Relate to Creation Beliefs ?

Dr. Emil Silvestru discusses Intelligent Design. He answers many questions, including:

  • Is Intelligent Design scientific?
  • and most importantly: Is the Intelligent Design theory creationism?

Short answer: Intelligent Design does not speak about  the creator of the universe and there are many problems with the theory.

Published on Oct 15, 2012 by 

http://creation.com | Dr Emil Silvestru answers „Is Intelligent Design Scientific?”

Emil earned his Ph.D in geology at the Babes-Bolyai University in Cluj, Romania, (where he has worked as an associate professor) in karst sedimentology. An authority on the geology of caves, he has written one book (The Cave Book), published over 48 peer-reviews scientific articles, and co-authored three books: Terra – Catastrophe Naturale (Terra – Natural Catastrophes), The Geologic Column: Perspectives within Diluvial Geology and Rock Solid Answers.

Before moving into full-time creation ministry in 1997 Emil was the head scientist at the worlds first Speleological Institute (speleology = the study of caves) in Cluj. His areas of expertise include: karstology, sedimentology, geology and hydrogeology of limestone terranes, cave glaciology, show cave assessment & design, exploration and geology of metamorphic ore deposits.He has over 30 years experience in climbing and spelunking, educating many young spelunkers and mountain climbing devotees as well as participating in mountain and cave rescue operations.

After becoming a Christian in 1994, Emil began to re-think previously held views on the age of the earth. Image In particular he became interested in studying the geological processes that resulted from the world-wide flood recorded in Genesis. He became convinced that the flood provided exceptional conditions that greatly accelerated the geological processes commonly thought to take millions of years. In January 2002 he immigrated to Canada from Romania with his family. Emil now works full-time for Creation Ministries International-Canada as a researcher, writer and speaker.

In 2012 Emil suffered a stroke from which he has not yet fully recovered.

Dr. Emil Silvestru – The Darwin Delusion

A lecture by Dr. Emil Silvestru, Romania’s foremost Geologist, born and raised in communist Romania, who founded the world’s first Speleological Institute (speleology is the study of caves) lectures on Charles Darwin who also was a speleologist at the beginning of his career. Dr. Silvestru recounts Darwin’s life and work and the influences that formed him during his lifetime. This lecture gives many historical details spanning several continents and detailing the prevailing philosophies and politics of Darwin’s time concluding with Darwin’s influence on eugenics- including abortion.

A tip for playing the video. Press the play button, wait 5 seconds and press the stop button. Wait a few minutes for the play bar to start downloading on your computer and then press start. For some reason, when the video stopped for me I got a green screen and I had to refresh the page and wait for the play bar to re load again so I could go back to the minute mark where it originally stopped. The video is well worth watching though, so please be patient.

Dr. Emil Silvestru – „The Darwin Delusion” – September 27th, 2009 Evening Service from Peoples Montreal on Vimeo.

Dr. Emil Silvestru’s bio – Emil earned his Ph.D in geology at the Babes-Bolyai University in Cluj, Romania, (where he has worked as an associate professor) in karst sedimentology. An authority on the geology of caves, he has written one book (The Cave Book), published over 48 peer-reviews scientific articles, and co-authored three books: Terra – Catastrophe Naturale (Terra – Natural Catastrophes), The Geologic Column: Perspectives within Diluvial Geology and Rock Solid Answers.

Before moving into full-time creation ministry in 1997 Emil was the head scientist at the worlds first Speleological Institute (speleology = the study of caves) in Cluj. His areas of expertise include: karstology, sedimentology, geology and hydrogeology of limestone terranes, cave glaciology, show cave assessment & design, exploration and geology of metamorphic ore deposits.He has over 30 years experience in climbing and spelunking, educating many young spelunkers and mountain climbing devotees as well as participating in mountain and cave rescue operations.

After becoming a Christian in 1994, Emil began to re-think previously held views on the age of the earth. In particular he became interested in studying the geological processes that resulted from the world-wide flood recorded in Genesis. He became convinced that the flood provided exceptional conditions that greatly accelerated the geological processes commonly thought to take millions of years. In January 2002 he immigrated to Canada from Romania with his family. Emil now works full-time for Creation Ministries International-Canada as a researcher, writer and speaker. (Read it in its entirety here – http://creation.com/emil-silvestru, including links to his published scientific papers )

In the summer of 2012 Emil suffered a stroke from which he has not yet fully recovered. Please pray for Dr. Silvestru.

ALSO READ: Caving in to creation – Dr Carl Wieland interviews Romanian geologist and world cave authority Dr Emil Silvestru

John Piper on „old earth” age and evolution

Old Earth vs. Youung Earth (Biblical account) chart from Answers in Genesis Click on photo to read more on this comparison between the two beliefs.

Glad to know John Piper’s view:

By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

The following is an edited transcript of the audio.

Do you accept „old earth” and evolution?

If by „accept” you mean, „Are there people on our counsel of elders who hold to the old earth theory?” then, Yes.

If by „accept” you mean, „Is that my view?” here is what I said the other day when the church staff was talking about this. We spent about an hour, talking about how we as a church should orient ourselves in the conversation about old earth and young earth, and I said that there seem to be two viable, biblical views for me. (This is going to offend a lot of people.)

One is young earth, because it seems to me that the natural reading of Genesis 1 is 24-hour days, not Day-Age.

And two, the view that John Sailhamer wrote in Genesis Unbound or in his other books, which says that all of creation happened in verses 1 and 2. It may be as old as 4 trillion years, as far as he is concerned, and what was happening in Genesis 1 each day was not the bringing into being of the earth and its various forms, but rather the ordering, managing and structuring of things. This allows for 24 hour days but also allows for an old earth.

I lean that way. I don’t believe in evolution as the way that Adam came to be a human. I think God created Adam from the dust of the ground. I think he was unique and that he is the father of all humanity—Adam and Eve—and that he is not the product of a long evolutionary process. I can’t make that jive with the way the text reads.

And I think that it’s very important that Adam be a historical figure, because that’s the way he is treated by the other biblical writers. The heart passage in Romans 5 collapses, and the whole nature of God’s making with Adam a covenant and then him failing and then Christ being a second Adam comes to naught, if he’s not a historical person.

© Desiring God

Does Biology Make Sense Without Darwin? Dr. David Menton

Dr. David Menton brings a wealth of knowledge from a long career to answer the important question, „Does biology make sense without Darwin?” It is often claimed that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, but this is simply not the case. Examining evolutionist claims about the eye, the origin of feathers, and human hair, Dr. Menton shows that the answer to the question is an emphatic YES!

When we start from a biblical perspective, we can make sense of the world around us—no Darwin required.

Buy the DVD of this video here:http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Does-Biology-Make-Sense-W…

Uploaded by 

The Evolutionary Paradigm – „Our present knowledge indeed forces us to view that the whole of reality is evolution – a single process of self transformation. – Julian Huxley, What is Science, 1955 p.278

Everyone in this box  is quite sure that there is nothing outside this box. That’s a paradigm: thinking outside of this box is simply unthinkable. Now, when someone believes that the whole of reality is evolution, that there is nothing else, that everything is just spontaneously self transforming through natural processes, their best argument for evolution is 2 words: How else? There isn’t any other way.

They cannot think of any other possibility that does not include random chance processes. Because of this we have what is called Dobzhansky’s Dictum: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. (Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) was a leading 20th century evolutionist.

Evolution would appear to be „highly superfluous”

Some evolutionists have come to the same conclusion (as non evolutionists), that evolution is not essential. In the years that I taught at the medical I school, I didn’t bother to teach anything about evolution.  Adam S. Wilkins: „Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous (unnecessary) one”.(From his introduction to Evolutionary processes).

Mark Kirschner, Boston Globe, October 23, 2005: „In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all”. He is Chairman os Systems Biology at Harvard’s Medical School and very distinguished, well known evolutionist.

Isn’t it incredible that over the last 100 years we have had the most incredible breakthroughs all over biology. Think of just molecular genetics, DNA all by itself and in many other fields.

What kinds of questions have they answered with evolution?

What about the origin of life?

P. Davies (Director of the Astro Biological Research Center at Arizona State University)in the New Scientist vol 163-2204  (1999) p 27-30: „How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software, and where did the very peculiar form of information needed to get the first living cell up and running come from? Nobody knows. 

The only new source of genetic information is mutation. Normally cells divide only 15-20 times, maybe that is why we only live to be so old. But in cancer  (An example of mutation) cells can divide forever.

What do we know about mutations? 

Dr. James Crow (Chairman of Genetics at U. Wisconsin Medical School 1997) : The typical mutation is very mild. It usually has no effect, but shows up as a small decrease in viability or fertility„. This is interesting because natural selection, which we hear as being the explanation for everything, „It’s not chance,” the evolutionist will tell you, „It’s natural selection”. It takes it out of the realm of chance in order to make it inevitable.  How do we define natural selection?  We can define it in 2 words: Differential reproduction. Basically do you leave more offspring or don’t you? It has nothing to do with you being the meanest, baddest animal in the forest. You don’t go around kicking the other animals and taking their food away. If you don’t leave any offspring, what’s the difference? It’s differential reproduction. Yet, Dr. Crow tells us that the typical mutation shows up only as a small decrease in viability or fertility. Precisely the opposite of what we want for natural selection, where we want to have a progressive increase in the number of offspring.

One gentleman who studied this whole business of mutations and natural selection a great deal is Motoo Kimura PhD, Evolutionary Geneticist and he came up with what’s known as Kimura Distribution, it shows the effects of mutation on the population. In it, Kimura says he doesn’t even know of any natural mutations. Kimura came up with this: He said we have a no selection zone. Most mutations fall below the radar and you know what this means? It means we are collecting them. It’s called a genetic load.

Did evolutionists have the answer or did creationists have a better read on things?

Let’s start with the human eye. Bad design or bad science? Some people say the human eye is very badly designed. For example, Frank Zindler, a retired biologist says, „Although the human eye would be a scandal if it were the result of divine deliberation, a plausible evolutionary explanation of its absurd construction can be obtained quite easily…” He is saying that the eye is so badly designed that if a god of any kind were to lay any claim to it, it would be a scandal. Then he goes on to say, „However, you expect junk from evolution”. After all, you take a process that is mindless, purposeless, goalless, random chance processes… try going on a fishing trip that way, with no planning, no goal, no objective. That is why he says that is the plausible explanation (evolution) for its port construction.

The construction of the human eye – good or bad?

Why does he say the eye is absurd? In fact a lot of biology textbooks make this same point. Dr. Menton shows a view of the retina. Did you know the retina is part of the brain? The whole eye with the exception of the cornea and the lens is part of the brain. Because it’s part of the brain, you do not have nerves in there, there’s fiber tracts and you have ganglia cells and what have you and you see the layers. It’s like a layer cake. On the more superficial aspect, we have the optic nerve fibers, then we have the ganglia, bipolar neurons, and other cells and nuclei in there and then way down in the bottom, that’s where the photoreceptor cells are. These are those cells that you may have heard of that have the rods in the cones. Cones, sensitive to color light and rods to just black and white. At the very bottom you get the pigment layer. This layer is just full of pigment. It is pitch black down there and it has a virtual lake of blood. Not just blood vessels, but big, huge channels full of blood and the reason for that is these photo receptors at the bottom are among the most highly metabolicly active cells in our body. They require a lake of blood.

What the evolutionists are saying is this: Where’s your God? He got the film in the camera upside down. Years ago I used to do photography and when loading the film in the dark, if you weren’t careful you would load it backwards and when you’d take a picture you’d get nothing. So the evolutionists say: Your God got the film upside down. You see the light coming from the top down and at the very bottom are the rods and cones. So, a photon of light has to come down from the top, going through all those layers, until it finally gets down to the bottom and the evolutionist proposes, „Wel, there goes your resolution. The retina’s going to have really lousy resolution because the photon’s been bumped around through all that stuff (the other layers)  and then of course it’s going to interfere with light sensitivity”. We have 2 problems just for starters.

What they say is true enough. It would appear that it would interfere with resolution and light sensitivity. And yet, neurophysiologists have demonstrated that those rods and cones are sensitive to single photons of light. And as far as resolution is concerned, the retina is better than the lens in the cornea. Our eyes are what we call refraction limited. They’re limited by the optics, not by the retina. The retina is way ahead of the optics. There are very good reasons why you want the retina upside down: you want to keep these very demanding cells right there in that lake of blood. Another reason is, when a photon comes down to that retina, when it finally gets to the bottom it fires a photoreceptor cell and then the next thing that must happen to it is that it must be trapped in that retinal pigment layer, because if it refracted off things and came back and hit the receptor a second time on a bounce you would burn out the receptors faster than you do now. Do you have an idea how fast you burn out your rods and cones right now? They’re to be turned over about every two weeks. So there are good reasons for having it down there and I could give you a lot of others.

Ravi Zacharias – Four Gardens (thoughts on the Resurrection) from India

Excerpt from Jesus among other Gods via Ravi Zacharias Media:

Ravi Zacharias discusses creation through four components-

  1. There is a Creator
  2. There is purpose
  3. We are not alone
  4. We are moral entities
  • The first is the Garden of the Word (John 1:1)
  • Second is garden of context („It is written”- echoes throughout the Bible) and is the context by which we determine what is right and wrong
  • Third is the garden of contest (Garden of Ghetsemane- single most magnificent work of Christ prior to the Resurrection-by understanding the work of the cross fully 1 Cor 2:2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you, except Jesus Christ and him crucified). Jesus did not die a martyr’s death for some worthy cause, nor did He die like a lamb going to the slaughter so that those who stood for what He stood for would be galavanized…When He went to the cross, He went to provide a way, so that the very ones who crucified Him, that’s you and I, might have a way provided for our forgiveness. One of the most precious truths emerges here, in the Garden of Ghetsemane-the reality of forgiveness. Think about it, no matter what your life, what your past was, we know one who knows us and is willing to say to us, „You are forgiven!”
  • The garden of Conquest – John 20:11-16,18 describes the Resurrection of Jesus. Muhammad was laid to rest, there are questions about pantheistic gods  that they never existed. Buddha never talked about God.  Yet  in Jesus, here is more than a gardener (John 20:15), here is the Lord who rose from the dead and gives to you and to me eternal life.

If you are squeamish skip at minute 17 (footage from India, people piercing their bodies in search of atonement through Hinduism)

Was life begun by chance? Not a chance! via Beliefnet

I remember learning about the Big Bang theory,

Mai mult

The New Atheism by Norman L. Geisler (Essential apologetics -The Creation debate)

An excellent video (uploaded to Youtube via rfvidz)  in which Norman L Geisler, currently Distinguished Professor of Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, CA (www.VeritasSeminary.com) lectures on the New Atheists and discusses -why people believe in God, why people reject God’s existence. One noteworthy point is when he states that Theological liberals are rejecting Creationism, while Agnostic scientists know that the Universe did in fact have a beginning (it wasn’t always (forever) around and they affirm the biblical view of the origin of the world. So, liberal Christians are putting their faith in the science of evolution, just when scientists are not.

Videourile Vodpod nu mai sunt disponibile.

The New Atheism (by Norman L. Geisler), posted with vodpod

..and what atheist Richard Dawkins says – that evolution leads to atheism.. from his conference in 2007. (So why then do older, orthodox Christians fall into the trap of citing science for their basis of evolution when scientists know evolution is an unprovable theory?)  It was hard listening to Dawkins when he talked about how children should not be exposed to identity in religion, but should be taught all religions and then kids should be told that when they are old enough they can choose which ever religion they wish.  Very chilling humanist agend that remindsme of communism in so many ways (and I lived under communism for 8 years- I speak from the inside not from a theoretical basis ).
Videourile Vodpod nu mai sunt disponibile.

‘The New Atheism’ by Richard Dawkins, AAI 2007
Follow my videos on vodpod

Did Moses really write Genesis? Russell Grigg

Creation Ministries International via Apologetics315

A deadly hypothesis denying that Moses had anything to do with Genesis, based on spurious scholarship, is still widely being taught to future Christian leaders.

by Russell Grigg

Egyptian ruins

Egyptian ruins. Internal evidences in the text of the Pentateuch indicate that the author was familiar with Egyptian customs, as would be expected of Moses.

Nearly all liberal Bible colleges and seminaries, and sadly some which profess conservative evangelical doctrine, approvingly teach the ‘documentary hypothesis’, also known as the ‘JEDP hypothesis’.

What is the documentary hypothesis?

This is the liberal/critical view which denies that Moses wrote Genesis to Deuteronomy. It teaches that various anonymous authors compiled these five books (plus other portions of the Old Testament) from centuries of oral tradition, up to 900 years after Moses lived (if, in this view, he even existed). These hypothetical narrators are designated as follows:

  • J (standing for what the documentary hypothesists would term Jahwist) supposedly lived about 900–850 BC. He/she/they allegedly gathered the myths and legends of Babylon and other nations, and added them to the ‘camp-fire stories’ of the Hebrews, producing those biblical passages where the Hebrew letters YHWH (‘Jehovah’) are used as the name of God.
  • E (standing for Elohist) supposedly lived about 750–700 BC in the northern kingdom (Israel), and wrote those passages where ’Elohim is used as the word for God.
  • D supposedly wrote most of Deuteronomy, probably the book found in the temple in Jerusalem in 621 BC. (2 Kings 22:8).
  • P supposedly represents a Priest (or priests) who lived during the exile in Babylon and allegedly composed a code of holiness for the people.
  • Various editors R (from German Redakteur) supposedly put it all together.

The idea of multiple authorship of these books was first proposed by Jean Astruc in Paris in 1753. However, the foremost exponent was Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), who ‘restated the Documentary Hypothesis … in terms of the evolutionary view of history which was prevalent in philosophical circles at the time’.1,2 He claimed that those parts of the Old Testament that dealt with sophisticated doctrine (one God, the Ten Commandments, the tabernacle, etc.) were not truth revealed by the living God, but were ideas that evolved from lower stages of thinking, including polytheism, animism, ancestor worship, etc.3 Hence the ‘need’ to find or fabricate later authors. One of the main arguments was that writing had supposedly not been invented yet at the time of Moses.

Thus the documentary hypothesis undermines the authenticity of the Genesis Creation/Fall/Flood accounts, as well as the whole patriarchal history of Israel. It presupposes that the whole of the Old Testament is one gigantic literary fraud, and calls into question not only the integrity of Moses, but also the trustworthiness/divinity of Jesus (see point 5 below). No wonder the critics have embraced it so warmly!

Was Moses J, E, D, P, or R?

Answer: He was none of the above. Rather, Moses himself was both writer and editor of the Pentateuch, and these five books were composed by him in about 1400 BC , not by unknowns at the time of the Exile. This does not mean that Moses did not use other written sources available to him (see later), or that he wrote the last few verses of Deuteronomy 34 that record his death. Talmudic (Rabbinic Jewish) tradition has always been that these were added, under divine inspiration, by Joshua.

There is no external evidence at all in support of J, E, D, P, or R. What were their names? What else did these alleged literary savants write? History, both Hebrew and secular, knows nothing of them. They exist only in the fertile imaginations of the inventors of the documentary hypothesis.

Evidence for Moses authorship of the Pentateuch

Clay tabletsClay tablets like this were ideal for long-term written records. Far from ‘Flintstones’ clumsiness, these could be held in one hand.
Patriarchal records may have been carried on the Ark, later used by Moses in compiling Genesis (under inspiration).

The evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, often referred to in the Bible as ‘the Law’ (Hebrew torah), is overwhelming:

  1. Contrary to the views of Wellhausen and others, archaeological research has established that writing was indeed well known in Moses’ day. The JEDP hypothesis falsely assumes that the Iraelites waited until many centuries after the foundation of their nation before committing any of their history or laws to written form, even though their neighbours kept written records of their own history and religion from before the time of Moses.4
  2. The author is obviously an eyewitness of the Exodus from Egypt, familiar with the geography,5 flora and fauna of the region;6 he uses several Egyptian words,7 and refers to customs that go back to the second millennium BC.8
  3. The Pentateuch claims in many places that Moses was the writer, e.g. Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24.
  4. Many times in the rest of the Old Testament, Moses is said to have been the writer, e.g. Joshua 1:7–8; 8:32–34; Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13.
  5. In the New Testament, Jesus frequently spoke of Moses’ writings or the Law of Moses, e.g. Matthew 8:4; 19:7–8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46–47; 7:19. Jesus said that those who ‘hear not [i.e. reject] Moses’ would not be persuaded ‘though one rose from the dead’ (Luke 16:31). Thus we see that those churches and seminaries which reject the historicity of Moses’ writings often also reject the literal bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
  6. Other New Testament speakers/writers said the same thing, e.g. John 1:17; Acts 6:14; 13:39; 15:5; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Hebrews 10:28.

Does this mean that Moses wrote Genesis without reference to any previous information? Not necessarily. Genesis comprises narratives of historical events that occurred before Moses was born. Moses may very well have had access to patriarchal records and/or reliable oral traditions of these events. In that case, such records would certainly have been preserved by being written (probably on clay tablets) and handed down from father to son via the line of
Adam-Seth-Noah-Shem-Abraham-Isaac-Jacob, etc.

There are 11 verses in Genesis which read, ‘These are (or ‘This is the book of’) the generations of …’ The Hebrew word toledoth translated ‘generations’ can also mean ‘origins’, ‘history’, or even ‘family history’, and each verse comes either before or after a description of historical events that involved the person named.9 The most likely explanation is that Adam, Noah, Shem, etc. each wrote an account of the events that occurred either right before or during his lifetime, and Moses, under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, selected, compiled, and edited these to produce Genesis in its present cohesive form.10

Genesis does not show a progress from idolatry to monotheism, as Wellhausen’s evolutionism requires. Rather, the Bible begins with an original revelation of God, which was later rejected to the point that the Hebrew nation itself descended into idolatry and so was given over to captivity by God.

What about the different words used for God?

Let us consider this in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. The word ’Elohim is used for God 25 times in Genesis 1:1–2:4a.11 It has the idea of an awesome and faithful Being, having creative and governing power, majesty and omnipotence, who is above the material world He created. It is a lofty title (= ‘God’) and is the appropriate word for Moses to have used for the first factual report of God’s creative activities.12

In Genesis chapter 2 from verse 4, the Hebrew uses the letters YHWH to refer to God. Sometimes translated ‘Jehovah’, it is more often translated ‘LORD’ (in small capitals), and is the most commonly used term for God in the Old Testament (6,823 times). It means ‘the One who always was, now is, and ever shall be’ and is the deeply personal name of God. It is therefore used in His personal and covenant relationships with people. Genesis 2:4b ff is the detailed account of how God made Adam and Eve, and of the setting He prepared for them.13 Here they were meant to live and work in loving covenantal fellowship with Him14 and with each other. It was entirely appropriate therefore that Moses should have used YHWH in writing this section of Genesis. In Genesis 2, YHWH is joined to ‘Elohim to form the compound name YHWH-’Elohim (= the Lord God). This identifies the covenant God YHWH as being one and the same as ’Elohim, the almighty creator. There is no logical reason (particularly any based on the term used for God) to ascribe this account to any other author(s).

The same principles apply in the rest of Genesis and throughout the Old Testament.

The JEDP system is self-contradictory, as its proponents need to break verses into sections and even credit parts of sentences (that use more than one term for God) to different writers. Such a hotchpotch would be unique in ancient Middle Eastern literature.

The ‘scholarship’ used to promote the documentary hypothesis would be laughed out of court if applied to any other ancient book!

Computer agrees: Genesis had only one author

The following quote comes from Omni magazine of August 1982:

‘After feeding the 20,000 Hebrew words of Genesis into a computer at Technion University in Israel, researchers found many sentences that ended in verbs and numerous words of six characters or more. Because these idiosyncratic patterns appear again and again, says project director Yehuda Radday, it seems likely that a sole author was responsible. Their exhaustive computer analysis conducted in Israel suggested an 82 percent probability that the book has just one author.’

Conclusion

Ultimately, the author of Genesis was God, working through Moses. This does not mean that God used Moses as a ‘typewriter’. Rather, God prepared Moses for his task from the day he was born. When the time came, Moses had all the necessary data, and was infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit as to what he included and what he left out. This is consistent with known history, and with the claims and principles of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15–17; 2 Peter 1:20–21).

On the other hand there is no historical evidence, and no spiritual or theological basis whatsoever for the deceptive JEDP hypothesis. Its teaching is completely false; the ‘scholarship’ that promotes it is totally spurious. Propped up by the theory of evolution, it exists solely to undermine the authority of the Word of God.

Related articles

References and notes

  1. Josh McDowell, More Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Here’s Life Publishers, 1981, p. 45. Return to text.
  2. Notable exponents of Wellhausenism were Samuel R. Driver in England (1891), and Charles A. Briggs in the USA (1893). Since Wellhausen’s time, other liberal critics have ‘found’ up to 40 alleged contributors to the Pentateuch, including an Edomite source S and a Canaanite source K — there are almost as many subdivisions as there have been ‘experts’ finding sources! Return to text.
  3. Adapted from Dave Breese, Seven Men Who Rule the World from the Grave, Moody Press, Chicago, 1990, pp. 89 ff. Return to text.
  4. Adapted from Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, Michigan, 1982, pp. 51–52. Return to text.
  5. In Genesis 13:10 the Jordan valley is compared with ‘the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar’—appropriate only for readers unfamiliar with the Jordan Valley in Palestine but acquainted with Egypt. Hence written near the time of the Exodus from Egypt, not many centuries later. Return to text.
  6. The crop sequence in Exodus 9:31–32 is Egyptian, not Palestinian. The trees and animals referred to are mostly indigenous to Egypt or the Sinai Peninsula, not Palestine, e.g. the acacia tree, used for the tabernacle furniture, is native to Egypt and Sinai, but is hardly found in Canaan, except around the Dead Sea. The skins prescribed for the outer covering of the tabernacle in Exodus 26:14 (Hebrew tachash), were most likely those of the dugong or sea cow (Zool. Sirenia)—found in the sea adjacent to Egypt and Sinai but foreign to Palestine. See ref. 4, p. 46 ff. Return to text.
  7. More Egyptian loan words are found in the Pentateuch than anywhere else in the Bible, as would be expected if the author was Moses ‘learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians’ (Acts 7:22). The very name ‘Moses’ is Egyptian not Hebrew (Exodus 2:10). Return to text.
  8. There is no mention in the Pentateuch of the temple, or that Jerusalem would be its future location — the only centre of worship mentioned was the tabernacle, a tent. Return to text.
  9. Genesis 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2. The first of these, ‘These are the generations of the heavens and the earth’ (Genesis 2:4), does not mention a human name, as no man was present during Creation Week until day six. The information was probably revealed by God to Adam, who then recorded it (ref. 10). Return to text.
  10. Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, pp. 22–30; also Prof. Dr. F.N. Lee, personal communication, April 1998. Return to text.
  11. ’Elohim is a Hebrew plural form meaning ‘two or more’. In Genesis 1:1 it occurs with the verb ‘created’ (Hebrew bara’) in the singular form. It is thus a plural noun with a singular meaning, suggesting the uni-plurality of the Godhead. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is thus foreshadowed in the Bible right from the very first verse. See also the use of the word ‘us’ in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7. Return to text.
  12. Note that the power of God associated with the use of this word is seen much more clearly in His having created the vast contents of space, as well as the astounding complexities and minutiae of life on Earth, in the short timespan of Creation Week, rather than in any long-drawn-out evolutionary timetable. See C.V. Taylor, The First 100 Words, The Good Book Co., Gosford, NSW, Australia, p. 3, 1996. Return to text.
  13. There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. In Matthew 19:3–6, Jesus quoted from both accounts together, 1:27 and 2:24, showing them to be equally authoritative and fully supplementary. See also D. Batten, ‘Genesis Contradictions?Creation 18(4):44–45, 1996; R.M. Grigg, ‘Should Genesis be taken literally?Creation 16(1):38–41, 1993. Return to text.
  14. Cf. Hosea 6:7: ‘But they like men [Hebrew: literally ‘like Adam’ or ‘in Adam’] have transgressed the covenant …’ Return to text.

(Also available in Greek)

Albert Mohler on Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

…a horrible, sterile and empty worldview (Dr. Mohler)

From Dr. Albert Mohler’s blog Wednesday, April 6, 2011:

Dawkins really believes (or at least really claims) that those who disagree with him are insane, deluded, intellectually perverse, and unintelligent.

Evolution by natural selection is “the only game in town, the greatest show on Earth,” asserts Richard Dawkins. We have come to expect claims like this from Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous defender of Darwinian evolution alive today. Unlike many intellectuals, Dawkins manages to stay singularly focused and on message. He is the planet’s foremost evangelist for evolution, and he is absolutely certain that the evolutionary worldview is indeed “the only game in town.” He is clearly frustrated that so many dwellers of the Earth refuse to accept his message.

In The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Dawkins sets out to present his most compelling case for evolution. He is — make no mistake — an ardent enthusiast for his argument. Seldom do we read a book written with such fervor and certitude, with an amazing amount of condescension and anger added to the mix, as well.

“Evolution is a fact,” he asserts. “Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust.”

Note that this means, by obvious implication, that all objections to evolution are insane, unintelligent, and uninformed. Read his words carefully. Richard Dawkins is so bold as to assert that anyone who disagrees with him on such a controversial issue is insane, unintelligent, and uninformed, because any sane, intelligent, and informed person would have to agree with him.

He minces no words. “It is a plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips … continue the list as long as desired.”

Bananas and turnips?

Read the rest of this post here…

Miracolul formarii Universului (cu subtitrare)

Journeys to the edge of Creation by Moody Publishers 

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3


Part 4

The New Atheism and the dogma of Darwinism by Albert Mohler

From Albert Mohler’s blog. This article was also featured in the current issue of  EX NIHILO Magazine.

We can draw a straight line from the emergence of evolutionary theory to the resurgence of atheism in our times. Never underestimate the power of a bad idea.

Monday, February 7, 2011

The New Atheism is now an established feature of the intellectual landscape of our age. Thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are among the figures who most regularly appear on the front tables of America’s bookstores and the front pages of our newspapers. And, along with their vigorous defense of atheism, we most often find an equally vigorous defense of evolutionary theory. This is no accident.

Atheism has appeared in some form in Western cultures since the midpoint of the last millennium. The word “atheist” did not even exist within the English language until the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. The earliest atheists were most often philosophical and theological skeptics who denied the existence of any personal God. Nevertheless, the God they almost always rejected is the God of the Bible – in other words, a specific rejection of Christianity.

The early atheists were usually notorious, as were well-known heretics. Their denials of God and the Christian faith were well-documented and understood. But the early atheists had a huge problem –- how could they explain the existence of the Cosmos? Without a clear answer to that question, their arguments for atheism failed to gain much traction.

As even the ancient Greeks understood, one of the most fundamental philosophical questions is this: Why is there something, rather than nothing? Every worldview is accountable to that question. In other words, every philosophy of life must offer some account of how we and the world around us came to be. The creation myths of ancient cultures and the philosophical speculations of the Greeks serve as evidence of the hunger in the human intellect that takes form as what we now call the question of origins.

For some time, atheists were hard-pressed to offer any coherent answer to that question. Once they ruled God out of the picture, they had virtually no account of creation to offer.

Of course, all that changed with Charles Darwin.

Darwin’s theory of natural selection and the larger dogma of evolution emerged in the nineteenth century as the first coherent alternative to the Bible’s doctrine of Creation. This revolution in human thinking is well-summarized by Richard Dawkins, who conceded that an atheist prior to Darwin would have to offer an explanation of the Cosmos and the existence of life that would look something like this: “I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.”

Dawkins, who is perhaps the world’s best-known evolutionary scientist, argues that the explanation offered by a frustrated atheist before Darwin “would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied.”

But then came Darwin. In a single sentence, Dawkins gets to the heart of the matter: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

His point is clear and compelling. Prior to the development of the theory of evolution, there was no way for an atheist to settle on any clear argument for why the cosmos exists or why life forms appeared. Darwin changed all that. The development of Darwinian evolution offered atheism an invaluable intellectual tool – an account of beginnings.

The New Atheists have emerged as potent public voices. They write best-selling books, appear on major college and university campuses, and extend their voices through institutional and cultural influence. The movement is new in the sense that it differs from the older atheism in several respects, and one of these is the use of science in general, and evolutionary theory in particular, as intellectual leverage against belief in God.

Dawkins, for example, not only believes that Darwinism made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, but he also argues that religious belief is actually dangerous and devoid of credibility. So, he argues not only that Darwinism made it possible for an atheist to be intellectually fulfilled, he also argues that the theory of evolution undermines belief in God.

In other words, Dawkins asserts that Darwinism makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian.

Daniel Dennett, another of the “Four Horsemen” of the New Atheism, has argued that Darwin’s theory of evolution is a “universal acid” that will burn away all claims of the existence of God. His confidence in Darwinism is total. He looks back longingly at his own childhood belief in a divinely-created world and argues that, eventually, his experience of moving from belief in creation to confidence in evolution will be shared by a humanity that grows into intellectual adulthood.

Dennett is honest enough to recognize that if evolutionary theory is true, it must eventually offer an account of everything related to the question of life. Thus, evolution will have to explain every aspect of life, from how a species appeared to why a mother loves her child. Interestingly, he offers an argument for why humans have believed in the existence of God.

As we might expect, the theory of evolution is used to explain that there must have been a time when belief in God was necessary in order for humans to have adequate confidence to reproduce. Clearly, Dennett believes that we should now have adequate confidence to reproduce without belief in God.

Sam Harris, also a scientist by training, is another ardent defender of evolutionary theory. Pushing the argument even further than Dawkins and Dennett, Harris has argued that belief in God is such a danger to human civilization that religious liberty should be denied in order that science might reign supreme as the intellectual foundation of human society.

The last of the “Four Horsemen,” author Christopher Hitchens uses his considerable wit to ridicule belief in God, which he, like Dawkins and Harris, considers downright dangerous to humanity. Though Hitchens is not a scientist, his atheism leaves no room for any theory other than evolution.

The Dogma of Darwinism is among the first principles of the worldview offered by the New Atheists. Darwin replaces the Bible as the great explainer of the existence of life in all of its forms. The New Atheists are not merely dependent upon science for their worldview; their worldview amounts to scientism – the belief that modern naturalistic science is the great unifying answer to the most basic questions of human life.

As Richard Dawkins has recently argued, they believe that disbelief in evolution should be considered as intellectually disrespectable and reprehensible as denial of the Holocaust. Thus, their strategy is to use the theory of evolution as a central weapon in today’s context of intellectual combat.

The New Atheists would have no coherent worldview without the Dogma of Darwinism. With it, they intend to malign belief in God and to marginalize Christians and Christian arguments. Thus, we can draw a straight line from the emergence of evolutionary theory to the resurgence of atheism in our times. Never underestimate the power of a bad idea.


This article appears in EX NIHILO, the current issue of The Southern Seminary Magazine. Read the entire issue here.

Related Posts by Albert Mohler

The Case for a Creator/Pledoarie pentru Creator by Lee Strobel (subtitrare in Limba Romana)

English only version at bottom of post. Video cu subtitrare aici:

Uploaded by

I have read the books listed below and found them to be extremely useful and informative as apologetics books and as Bible Study material. They are good source material for high school and college kids who encounter atheist and gnostic challenges to their faith in that same time frame of their lives. I highly recommend these books to everyone (especially if you feel awkward or unsure in explaining your faith in a rational mode). The narrative that Lee Strobel uses in his investigative style approach gives one their own narrative of laying out a systematic approach to our basic beliefs. Next time you are in a book store pick up one of these books and read a chapter and see if it can be helpful to you too.

ENGLISH only

The Case for a Creator

Image via Wikipedia

Lee Strobel Strobel received a journalism degree from University of Missouri and a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School, becoming a journalist for The Chicago Tribune and other newspapers for fourteen years. Strobel was an atheist before he converted to Christianity.

OTHER BOOKS by LEE STROBEL:

Strobel describes The Case for Christ as a retracing and expansion of his becoming Christian. It summarizes Strobel’s interviews with 13 evangelical Christian scholars — Craig Blomberg, Bruce Metzger, Edwin Yamauchi, John McRay, Gregory Boyd, Ben Witherington III, Gary Collins, D.A. Carson, Louis Lapides, Alexander Metherell, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, and J. P. Moreland — defending their view of the historical reliability of the New Testament.

The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity offers replies to doubts of Christianity, including the problem of evil, the contradiction between miracles and science, whether God is worthy of worship if he kills innocent children, whether Jesus is the only way to God, and the church’s history of oppression and violence.

The Case for the Real Jesus: A Journalist Investigates Current Attacks on the Identity of Christ presents a number of counter-arguments to challenges to the evangelical Christian view. Strobel addresses differences between the portrayal of Jesus in the non-canonical gospels versus the four canonical gospels, whether the church has changed this depiction over time, new explanations that refute Jesus’s supposed resurrection, the possible origins of the Jesus story in pagan religions, whether Jesus fulfils messianic prophecies, and whether contemporary people should have freedom of belief.

The Case for the Real Jesus Lecture

The Case for the Real Jesus Audio Book

In The Case for the Real Jesus, former award-winning legal editor Lee Strobel explores such hot-button questions as:
* Did the church suppress ancient non-biblical documents that paint a more accurate picture of Jesus than the four Gospels?
* Did the church distort the truth about Jesus by tampering with early New Testament texts?
* Do new insights and explanations finally disprove the resurrection?
* Have fresh arguments disqualified Jesus from being the Messiah?
* Did Christianity steal its core ideas from earlier mythology?

Tyndale – The Doctrine of the Son of God 1 – The preexistence of Christ

(via) Tyndale publishers Wilmington’s Guide to the Bible

THE DOCTRINE OF THE SON (P 609)

1) Introduction. It has been estimated that some forty billion individuals have lived upon this earth since Adam. What a contrast can be seen in this vast multitude of humanity. These men have explored and settled every corner of their earth. They speak dozens of languages, practice multitudes of religions, and have formulated numerous cultures.

But every single human being shares one vital thing. His purpose of life down here and his eternal destiny afterward depends completely upon his personal relationship with the subject of this study, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to overemphasize the importance of His life. The key question of the universe continues to be: „What think ye of Christ? Matthew 22:42

Note the following:

To the artist he is the One altogether lovely (Song of Solomon 5:16)

To the architect he is the chief Cornerstone (1 Peter 2:6)

To the astronomer he is the son of righteousness (Maleachi 4:2)

To the baker he is the Bread of life (John 6:35)

To the banker he is the hidden treasure (Matthew 13:44)

To the builder he is the sure foundation (Isaiah 28:16)

To the carpenter he is the door (John 10:7)

To the doctor he is the great Physician (Jeremiah 8:22)

To the educator he is the new and living way (Hebrews 10:20)

To the farmer he is the sower and the Lord of the harvest (Luke 10:2)

2) The Preexistence of Jesus Christ as God. It is possible (as some have done) to hold to Jesus’ preexistence without believing in his diety. For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult brazenly declares that Christ preexisted as Michael the archangel prior to Bethlehem. But the Bible dogmatically declares both his preexistence and his diety.

A. The fact of his divine existence.

1) As taught by John the Baptist. „John bare witness of him, and cried,       saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after meis preferred before me: for he was before me” (John 1:15, see also John 1:27,30). According to Luke 1:36, John’s birth occured 6 months prior to Christ’s birth, but John declares that ‘he was before me’, a reference to Jesus’ preexistence.

2) As taught by the Apostle John.”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1).”For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and showed unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.” (1 John 1:2). Here the Apostle John connects Jesus’ preexistence to his diety.

3) As taught by the Apostle Paul. „Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of a cross (Philemon 2:6-8).

4) As taught by the Apostle Peter. „Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.” (1 Peter 1:20)

5) As taught by Christ himself. „For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” (John 6:38) „I am the living bread which came down from heaven:if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, „Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” (John 6:51,61,62). Jesus said unto them, „Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am” (John 6:58). „And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was” (John 17:5). Here Christ requests that the Father share His glory with the Son. But note the Father’s previous statement about his glory in Isaiah: „I am the Lord, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another…” (Isaiah 42:8). One is thus forced to conclude that either Christ was God indeed and had rightful claim to this glory, or he was an arrogant impostor demanding something the Father would never give Him!

B. The activities of the preexistent Christ. What was the Savior doing  prior to his Bethlehem appearance? The Scriptures make it plain that he was busy indeed.

1) He was creating the universe. „All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:3).”For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him” (Colossians 1:16). „Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world…And, thou, o Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands” (Hebrews 1:2,10). This creation included everything, from electrons to galaxies, and from angels to Adam.

2) He was controlling this created universe. „Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on High” (Colossians 1:17) Our Lord Jesus not only put all things together, but he continues to keep all things together.

3) He was communing with the Father. „I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast loved me” (John 17:23). „Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24)

NEXT ARTICLE TO COME (soon): The Old Testament Ministry of Jesus Christ.

Read this related article on the deity of Christ: Who do you say that I am?

Displays of God in Creation, remove the excuse for our failure to worship Him. John Piper-traducere in limba Romana

TO  READ  THIS  ARTICLE  IN  THE ENGLISH  LANGUAGE   OR  TO  LISTEN TO  THE  AUDIO  FOR  THIS  MESSAGE  CLICK  HERE.

de la DesiringGod.org predica lui John Piper:

Romani 1:18-21

18Mînia lui Dumnezeu se descopere din cer împotriva oricărei necinstiri a lui Dumnezeu şi împotriva oricărei nelegiuri a oamenilor, cari înăduşe adevărul în nelegiuirea lor.

19Fiindcă ce se poate cunoaşte despre Dumnezeu, le este descoperit în ei, căci le -a fost arătat de Dumnezeu.

20În adevăr, însuşirile nevăzute ale Lui, puterea Lui vecinică şi dumnezeirea Lui, se văd lămurit, dela facerea lumii, cînd te uiţi cu băgare de seamă la ele în lucrurile făcute de El. Aşa că nu se pot desvinovăţi;

21fiindcă, măcar că au cunoscut pe Dumnezeu, nu L-au proslăvit ca Dumnezeu, nici nu I-au mulţămit; ci s’au dedat la gîndiri deşarte, şi inima lor fără pricepere s’a întunecat.

Creaţia este poiema sau lucrarea de artă a lui Dumnezeu

Ce face Dumnezeu pentru a se face cunoscut? A făcut lumea. A creat – ca un olar, sau ca un sculptor sau poet, cu excepţia că el a creat din nimic. În versetul 20, când spune că Dumnezeu „se vede lămurit …. când te uiţi cu băgare de seamă la … lucrurile făcute de El,” cuvintele „lucrurile făcute de El” reprezintă un singur cuvânt grecesc (pe care-l veţi recunoaşte), cuvântul poiema. Este cuvântul din care avem astăzi cuvântul „poem.” Universul şi tot ce cuprinde el este lucrarea de artă a lui Dumnezeu. Care este semnificaţia acestui cuvânt? Seminificaţia este că un poem are o alcătuire clară, o intenţie precisă, o înţelepciune şi o putere. Vântul poate desena o literă pe nisip, dar nu poate crea un poem. Aceasta este semnificaţia. Dumnezeu a acţionat. Dumnezeu a planificat. Dumnezeu a făcut schiţa. El a croit. El a creat şi a făcut. Şi făcând aceasta, Pavel spune în versetul 19, Dumnezeu s-a făcut cunoscut omenirii întregi. Universul este un poem despre Dumnezeu.

Şi lucrul acesta este extrem de relevant pentru zilele noastre. La fel cum am văzut că versetul 18 era relevant din punct de vedere politic, acest text este relevant din punct de vedere ştiinţific. Evoluţia naturală este considerată ca de la sine înţeleasă în cultura noastră – şi anume credinţa că universul şi viaţa umană în particular, au evoluat prin simplele forţe ale materiei, timpului şi şansei. Având îndeajuns timp şi ceva materie cu care să lucreze, şansa a făcut ceea ce vedem în univers şi în speciile umane astăzi. Dumnezeul creator şi proiectant este eliminat pur şi simplu şi considerat a fi o ipoteză inutilă.

Dar din ce în ce mai mult în zilele noastre această presupunere a evoluţiei naturale este arătată ca fiind o prejudecată filozofică mai degrabă decât o concluzie ştiinţifică bazată pe dovezi. Philip Johnson este un conducător al acestei mişcări cu cele două cărţi ale sale, Darwin on Trial şi Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. În 1996, Michael Behe, un biochimist care priveşte la minunile microcosmosului creaţiei, mai degrabă decât ale macrocosmosului, a scris Cutia neagră a lui Darwin, şi a argumentat că o singură celulă micuţă este „ireductibil de complexă,” şi de aceea este rezultatul unui proiect inteligent, şi nu rezultatul şansei. „Complexitatea ireductibilă” înseamnă că celula aceasta este extrem de complexă şi are un mare număr de părţi care lucrează împreună într-un mod în care absenţa unei părţi opreşte întreaga funcţionare – ceea ce înseamnă că sistemul funcţional al celulei nu a putut fi construit prin paşi mici evolutivi prin care părţile s-au acumulat treptat.

De exemplu, Behe priveşte la flagelul bacterian

Flagelul este un motor rotativ ca un bici care dă posibilitatea bacteriei să navigheze în mediul ei. Flagelul include un motor rotativ acţionat de acid, un stator, inele în formă de O, bucşe şi un ax motor. Maşinăria complicată a acestui motor molecular necesită cincizeci de proteine. Totuşi absenţa oricăreia din aceste proteine rezultă într-o pierdere completă a funcţionalităţii motorului. Complexitatea ireductibilă a unui astfel de sistem biochimic nu poate fi explicată prin mecanismul darwinist, nici printr-un alt mecanism de evoluţie naturală (William Dembski, „Science and Design,” First Things, Oct 1998, nr. 86, p. 25.)

Suprimarea ştiinţifică a adevărului

Cel mai recent William Dembski a scris The Design Inference (Cambrige University Press). El subliniază că mulţi oameni de ştiinţă cunoscuţi trebuie să sueprime în mod constant suspiciunea că există un design (poiema) în univers. De exemplu, el îl citează pe Richard Dawkins, un „arhi-darwinist” care spune, „Biologia este studiul lucrurilor complicate care dau aparenţa că au fost proiectate cu un scop.” Şi apoi îl citează pe Francis Crick, co-descoperitorul ADN-ului, care spune, „Biologii trebuie să ţină minte tot timpul că ceea ce văd nu a fost proiectat, ci mai degrabă a evoluat” (ibid. p. 21).

Cu alte cuvinte, ca să folosim cuvintele apostolului Pavel, adevărul clar al lucrării lui Dumnezeu – al „lucrurilor proiectate” de Dumnezeu – trebuiesc suprimate în mod  constant, ca nu cumva oamenii de ştiinţă să fie aduşi faţă în faţă cu Creatorul lor şi să fie nevoiţi să-i dea slavă ca Dumnezeu şi să-i mulţumească ca şi creaturi dependente.

Argumentul lui Pavel pus în paractică în lucrarea din mediul urban

Deci îngăduiţi-mi acum, rezumând, să urmez argumentul lui Pavel de data aceasta de jos în sus. El răspunde obiecţiei dacă cumva oamenii – fie ei cercetători ştiinţifici din laboratoare sau membri ai grupurilor tribale unde Evanghelia nu a fost vestită – dacă cumva au o scuză în a protesta împotriva mâniei lui Dumnezeu îndreptate asupra lor.

Dar pe măsură ce sumarizez argumentul lui Pavel, vreau să-i dau o aplicaţie neobişnuită: nu pentru oamenii de ştiinţă darwinişti, şi nici pentru grupurile tribale îndepărtate, ci pentru Kenny Stokes şi lucrarea noastră în contextul urban din Minneapolis. Lucrul acesta nu este dificil de făcut, pentru că fiecare din cei patru paşi ai lui Pavel au o legătură directă chiar aici în lucrarea pe care Kenny o începe printre noi.

1. Puterea şi dumnezeirea Creatorului sunt clare

Pasul unu: Dumnezeu este Creatorul şi a făcut astfel încât adevărul despre puterea Sa veşnică şi dumnezeirea Sa să fie evident pentru toţi (versetele 19b, 20, poiema). Aceasta înseamnă Kenny, că tu şi orice om pe care-l vei întâlni în acest oraş sunteţi creaţia lui Dumnezeu şi proiectaţi de Dumnezeu cu un scop, şi anume, să-L arătaţi pe Dumnezeu. Tu eşti poemul lui Dumnezeu şi la fel sunt şi ei. Dumnezeu a lucrat în Phillips şi Elliot Park şi la Powderhorn şi la Northside ca şi Creator al tuturor lucrurilor şi ca şi comunicator al Său. El a mers înaintea ta. Tu vei culege unde alţii au semănat – mai ales Dumnezeu, Creatorul.

2. Toţi oamenii Îl cunosc pe Dumnezeu

Pasul doi: Toţi bărbaţii şi femeile şi tinerii din centrul oraşului Minneapolis Îl cunosc pe Dumnezeu. Versetul 21a: „au cunoscut pe Dumnezeu.” Există o bază comună profundă între tine şi oricine altă persoană pe care o vei întâlni în acest oraş. Da, adevărul este suprimat, dar este acolo, îngropat şi distorsionat. Dumnezeu nu S-a lăsat fără o mărturie despre Sine – pentru orice cuget şi inimă. Nu vei vorbi copacilor. Vei vorbi unor oameni care se uită la copaci şi văd slava lui Dumnezeu. Ei Îl cunosc pe Dumnezeu – puterea Sa veşnică şi dumnezeirea Sa.

3. Dar ei suprimă această cunoaştere

Pasul trei: Totuşi, ei suprimă această cunoaştere şi nu-L slăvesc pe Dumnezeu şi nici nu-i mulţumesc lui Dumnezeu (versetul 21b). Aceasta înseamnă cel puţin că, din moment ce tu iubeşti slava lui Dumnezeu şi doreşti ca El să primească închinarea care I se cuvine, vei lucra cu toată tăria ta, în puterea Duhului lui Dumnezeu, pentru a le deschide inimile faţă de adevăr şi pentru a răspândi o pasiune pentru supremaţia lui Dumnezeu în toate lucrurile pentru bucuria tuturor neamurilor.

4. Deci, nimeni nu are nici o scuză înaintea lui Dumnezeu

Pasul patru: Orice persoană în oraşul Minneapolis şi St. Paul, şi într-adevăr orice persoană de pe această planetă, „nu se poate dezvinovăţi” aşa cum sunt sub mânia lui Dumnezeu. Nimeni nu poate demara un protest îndreptăţit împotriva dreptăţii lui Dumnezeu în această problemă. Aceasta înseamnă, Kenny, că marea tragedie urbană nu sunt drogurile sau sexul ilicit sau crima sau furtul sau sărăcia sau oamenii străzii sau abuzul. Marea tragedie urbană este aceea că oamenii pier sub mânia lui Dumnezeu fără drept de apel şi fără speranţă. Şi nu au nici o scuză.

Calea de scăpare

Şi tu şi eu, şi fiecare creştin din această încăpere avem remediul şi calea de scăpare –  şi anume, Evanghelia care „este puterea lui Dumnezeu pentru mântuirea [de sub mânia lui Dumnezeu!] fiecăruia care crede, mai întâi a Iudeului, apoi a Grecului [şi a celor bogaţi, şi săraci, şi educaţi, şi needucaţi, şi roşii şi galbeni şi albi şi negri], deoarece în ea este descoperită o neprihănire [nu o mânie a Sa], pe care o dă Dumnezeu, prin credinţă şi care duce la credinţă.” Darul fără plată al neprihănirii este scăparea de sub mânia lui Dumnezeu pentru cei din acest oraş. Tu ai în inima ta şi în gura ta cea mai puternică strategie urbană: Evanghelia lui Isus Hristos. Noi toţi o avem.

O Doamne, vino, şi dă-i lui Kenny o ungere din partea Ta de a ne mobiliza pe toţi pentru această lucrare măreaţă de mântuire.

CITITI  ARTICOLUL  INTREG  AICI.


De John Piper. © Desiring God. Pagina web: www.desiringGod.org.

Previous Older Entries

Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!


România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari