Does "The Bible Project" Promote True Biblical Doctrine?

 I've watched many hours of Tim Mackie's "The Bible Project" classes, starting with “Introduction to the Hebrew Bible” and then going on to ones about the beginning books of Genesis. It is clear that Mackie has done a lot study in preparation for these classes and he has a lot insights that you might not get by studying the Bible on your own. But I've gotten to the point that I can't continue with the classes because it makes me too sad to see his “students” in the videos being misled.

The straw that broke the camel's back for me is that he does not believe that Genesis 2 teaches that God actually formed Adam out of the dust of the ground. He starts out by saying that it is not an issue as to whether to take it literally or symbolically, but that the Hebrew word for “formed” means something different than the English word “formed”. He quotes several verses in which this Hebrew word can't mean the same thing (or so it would seem). But if you pay close attention, you can see that the English meaning of the word could actually be applied to the those verses and it makes perfect sense if you broaden your thinking just a little. Furthermore, those examples do not have qualifiers like Genesis 2:7 does, namely “of dust” and “from the ground”, which indicate what is being formed into something else. Furthermore, there are many, many other examples in which Hebrew word for “formed” clearly means the same thing as in English, such as a potter forming of vessel out of clay.

Mackie then quotes some verses that speak of Job and others as being “formed of clay” to prove that the expression can't be taken literally and that, therefore, Adam could have been born of woman just like everybody else. But these are clearly instances where it is used as an idiom to express the idea that they are like Adam with respect to being fragile, mortal and things of that nature. The fact that an account of an event has a symbolic significance does not imply that the event didn't literally occur. For example, the lamb's blood on the doorpost at Passover clearly symbolizes the blood of Jesus and all that it means to us. But that doesn't mean that we can't know with certainty that all of the events contained in story of the 10^th plague of Egypt did literally occur. The word “lamb” means Jesus in several instances in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that it has that meaning in every instance or that we can conclude that Bible has nothing to say about actual lambs.

Understanding the original intent of the biblical authors is important, but Mackie overemphasizes this. For example, David could write in Psalms about a time of distress in his life with no intention of prophesying of the Messiah. But yet we know that these are about Jesus and that this is the more significant message of the passage. The original intent of the authors is always secondary to God's intents.

Throughout the Scriptures, God is constantly correcting the misunderstandings of the typical people. Therefore, is it not reasonable to base an interpretation on the fact that typical people “wouldn't have believed” this or that “back then”.“Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts,” says II Co 3:15. The authors may have never thought about the theory evolution (or even heard of it) and disproving it may not be the main idea being expressed in passages like Genesis 1-2. But that doesn't mean that we can conclude that it doesn't contradict the theory of evolution. The biblical authors presumably knew nothing about Islam, and the main point of the story of Abraham and Isaac on the mountain was probably not to disprove Islam, but nevertheless it does prove that it is a false religion if you believe that the Bible is God's Word.

Let me qualify this. Mackie does not say that he believes in Darwinism. But he sees the creation/evolution debate as being unworthy of discussion and beyond the scope of the Scriptures. He is right that some people do overemphasize this issue and certain nuances of it.  It is possible for people to become so engrossed in the creation/evolution debate that they miss other important biblical concepts. But Mackie marginalizes creation truth way, way too much. He relies too heavily on commentators and is awed by so-called “experts” with many degrees, some of whom are not even Christians. The theory of evolution undermines some of the very things that Mackie is trying to get across, but he so blinded by these “experts” that he can't see it.

KIngdom Fall Trailer

JW - a church or a cult?

Christian Bakers, Photographers, Florists, Caterers, Wedding Planners, etc.

 I recently participated in a heated and very disheartening discussion in my Sunday school class.  The teacher and several of the students took a position which I strongly disagree. 

The teacher’s position is described as follows:

It is not sinful for a Christian to provide goods and services, such as a wedding cake, photography, or flowers for same-sex couples for their “marriage” ceremonies.  Homosexuality is sinful, and you can tell the couples that you don’t agree with what they are doing, but you can set a better Christian example for them by “giving them grace” than you can by refusing their request.  You can provide these goods and services without condoning their sin.

My rebuttal follows:

First of all, Romans 1:24-27 (ESV) says,

“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie…their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” 

1 Corinthians 6:9 and Ephesians 5:5 say that homosexuals cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven.

These passages clearly show that homosexuality is a serious sin.  One who condones homosexuality does not do a good deed to the homosexual.  But can one participate in a sin (or a celebration thereof) without condoning it?  

From Acts 15:28-29, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 and 10:19-20, I can see the following: 1) Abstaining from eating meat from idols was a requirement (not a just a suggestion) in order for Gentiles to become Christians. 2) Anyone who does not abstain is a participant in idol worship and is guilty of sinning against Christ. 3) It can cause a weaker brother to stumble or in fact, to be “destroyed”. There is no grace in that.  Therefore, anything that might be gained by eating the meat is nothing compared to the downside of it.

At this point we must ask these questions,

1)      Is homosexuality any less serious of a sin than worshipping idols?

2)      Is there any difference between eating meat sacrificed to idol and selling an animal to idol worshippers knowing that they intend to sacrifice it to idol?

3)      From the standpoint of Christian ethics, is there any difference between knowingly eating meat sacrificed to an idol and knowingly contributing to some other sinful activity such as a ceremony that promotes the sin of homosexuality? 

4)      If something is wrong because it can cause a “weaker brother” to stumble (or be “destroyed”), then wouldn’t it stand to reason that it would also put a stumbling block in the way of an unbeliever coming to repentance?

5)      If you sell something to someone knowing that the recipient intends to use it for a sinful purpose, can you justify yourself by telling them that what they intend to do is wrong? Will this strategy lead people to repentance or steer them away from it? 

Read 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 and Ephesians 5:1-14.

People often quote, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.” from 2 Corinthians 6:14 to prove that Christians should not marry non-Christians.  Certainly this a valid application of this teaching, but nothing in the context suggests that this principle is limited to the bonds of matrimony.  In the ESV, in addition to “yoked”, it uses the words partnership, fellowship, accord, portion-sharing, and agreement to describe what should not take place between the body of Christ (i.e. the Church) and the unrighteous or demons.  The reason why there must be such a partition is so that God may dwell and walk among us (the Saints).  A necessary condition is given in order for God to be a father to you is that you “touch no unclean thing”. In other words, “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness.”

As imitators of God, we are to love the lost, but sexual immorality is not love, but rather it is the opposite.  A same-sex union can never be a true marriage, but a ceremony which has all of the trappings of a real marriage ceremony serves to deceive people into thinking that it is.  Children of light must not participate in such deceptions.  “The fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true”, not in deception.  Children of light must rather expose such deceptions. 

Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin. Movie (2024)

 

As a boy, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, is portrayed in the new Bonhoeffer movie, as aggressive, energetic and loving. As a man he is depicted as an open minded, eclectic, energetic, fearless, uncompromising, and who stood for and on the truth.

He lived in Germany in the early part of the 20^th century. There were several scenes in the movie where Bonhoeffer visited several countries including the United States and the United Kingdom. He even is seen playing the piano in a jazz club in the U.S.

He belonged to the German Lutheran Church. He was a seminary graduate. He served as a pastor at the time of the rise and bloody reign of Adolf Hitler. Unlike many of his fellow pastors he rejected the church’s subjecting itself to the heavy-handed Hitler. You see Hitler expected the German people and church to bow in reverence to him instead of to the true God. Hitler carried out his plan to exterminate the Jewish race and other inferior persons. Bonhoeffer fought him the best he could.

On the CoachDaveLive.com daily podcast on Monday,10/18/2024, there was a discussion contrasting the 1^st Century Church and the 21^st Century Church. The early church could be characterized by three C’s: courage, confrontation, and conquest. This body of believers at that time were active and involved in what was going on in the culture. Today’s church could also be summarized by 3 C’s: comfort, compromise, and cowardice. Bonhoeffer, as the movie reveals, fits more in the mold of the 1^st Century than today’s Church.

The movie indicts the modern-day church, which for several reasons ignores the moral decay and evil rampant in today’s culture. It uses the Bonhoeffer life story to do just that. Today the Church remains mostly silent on abortion (the murder of pre-born humans), sexual deviancy (taught in our schools and widespread on broadcast and social media), destruction of the family, etc.

Bonhoeffer took a stand against the evil of his day and went to a premature death at the gallows joyfully. Will we and our leaders dare emulate this valent soldier?

This Angel Studio production is currently playing locally (through Monday, 10/25/2024). Everyone, especially Christ-followers, should see this inspirational film.

 

Why Are Unborn Babies So Evil?

And can we ever find it in our hearts to forgive them?

 

It is the Babies’ Fault, Punish Them, Abort Them!

From the very moment of fertilization/conception the unborn human being, the baby, seems to have no regard for the life of their mother or father. How inconsiderate of the baby to ignore the fact that their parents were too ignorant, too young, too poor, too ill-equipped, or too immature to provide even for themselves, let alone for a child. Afterall a child requires the full love and attention of loving, mature, moral, adult parents. The baby should have acted more responsibly and waited until the parents were ready, better prepared for parenthood before attempting enter the world.

Is There an Alternative to Execution?

Some folks contend that we cannot just kill the baby. You think? Indeed, can we ever forgive the baby? How, might you ask? Give the baby a reprieve, a much lighter sentence, than death? Maybe require that the baby be given the opportunity to be placed with a loving, maybe even an infertile, couple for adoption.

Is There a Better Solution?

In any case let’s warn, educate, and counsel young or older couples not to let emotions, irrationality, and irresponsibility rule the day and control their actions and lives. There are many ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy, of which monogamous marriage and natural birth control are God’s design and the responsible course of action. Abstaining (what?) from sexual intercourse IS the best practice prior to marriage. It prevents the baby from “ruining your life” as he or she is so intent and fond of doing.

Let Love Be the Ultimate Guide!

Yes, reason, logic, responsibility, unselfishness, true-caring love should guide couples through this wonderful God-given life.

Who said what?

“…Look what they are doing to their own people. It is all about the destruction of the family, of cultural and national identity, perversion and abuse of children, including pedophilia, all of which are declared normal in their life. They are forcing the priests to bless same-sex marriages…

“But here is what I would like to tell them: look at the Holy Scripture and the main books of other world religions. They say it all, including that family is the union of a man and a woman, but these sacred texts are being questioned…”

Question:

What famous world figure recently made this intensely truth filled statement when referring to one of the enemies of God?

 a.  Joe Biden

b. Pope Francis

c. Franklin Graham

d. Vladimir Putin

Answer:

·         Click here to check your answer 

Apotheosis of Washington

It has been a long time since I have done any blogging. I will have a new congressman because of the redistricting. My pastor recently called to my attention an issue that should have been addressed a long time ago. Here is my letter to petition my congressman about this issue.

Dear Honorable Congressman,

As you know Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to "...exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District...".  I would like to voice my opinion about the "Apotheosis of Washington" which is painted on the ceiling of the rotunda of the Capitol Building.  It should be painted over.  The fresco depicts pagan Greek gods, which should not be in a Christian nation.  The word "Apotheosis" in the title of the fresco means "ascending and becoming a god".  This is something that George Washington would never have approved of.  Even though he was a great man, it is morally wrong to elevate any human being except Jesus Christ to godhood status or to promote polytheism.  

Thank you for your consideration.

Concerned Citizen