Monday, December 31, 2007

Vacation

Hi everyone, and a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your families. My family and I just returned from sunny Mazatlan after a week's stay Oceanside. We were blessed with a hotel room overlooking the hotel's pool and the Pacific Ocean. Yes, there were palm trees and a gentle breeze most days that made me almost forget about what winter is like in Minnesota. But as we returned on Saturday night, the cold reality of our winter hit us – as well as a driveway almost filled knee high with snow (I am very grateful to our neighbor who before we arrived shoveled a path for our car to get up our steep incline of a driveway.)


 

But as I was relaxing this past week, one thought kept returning to me: how powerful and destructive nature is. The ocean's wave's relentless and never-ending pounding of the shore destroyed everything it touched. My son Elijah and daughter Olivia built several sand castles on the edge of where the water would come up to on the beach. And they were able to mostly protect their construction with a protective wall on the side that the waves would come. But it turns out that the water rushing back was even more destructive to the sand castles than even the on-coming waves. The pull of the water back to the ocean was so strong that it would tear away the backside of the castles. But the combination of the wave's pounding and drawing back leveled every castle in short order.


 

So why did I think about nature's destructive power during this trip? It made me appreciate God our Creator all the more, the Maker and Creator of all of life around us. You see, the atheist belief is that nature's forces can build and create the marvelous designs of creatures, plants and animals by itself, without the need for Divine aid – that life started simply with even a single one-celled life, and then life through nature's forces grew more and more complicated, even to the point of creating the human brain/central nervous system/circulatory system, etc. And somehow the process of variation and mutation of the cell's DNA, the argument goes that nature can creatively make more and more complex living creatures, with the aid of nature naturally selecting the survival of the fittest life.


 

But let me ask the question – does this make any sense? Does it make sense to believe that nature alone can create a plant, an animal, or even man itself? I don't believe the atheist/naturalistic position makes sense. There is nothing in the world around us that shows that nature can create anything. The sun decomposes and breaks down anything left in its rays, as shown by an apple left out. Oxygen is the same way. The wind, the ocean's waves, rivers all cut and destroy everything in it's' path. Lightning? Of course, lightning destroys anything it hits – and yet people still cling to the 1950's Miller-Urey test tube experiment (over 50 years ago, and it is still relied upon – crazy?! The experiment showed that amino acids were created when an electrical current was run through a mixture of chemicals), as somehow proof that life can originate on its own. The hit of a lightning bolt kills life, and doesn't create it, the movie Young Frankenstein notwithstanding.


 

So with nature so clearly destroying order, and creating disarray in its' path, how have we departed so far from the path that lets us see that God is responsible and the Originator of everything in the world around us? Join me in praising the Triune God, Creator of the Heavens and Earth, and of all life around us.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Immanuel

One of best known Titles for Jesus is that He is the "Son of God". It is used in reference to Jesus over 45 times in the New Testament. Jesus being described as the Son of God is used in all four Gospels, it is how the Gospel of Mark starts out (Mark 1:1 – "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"), and it is sometimes mentioned along with Jesus being the Messiah (see as an example, Luke 4:41 – "And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God.") But my question for this positing is that when the Bible says that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God does this somehow make Jesus less important than God the Father? Is the Messiah on equal footing with God the Father, or is God the Father more important than the Son? And I will tip my hand right from the start – Jesus the Son of God is to receive the same glory and recognition as God the Father. Let me explain how I come to this conclusion as follows.


 

As the title of this Blog entry suggests, I tie in Jesus being the Son of God with His also having the Title Emmanuel, which means "God with us". So in the Old Testament we have the prophecy of the coming baby who will be called "Immanuel", which means God with us" (Isa. 7:14). And in the Nativity story contained in the Gospel of Matthew, we see in Matt. 1:23, that an Angel appeared to Joseph saying that the birth of Jesus means that He is the Immanuel, by quoting Isaiah's prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, repeating this important Title of the baby - that this child born of the virgin is Immanuel, God with us.


 

And so we see that Jesus' name being the Son of God is further clarified by His Title of "Immanuel". Although Jesus is fully human, He had flesh and blood, and also the nature of humans. But He was also fully God. This makes Jesus in His first Advent being God in the flesh: Jesus is both fully human and also fully God. This is what is meant by Jesus as Immanuel, God with us. A human in our midst Who is Divine. And so, we see that God Himself came to earth in the body of a newborn. And His reason for coming to earth is given away by His name - Jesus. His name means "He will save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Therefore, Jesus Immanuel is God coming as a human being to save us from our sins. It is all spelled out in His names and titles: Son of God, Immanuel (God with us), Messiah (foretold by Old Testament prophecy), and Jesus (Savior of those who believe He is the Son of God and Savior, who saves believers from God's punishment for our disobedience, rebellion, and all of our sins.) So you see, His Names say it all.


 

The Westminster Confession has a beautiful summary of the Triune God – as best I recall, it says: There is God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One God in Three persons. They are the same in substance, and equal in power and equal in glory.


 

Why I like the Westminster's description is that it matches up with what is contained in the Bible, and recognizes the Three Persons of God are of the same nature/substance, and it also gives all Three equal glory and recognition to the persons of the Godhead. All three are needed for our salvation, and all three are active today. And so, I answer my opening question of whether God the Father is more important than Jesus the Son by saying that both are equally important, and both are entitled to our full worship, praise and the glory that we give out.


 

So my Application for those who find this a challenging subject, is to consider why did God have to come to earth? What did He have to accomplish while He was here? If you have a good understanding of the answers to these questions, you may have the assurance of salvation described in 1 John 5:13. If you would like to talk to me more about this, please let me know.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Chess

The game of Chess makes me love God more. Let me explain this as follows - last year, I purchased a computer game called ChessMaster, and I really enjoyed playing it for awhile. It lets you play against different fictional players, and as you win more and more games, your Chess rank goes up. As your rank increases, you are supposed to play other Computer players (players who are imaginary, designed by the game) with the same rank as you. But I liked playing players who had a lower rank than me, because I could beat them most of the time. But there was one player in the game, even though he was lower ranked, every other game or so, he would set me up and do a three turn move that always caught me in check-mate. He caught me with my King boxed in behind my pawns, and his Queen taking a piece next to my King with it being protected by one of his other pieces, I lose – check-mate!


 

What Chess has taught me is that I am not very good because my brain can't think three turns ahead. I have some friends who are very good at Chess because they know some of the best Masters' openings, and they can anticipate their opponent's moves, and plan their own attacks several moves ahead. My brain doesn't work that way, and at best I can think a turn or two ahead. And so, if I face an opponent who can plan an attack a few turns ahead, I am an easy target for this kind of player. I am envious of this ability to think ahead in Chess.


 

So what does this have to do with my love of God? I know there are some super-computers that can beat even the world's best Grad-Masters of Chess. But they are limited by the programmer's ability to use the computer to think ahead of all possibilities in the game. But when I think of Chess, I think of God's perfection and of His great mind. I have a great appreciation for the work of Chess-playing super-computers and Grand-Masters. But the Mind of God that can do so much more not just in playing a game like Chess, but in my life. For example, God place the stars, planets, galaxies on a perfect course around us. And the way God has placed friends and family around me in my life to provide me with the love and support I need. And how He uses me to help and supports others in my sphere of influence. It makes me stand in awe of how much greater the mind of God is, even compared to a Chess-Master's ability in Chess compared to mine. I rejoice that I can communicate with this overwhelming Mind of God through prayer, and even study His Wisdom through the life of Jesus Christ His Son. I praise You the Amazing God of the universe, for Your Mind and how You are able to make it all work together!


 

So Dad, if you happen to read this Blog, would you play me in a game of Chess the next time I see you? It's been too long.

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Prophecy in the Bible

Is there anything special about the Bible, or is it just a collection of books that were written by men without any inspiration from God? I saw some old friends who I really enjoy spending time with last night, and the topic of the Dead Sea Scrolls came up. So I think it is a wonderful topic to look at both the Dead Sea Scrolls and how they show that there is something amazing, and supernatural about the Bible.


 

The Old Testament of the Bible speaks of a coming Messiah. And the claim is that Jesus Christ, or more properly Jesus the Messiah is this person who was described in the Old Testament prophecies. And some of the coolest prophecies of the Bible are contained in the major Prophet Isaiah's book. Here is a few of the prophecies that Isaiah by inspiration from God, wrote about: Isa. 7:14 - THEY WILL CALL HIM IMMANUEL WHICH MEANS GOD WITH US; (So here we see that the Messiah is actually a person who is also God.); Isa. 9:6, 7 TO US A CHILD IS BORN, A SON IS GIVEN, AND HIS NAME SHALL BE CALLED WONDERFUL COUNSELOR, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, PRINCE OF PEACE. (The Messiah will come to earth in the form of a baby, whose titles include Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, and Prince of Peace. Incredible, a person who is also righteous, and both Man and God?!) But the centerpiece of Isaiah's prophecies is contained in Isaiah where the description of the Messiah as a Suffering Servant is contained. It is described in Isaiah 52:13 through chapter 53. Here is what Isaiah wrote, tradition holds sometime earlier than 701 years before Jesus was born (701 BC), about the Messiah in Isa. 53:


 

Who has believed what they heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

2      For he grew up before him like a young plant,    and like a root out of dry ground;   he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,

          and no beauty that we should desire him.

3      He was despised and rejected by men;    a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4      Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.

5      But he was wounded for our transgressions;    he was crushed for our iniquities;

     upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,   and with his stripes we are healed.

6      All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7      He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,

          so he opened not his mouth.

8      By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?

9      And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

10      Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, e shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;

     the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

11      Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,

          make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.

12      Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death

          and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.


 

And so we see the God-inspired Prophecy predict there would be a man despised and rejected, whom God would lay the sins of the world upon. The Messiah would be sacrificed not for His own sins, He was righteous, but for "our transgressions", "our iniquities". And through His sacrifice He will "make many to be accounted righteous" in God's eyes. We will no longer have to pay the price for our own sins, because Jesus paid the full charge for any sin that could ever be committed: any sin that deserves death was paid for by an innocent Man's death on the Cross.


 

A common charge for why we should not trust what is written in the Bible, is that because we do not have what was originally written that through 2,000 years of copying, people made mistakes and intentional errors to change what was originally written. The charge is that the Bible is not trustworthy because there are many copying errors. But that is the importance of what the Dead Sea Scrolls show: The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Bible is extremely reliable, and that there are no significant changes or errors made through 2,000 years of copying.


 

Let me show you why the Dead Sea Scrolls are great proof that the Bible is given to us today without error. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in buried jars and in the Qumran caves near the Dead Sea. Here is the REALLY AMAZING fact: the Isaiah scroll was carbon-dated to somewhere between 335 BC and 107 BC (source: Wikipedia)!!!!!! Yes, you read this right – we have copies of the original Isaiah manuscript that are over 107 years BEFORE Jesus was even born. So all of the prophecies by Isaiah, including the ones shown above, were written at least 100 years before He was born, AND WE HAVE THE COPIES of what was written. This means that we have an untainted, uncopied manuscript of the Isaiah prophecies dated before Jesus was even born.


 

The Old Testament books were provided by a group known as the Masoretes. So how does the Masoretic copied of the manuscripts compare to what is written in the uncopied Dead Sea Scrolls? You guessed it, there are some minor variations, but nothing of substance.

Dead Sea Scrolls roughly 100 AD -------------------------------------à 1950 AD discovered (no copies made – it copied manuscripts from 350 BC-107BC and these are in our hands. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not touched or copied for 2,000+ years)

Masoretic Text of the OT copied again and again for over 2,000 years

        llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllà copied many times over 2,000 years. And it still is 95% the same as what is contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls. And no significant doctrine is affected by any of the copyists' differences. Instead, most of the differences are insignificant spelling variations.

The Masoretic Text is the same as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Example of Isaiah 53. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text are 95% identical. If any Old Testament text was going to be changed by Christian copyists it would be the prophecy about the Messiah contained in Isaiah 53. But instead there are only a total of 17 differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text.

  1. 10 of the 17 differences is alternate spellings (similar to in America 'Judgment' is spelled without the 'e', while in Great Britain it is spelled 'judgement' with the 'e' in the middle.) These differences have no effect on any meaning,
  2. 4 of the 17 differences are the addition of a conjunction. Again, no change in the meaning.
  3. 3 of the 17 changes are contain in Isaiah 53:11, where it says 'They shall see", and the DSS add "light" which is not contained in the Masoretic text. Again no change in the meaning.


 

And that's all of the changes between the Dead Sea Scrolls that are pure, uncopied, untouched for 2,000+ years and the Masoretic text of the OT which was repeatedly copied for over 2,000 years. They are identical in meaning, with only a very few, minor changes, with most of these differences being spelling changes. And it is the same with the other portions of the OT as well. The text contained in the DSS is the same as the Masoretic text, again with only a few, immaterial differences between the two manuscripts. This is the best example showing that copyists of the Bible took their job seriously, and any errors or changes are easily discovered.


 

So what is the conclusion that we can draw about whether or not the Bible is reliable? Clearly, people who copied the books of the Bible took their job seriously. The Bible is reliable, and there are real, God-inspired Prophecies that show the supernatural character of the Bible. What do we make of the claim made in Hebrews 4:12 that the Bible is "living" and full of the Holy Spirit? This is what makes the Bible different from any other book that has ever been written. It contains God's Spirit, and changes lives. It has changed my life – and if you are open to learning about Who the Creator of the Universe is, and why He has put us here on earth, the Book will change your life too. Open up your Bible today, and find out what the Creator of the universe would like you to hear and understand better today.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Repentance – How Does It Happen?

In my last blog post, I (and emergent leader Rob Bell) discussed whether or not there is any value of street witnessing where the objective of the witness is to ensure that the people know that they are sinners. The characterization is a Guy with a Bull-Horn who does not talk to people but loudly proclaims everyone's sinfulness. The purpose of this post is to look at some Scriptures that make clear that God is the sole source of repentance, and perhaps also showing that the technique used by the Bull-Horn God is not the best method for leading people to repentance. But first, let me share my first encounter with a 'Bull-Horn' Guy. This was done at the University of Minnesota. His name was Brother Jed and Sister Cindy helped him, and sat outside Coffman Union to dozens of students yelling and screaming about all of us being fornicators and we are damned to hell! I was a violent agnostic at the time, but I enjoyed listening to him mainly to hear how other people used Bible verses to show points where he was wrong. But I felt at the time that it wasn't very effective, and I still don't see much benefit to this kind of witness encounter.


 

But let's start by looking at some Bible verses on repentance. The best place to start is with God's command of repentance to ALL people: God commands everyone to repent (Acts 17:30), but also desires that everyone should repent (1 Peter 3:9). This seems contradictory to me, but let's leave this off to the side for now. The Source of Repentance is Jesus Christ – Acts 5:31. And the way that God causes people to repent is through His Holy Spirit: And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:8, I love this verse - a GREAT verse!). And it appears that the Triune God is the one who determines whether or not to give out repentance (Acts 11:18) - When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.


 

But one verse stands above the others in teaching us about repentance. Turn with me (OK, look with me) at the verse that follows. Romans 2:4:


 

Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?


 

So Romans 2:4 says that it is God's kindness in sending His only begotten Son as a sacrifice on Calvary that is meant to lead people to repentance. So if this is true, doesn't it call into further question the value of those like the Bull-Horn Guy whose entire focus is to tell people about our sinfulness? Rather shouldn't Christ and He Crucified be our only focus in helping others to repent? That God's amazing gift of Grace through God's sending of His Son to pay the full punishment for the world's sin, shows His colossal love for everyone, including you and me. And it is God's design that this love He has shown through the death of Jesus on the Cross that is meant to lead us to repentance (Romans 2:4, above). Shouldn't this be enough? I hope you will tell me what you think.

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Bullwhip Guy vs. Bull-horn Guy

I enjoy looking at the website 'A Little Leaven', because it nearly always gives me some quick mindless laughs at what other people do in the name of Christianity. They show things like people selling the Jesus Sandals, Perfume of Heaven, silly board games, all of which the bloggers feel are clear heresy in the Church. But they recently posted a video that was dealing with an issue that I have a hard time wrestling with – the evangelistic value of the Emergent Church movement (Bull-whip Guy) versus the Bible thumpers who preach on street corners making sure everyone knows that they are sinners (the Bull-Horn Guy). I would appreciate anyone can provide to help me sort through who is right. The videos can be seen on 'A Little Leaven' (the link is to the side of my blog), and look for the entry on I believe Friday November 30th.)


 

First, let me give you a little background of this fight. The Emergent Church is viewed by most older Christians as being without foundation because they rely on personal experience of God over reading the Bible. Emergents are young, Protestant, and designed to engage other young post-modern unchurched people. Rob Bell is one of the Emergent Church leaders whose Church grew really large in a short period of time. He has written a wonderful book entitled 'The Velvet Jesus', that I enjoyed. In the video 'Bull-horn' Guy, Rob Bell is there telling the Bull-horn Guy to put his bull-horn down, and stop telling people that they are sinners because no one is listening. He doesn't like the Bull-horn Guy's method because he doesn't think it is loving, and because he is hurting other Christian movements.


 

Bull-Whip Guy is a video of a more conservative point of view. They point out that Jesus took out a bull-whip and overturned the temple money-changers tables. Jesus Himself was critical of those who were making money at the expense of giving God glory in His Temple in Jerusalem. And He certainly was critical of the Pharisees and other religious leaders who did not care for other people, and were only focused on their power and prestige.


 

I appreciate both viewpoints, but I am having a difficult time sorting out which of the two positions is more right. I understand that traditional Evangelicals feel it is the most loving thing they can do to make sure people know that they are sinners, and that they need a Savior. But the Bull-horn Guy doesn't seem that interested in the people he is speaking to, and so doesn't seem very loving to me.


 

But I also see problems with what the Emergent Church is doing. I love God's Word, and I have been very blessed by it, and I hate to see any group lessen its importance. And the video of the Bullwhip Guy is right – Jesus was very critical and even attacked some people and groups. But Jesus also was very engaged with the problems that the people He talked to were going through. If someone was ill, He healed them. If they were demon-possessed, He freed them. If they were hungry, He fed them. He made sure that a person's most basic needs were met first, before providing God's teaching. But the Emergent point is that we can trust the Holy Spirit to convict the world of its sin (John 16:8-11), and so do we really need street evangelists like Bullhorn Guy doing his work?


 

So I am not sure of what to do with all of this. If you can provide any thoughts I would appreciate it.

Saturday, December 1, 2007

What Can We Learn About A Cells’ Flagellum?

Last post, I looked at the factory like structure of the inner-parts of a cell. But though the cell is an amazing structure, it is truly amazing to see what the individual parts of a cell do and look like. In this post, I will look at the cilia/flagellum of a cell. Please don't let the sciency words throw you, I will try and keep this information so easy even a lawyer can understand it! J


 

Cilia are found in cells with a nucleus (eukaryotic cells). They are on the surface of nearly every one of the 250 trillion cells inside our human bodies. Cilia are thin, tail-like projections extending outwards from the cell body. But there are cilia even on one-celled algae. And when one cilium is cut off, another replacement cilium will re-grow in about one hour. That's a good replacement system!


 

Prof. Behe's first book was called 'Darwin's Black Box' and it described the flagellum (basically the same as cilia) on the outside of the bacteria's cells. Don't get thrown off if I say 'bacterial flagellum', it just means the extended whips on the outside of a bacteria cell. The flagellum is a slender whip-like projection that motors the bacteria's movement. In 'Edge of Evolution' Prof. Behe also discusses the updated information we have learned about bacterial flagellum in the last 10 years, and he does this through easy to understand illustrations. He likens the cilia to the construction of a tower, which is built from the bottom up. Although there is still much to learn about how cilia are built, we do know that the plans are contained in the cell's DNA. The DNA provides all of the information for what parts are needed to construct the cilia, what proteins are needed, how much is needed (controls that turn on and off), and directions for where they should go.


 

from Wikipedia entry for flagellum.


 

Just as an outboard motor on a boat consists of a large number of parts, so does the bacteria's outboard motor, the flagellum. The physical construction in the cell is done by proteins. Proteins basically do the same work as bulldozers, steam shovels, train engines, train cars, railroad tracks, and all of the tools you can possibly use on a construction project. What is really interesting is that there is a protein in the cell that is essentially a foreman of the construction project. It is not a part of the flagellum or the construction machinery. Instead, it tells the other proteins what to do. When a flagellum is needed, the foreman protein binds to the control regions of the DNA that turn on the making of the proteins used in the construction project. One after another, proteins are made that are necessary for the construction of parts of the flagellum. The picture above shows all of different and various parts that make up the bacterial flagellum.


 

And it only keeps getting cooler! One of the early construction projects of the foreman is to assemble a pump. When the pump is completed, it is directly linked to the switching on the genes necessary to make the final, last parts of the flagellum. The perfect timing, the original plan for the construction secretly hidden inside of the DNA, the proper turning on and off of the proteins needed to make the flagellum, and the use of sequences to make just this one small part of a cell is mind blowing. I know some people look up at the stars and see God's majesty in His handiwork. But when I see the workings of the inside of a cell, I am in awe as I see what He has done. I wish I could do a better job of describing all of what takes place in the construction of the bacterial flagellum, but my hope is that I have at least given you the flavor of what is going on in the microscopic world in our bodies.


 

So what is the point of all of this? Prof. Behe describes the construction of the bacterial flagellum as being "irreducibly complex". By this he means that just as a mousetrap has 5 pieces that are needed to make a functional mousetrap (the board, the spring, the latch, the arm, etc.), and the mousetrap WON'T work until it has all 5 pieces in place. In the same way, the bacterial flagellum must have dozens of pieces in place before it will work. And this is something that Darwinism cannot do. Instead, the Darwinist claim is that small changes will lead to the making of the machinery that is useful in a cell. But as this post describes, these are not small changes. You need lots of BIG changes to make the flagellum. And they all need to work together, and in the right sequence, and with a proper plan in place to begin with. This is the domain of something that is shown to be Designed, and not the work of random forces as Darwinism is.


 

The Irreducible Complexity of the bacterial flagellum points to Design of life here on earth. It is yet another example of the 'Consilience' of scientific evidence that shows we are part of God's creation. I hope you find this persuasive as well.


 


 

The Three Heavens

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 speaks of the "Third Heaven", it says: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.

So what is the "third heaven"? And what are the other two heavens? That is what I will be taking a look at in today's blog. First, I think that we know what two of the three heavens might be right of the bat. Let's see if you agree with me. The first heaven is merely a reference to the sky above us, and all of the stars. Like when we say that the heavens opened up with rain. A great example of the use of this is in Genesis 15:5 - where God tells Abram, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars." This type of use of "heaven" is used in both the Old and New Testaments, as is done in Deut. 11:11, Psalm 19:6, Isaiah 13:10, and James 5:8. So let's call the sky and the stars above as the First Heaven.


 

And we know that God the Father and His Son sitting at His right hand are living in a place we call Heaven, this being the majestic home of God. This is the glorious place where the Prophet Isaiah was transported to, the very throne room of God in Isaiah 6. This is where the Apostle John was caught up in the Book of Revelation (Rev. 4-5). And this is where Jesus said He was going to prepare a place for His believers (John 14:2-3). This is also the place that Paul is speaking of in 2 Cor. 12:2-4 (quoted above.) So let's call this the Highest Heaven, or the Third Heaven.


 

So what is this place that is the Second Heaven? Pastor Jack Hayford has a great study on Revelation (called Focusing on the Future), and in this study he explains that the Second Heaven is a reference to the unseen, spiritual world that surrounds us here on earth. And this is well supported in the Scriptures. There are two great examples of this – first, in 2 Kings 6:15-17 we see the Prophet Elisha involved in a war between Syria and Israel. When Elisha's servant freaks out because the Syrian army is so large, Elisha prays that the servant's eyes are opened. Here is what he sees: 1


 

5 When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city. And the servant said, "Alas, my master! What shall we do?" 16 He said, "Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them." 17 Then Elisha prayed and said, "O Lord, please open his eyes that he may see." So the Lord opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.


 

Cool, cool, cool! There are armies of unseen armies of God, in the unseen, spiritual realm around us. This is the Second Heaven. And they help us! But we know from the world around us, that there must also be unseen demonic activity around us. And this is shown in the second verse that gives us as an example of the unseen spiritual realm around us, which is in Daniel 10. In Daniel 10, the Prophet Daniel is a godly man, who is fasting for three weeks and in prayer to God. 21 days after he started his prayer, Daniel receives a visit from the Arch-Angel Gabriel who explains that he was delayed for 21 days because he was in battle in this unseen Second Heaven around us with the ominous Prince of Persia. Here is what God's Word says about this battle:


 

12 Then he (i.e., the Angel) said to me, "Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. 13 The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia, 14 and came to make you understand what is to happen to your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come."


 

Whoa, what a cool verse with all sorts of implications that we can draw from this. This shows that the Arch-Angel Gabriel was in battle with an evil Prince of Persia. This was such a ferocious battle that it delayed the intended response for Daniel for 21 days. And the spiritual battle was turned when the Arch-Angel Michael came to help. Lots of meat in this chapter, but for now, let's just understand that the unseen spiritual realm around us, the Second Heaven, is a place where there are both forces of God and Satan.


 

Finally, in the New Testament we see references to thrones, dominions, principalities and powers (also called rulers and authorities). See, Ephesians 1:20-21, Colossians 1:16. I believe this is a reference to this unseen realm of the Second Heaven. And the most important point of this entire writing is that Jesus is far above every created thing, including all principalities and powers, rulers and authorities. Jesus triumphed over Satan and his kingdom by His death on the Cross. The battle is won. As is made more clearly than I can ever say is what is contained in Colossians 2:15 –"And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." And nothing in the Second Heaven, no principalities or powers can separate a born again believer from the love of God in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:38).


 

If you would like to study more about the unseen principalities and powers, here are a few more verses to look at: Eph 3:10, Eph. 6:12, and Col. 1:16. Thanks to my Mom who first raised this question a few weeks ago over lunch. God bless you!

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Is There ‘Consilience’ With What Is Shown by Malaria?

In Previous Posts I have provided a short summary of what is contained in Prof. Behe's book entitled 'The Edge of Evolution'. The summary shows that when there is a full cell with a nucleus with complex divisions (called a eukaryotic cell) like malaria, it is difficult to make substantial changes to what the proteins of the cell do. One study relied upon Prof. Behe shows that the change rate is so slim that to even make a beneficial two-point amino acid change (i.e., where two amino acids in a protein are changed), such a mutation causes malaria to develop resistance to the best developed drug used in fighting malaria, Chloroquine. The long but not impossible odds were calculated by this published study as being 1 in 10²⁰ every time when malaria mutates. So although it is extremely unlikely for malaria to develop a resistance to Chloroquine, when it does it has disastrous consequences. A mosquito can pass along the Chloroquine resistance to an entire community, and the result is that there is Chloroquine resistance in an entire village/town. This leads to increased deaths and malaria at least temporarily, winning the battle against man. But an interesting point is that the Malarial parasite has an Achilles' heel: it won't develop in its mosquito host unless the temperatures are balmy, restricting it mainly to the tropics. And so we see that evolution has limits: it does not develop new abilities in a cell, like the ability to travel to more temperate climates (like the northern hemisphere). Malaria remains only in tropical climates where it is a fantastic killer of people. Here, evolution/ Darwinism is no help for malaria to become a truly global killer, thank God.


 

But Prof. Behe also has a chapter (chapter 10) describing 'Consilience'. I thought it was a cool term, so I thought I would share it with y'all. Consilience is defined by Prof. Behe as an old-fashioned synonym for concurrence. And he further describes this as when separate scientific disciplines all point in the same direction, there is a 'Consilience', and we can be more confident of the conclusion. He claims there is a Consilience of various branches of the physical sciences – physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, molecular biology – all of which point to a purposeful design in the universe. These sciences reflect a vivid picture of a universe in which design extends from the very foundations of nature to all parts of life.


 

There are many examples of this discussed by Prof. Behe, the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, the molecules of life have useful properties to allow life on earth (like water molecules, for example), and the rarity of planets like we have on earth. All of the laws of science, finely tuned properties, details and events of the universe all point to our universe having been designed for life. Although Prof. Behe states that "Design isn't the only option", the evidence he provides certainly leads to that conclusion.


 

I will add as part of the Consilience the origin of life (OOL). There is a lot that can be said about the impossibility of life developing from non-living matter. But for now let me provide a link to an animation video of what is contained in a cell: http://aimediaserver4.com/studiodaily/videoplayer/?src=ai4/harvard/harvard.swf&width=640&height=520. Here is an example of why a cell is like a miniaturized factory:


 

  • a cell membrane with a particular, important shape;
  • inside the cell, is cytoplasm and a nucleus;;
  • every new cell is alive. They have a lifespan where they live, reproduce through cell division, and they die;
  • the cytoplasm is amazing: one cell has hundreds or even thousands of power plants (called mitochondria) that converts the chemical energy of food into a form of energy the cell can use to grow, divide and do its work;
  • the cytoplasm also have little sacs connected by membranes that act as the highways of the cell. These sacs and membranes channel the proteins throughout the cell.; (later addition, called Endoplasmic reticulum?)
  • also in the cytoplasm is the Golgi apparatus, which is the processing plant of the cell. The Golgi apparatus processes mostly the proteins in the cell. Some of the proteins are stored in small spheres, while others are transported to the cell membrane to transport to other cells;
  • also in the cytoplasm is the garbage plant (called lysosomes) that breaks down many substances. For example, in a white blood cell, the lysosomes break down harmful bacteria;
  • and you think that's complicated!, there is still more in the cytoplasm: for example, there is cytoskeleton of several types of protein rods that my encyclopedia says forms "complicated network", that forms the shape of the cell. On the outside of the structure is cilia/flagellum that contains the bundle of cytoskeleton rods that extend out of the cell, that allow the cell to swim;


 

It sounds like a little factory, doesn't it? It looks like someone has designed this cell. But the amazing nature of one single cell is just the beginning. Let's take a look at the cell's nucleus:


 

- the nucleus is the headquarters of the cell. It directs the activities of the cell.

- in the nucleus is the incredible chromosome – Human cells each have 46 chromosomes. Chromosomes are the carriers of inheritance. This is done through Genes, which are part of the DNA molecule. That was an interesting fact to me where the DNA is a single molecule. Genes control the passing on of traits from the parent cell to the offspring. Genes, of course, determines that a dog gives birth to a dog, and not a cat. The genes also determine blood type, color of eyes, and thousands of other characteristics. All inside the nucleus of one little cell.


 

- So DNA is part of the chromosome. As you know, DNA is where so much of scientific research is taking place. Breaking down the sequence of DNA. But DNA is just one molecule, made up of millions of atoms. And the grouping of chemicals in the DNA and its order is unique for each living creature.


 

- DNA's main work is to direct the production of "complicated" proteins. Most of the cell's structures are built of these proteins.


 

- proteins are the most abundant macromolecules in living cells. Proteins are made up of long chains (called polypeptides). And these chains are made up of small molecules called amino acids. 20 amino acids are found in proteins and the sequence is all important. Mndnfkfkewnhbfnmfmwekfkewlfkefkewlflwldelw. Did you like my illustration? Random assembly of the amino acids creates junk. Only by having the correct sequence of amino acids are the proteins made useful Just like with letters in the English language, the letters only make sense when they are put in the right order. Looks like another example of someOne's design of the cell, where proteins are brought together and made into something specific for use in the cell, right?


 


 

Bill Gates commented on the obvious: "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created." Now Chuck Colson had an interesting comment about DNA in his How Now Shall We Live book (p. 75), where he notes: It's true that DNA is composed of ordinary chemicals (bases, sugars, phosphates) that react according to ordinary laws. But what makes DNA function as a message is not the chemicals themselves but rather their sequence, their pattern. The chemicals in DNA are grouped into molecules (called nucleotides) that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible…


 

Thanks. Let me know if you have any thoughts about this.

Friday, November 23, 2007

The Good News

When asked what will happen after they die, most people say that they will go to heaven. And if asked why should they go to heaven, again most people say that they are good people, and that good people go to heaven. In this post, I will see if this makes sense.


 

The great evangelist Billy Graham has done an amazing job helping people to see that they are sinners who don't deserve heaven, but that they are sinners who deserve punishment. But I wanted to take a slightly different look at the Good News. A look at whether any "good people" could be in the presence of God in heaven.


 

A primary characteristic of God is that He is holy. And a constant theme throughout the Bible is that because God is holy, we should also be holy. See, Leviticus 19:2, 21:6, Matthew 5:48, 1 Peter 1:15. But another aspect of God's holiness, is that because He is holy, He is unapproachable in His majesty. We see this in the Garden of Eden, after Adam ate the forbidden apple, Adam could no longer be in God's presence, and had to hide (Genesis 3:8). The great Prophet Isaiah saw God's Throne room in heaven, with God's magnificence filling the room with His robe, and seraphim flying in the room crying out


 

Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory! (Isaiah 6:3)


 

And the Prophet's immediate reaction seeing the brilliance of this vision was sensing his unworthiness. He cried out his unworthiness, his uncleanliness before God's holiness. He said: "Woe is me! For I am lost!" (Isaiah 6:5). And only with his sin atoned for and guilt being taken away by the seraphim's touch of a burning coal to his lips could he stand even the visionary presence of God.


 

So how could any one of us think we are worthy to one day stand and be with God in heaven? His holiness is overpowering and we are only imperfect people. He is the Creator, and we are the created. As Revelation 21:27 makes clear: Nothing unclean will ever enter God's presence in the New Jerusalem, nor anyone who has done what is detestable, or false. That is all of us, and so, without something more, we could never be in the presence of anything so holy. His being nice, or good, isn't enough to allow us to bridge this holiness gap. We are mere mortals covered with a lifetime of the mud of sinning. God is the perfect, unstained Creator of the universe. How could the two ever be together?


 

Let me emphasize this point just a little further. God's Word makes clear that the following people will not enter heaven. Let's see if you or I will be disqualified because we have done any of the following:

the cowardly;

the faithless;

the detestable;

murderers;

the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars (Rev. 21:8);

all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness, along with those who are backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unforgiving, and the unmerciful. Also deserving of death are those who approve of others acting in such a way. (Romans 1:28-32).

If you haven't seen your sin yet as making you incapable of entering heaven yet, perhaps the following will help you - those who are unrighteous, fornicators [meaning sex between two people who are not married], nor idolators, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, nor extortioners. 1 Cor. 6:9-10. In addition, those who practice uncleanness, lewdness, sorcery, hatred, contentious, jealousy, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambition, dissension, heresy, envy, murder, drunkenness, revelry and the like. (Gal. 5:19-:21).


 

Whew, that is quite of list of people who deserve death, and not worthy of entering heaven. It is all of us, including me. Oh yes, I forget that the name of this post is the good news! So where is the good news? If you see yourself as someone who is not worthy of being with God, not able by your own effort as being in heaven, and as we started out this post, if you are not a good person entitled to go to heaven, then you may be one that God's Grace will save. For it is by God's grace through faith that you are saved. And this is not from yourselves, but it is the gift of God. Not by works, so that no one can boast. (Eph. 2:8-9).


 

Yes, only by the atoning sacrifice on the Cross by Jesus Christ, exchanging our sin for Jesus' righteousness on the Cross is anyone saved, and can enter God's presence in heaven. This is the really Good News that saves. Praise be to God and God alone! So the Good News is that God came in the form of a baby, not to condemn the world of its sins, it is already condemned. Instead, Jesus was sent to rescue the world from its sins, and this gift is available to everyone who repents of living without God in their life, and willing to make Jesus their Lord and Savior. Thank you for letting me share the Good News this Christmas season.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

What are the Implications of the Evolution of Malaria/HIV

What are the implications of what I previously described in man’s battle against malaria and HIV? In both malaria and HIV (Prof. Behe also examines e-coli) we see that evolution does assist a cell in fighting off man-made drugs. Evolution helps by making one or two point changes in an amino acid sequence (amino acids make up the proteins who are the workers in a cell). But from this great sample of evidence, we see that evolution does NOT make new machinery in a cell, and does not make anything new.

So what is the conclusion that we can draw as to Darwinism’s claim that beneficial small changes over time (random mutation/variation) will succeed in future generations and be added to through natural selection (the short formula used is RM + NS = Evolution). The claim is that through successive generations these small changes will result in greater changes, ultimately resulting in all that is contained within humans beings.

But does this make sense? I don’t think it does. Darwinists claim that everything starts from what was contained on early Earth: rock, water and sunshine, all of which are dead, non-living materials. So how do we get living cells from non-living things like rock and water? The Darwinists claim is that by adding something like electricity a real life “Frankenstein” can be made to come to life. I hope to discuss this more in future posts. But for now, let me say that it is FOOLISH to believe that intelligence (specifically human intelligence) can come from non-life. Not even today’s best of Designers can accomplish this, and it is foolish on its face to believe this happened through random forces in Earth’s past.

And the great benefit of Prof. Behe’s ‘Edge of Evolution’ is that it shows what are the limits of Random Mutation. So besides common sense/reason telling us we are the result of a Designed, we also see that the scientific evidence clearly shows that Darwinism cannot make progressively more complex living things. The evidence shows that larger beaks can be developed in a Galapagos finch. The evidence also shows that malaria or HIV can defeat most drugs used to fight it, through the small changes to a protein’s amino acid sequence. But that’s it – Darwinism cannot create anything as complex as a brain, a central nervous system, or sexual organs. Again, the answer seems too obvious to dwell upon.

And added to this is that the math does not add up for Darwinists. When we see 1 trillion malaria cells in an infected person, and 500 million people infected each year, we see an enormous amount of living cells going through the process of Darwinism. The number of malaria cells produced in a single year is roughly equal to 100 times the number of all the mammals that have ever lived on Earth (!!!). Let me say this again – All of the mammals that have lived on Earth does not equal even 1% of a single year’s production of malaria cells. And so, if we are going to see evolution do something before our eyes, it would be done in the cells of malaria or HIV or E-Coli. But Darwinism has done nothing.

So could we see the large diversity of mammals (I believe I read that there are 5,300 different mammal species) being created over the last 200 million years? No, of course not – think about the math: If malaria has had a two point change in its amino acid sequence to fight off the drug Chloroquine only 10 times over the past 50 years, what are the odds of any single mammal developing anything greater than a 2 point change? Science teaches us that it can’t happen.

So my conclusion is that the Darwininian process of Random Mutation/Variation is only a minor process. It is helpful in fighting off manmade drugs that are attacking it. But evolution is not a Creator, it cannot develop brains, a circulatory system, or anything this complex. And so, if life’s complexity is beyond the Edge of Evolution, this means that some sort of Designer was involved. And the Designer is not unknown to us here living in the 21st century: He is the triune God of the Bible. As Genesis 1:1 says – In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Is the Evolution of HIV different from Malaria?

In my last post, I provided a brief description of the battle between man and malaria. Malaria is the best studied example of evolution for a simple reason: numbers. With so many people infected and up to 1 trillion malaria cells in an infected person, science has learned much about fighting malaria. But malaria is still winning the battle, still killing 1 million people each year. And the best drug that has been developed is Chloroquine. But malaria has found a way to counter even Chloroquine – with the odds of developing resistance to Chloroquine roughly one in a hundred billion billion. Written in shorthand this is 1 in 10²⁰. But perhaps the study of HIV has revealed something more or different.

HIV is a virus attacking cells of a person’s immune system, while the P. falciparum / malaria is a eukaryotic cell, which typically has a cell nucleus with DNA in the nucleus. With HIV being the simplest form of life, a virus, this means that it is much less complicated than the malaria cell. While malaria has thousands of genes, HIV has only 9 genes, and only 1/1000th of the DNA information. But HIV is a mutational freak: it has a mutation rate 10,000 times faster than malaria. This is an enormous tragedy throughout the world where millions have been killed by it. So does the simplicity of HIV (being only a virus) along with a very high mutation rate mean that evolution will work more powerfully in HIV? Again, as with malaria the answer is a clear: NO.

So what do we see from the large amounts of scientific research spent on studying HIV? Yes, because of the high mutation rate, it is even more able to resist the drugs used against it. This is why a drug cocktail is used to fight HIV – so as to raise the chance against HIV’s high mutation rate. But this is similar to what scientists discovered in their research about malaria. But otherwise, HIV is “a complete stick-in-the-mud”, the only changes are “biochemically trivial”. There have been no biochemical changes in the virus at all.

While HIV has huge population numbers and intense selective pressure (because of man’s use of drugs against it), evolution works in single and double (and because of the high mutation rate, even more) point mutations, but there are no new useful protein-protein interactions,, and no new molecular machines. HIV has not discovered a way to enter different kinds of cells, beside the immune cells it attacks. It has not developed any new way to interact with other proteins, and nothing has happened at the molecular level: no new machinery, no new gene duplications that could lead to a new function. BOTTOM LINE: While Darwinists loudly celebrate studies of finch beaks, showing the most modest of changes over time as the finches’ food supply changes. But here we have genetic studies over thousands upon thousands of generations, of trillions upon trillions of organisms, with nothing of biochemical significance being shown.

Again, I am using Prof. Michael Behe’s Edge of Evolution book as my source. Next time, I will try and draw some conclusions and tie together what this impressive amount of scientific evidence shows.

Friday, November 9, 2007

What Can Evolution Do?

Malaria is the million person Murderer; it kills 1 million people each year, and makes 100 million other people sick. In some regions, it kills half of all children before the reach the age of 5. It is like Dracula, feeding on blood. It is carried by mosquitoes, and transmitted when they bite. Once inside a person they keep feeding until they reach the liver, where they stop to multiply. It attaches to a red blood cell, goes inside puts a protective covering on and feeds on the hemoglobin. The infected blood cell gets stuck in our veins and stops circulating. Malaria reproduces until about 20 copies are made, they then break out of the now trashed red blood cell and re-enter the bloodstream to go into more red blood cells. They multiply exponentially, so that within a few days there are a trillion new malarial parasites, which consume a large portion of the victim’s blood. Because they are so numerous, and it has been studied so much, it is the best example of what evolution can do.

The modern fight against malaria began in South America with the discovery that bark from the cinchona tree was useful for treating the fever. Quinine is developed from the cinchona bark, and once it was discovered in the 17th century that it could be used as a cure for malaria. But in the 1940’s the active ingredient was isolated, and a compound developed called ‘Chloroquine’ that was even more effective against malaria. Because Chloroquine was effective, with few side effects and inexpensive to make it became the drug of choice for treatment of malaria for decades.

Malaria has 14 chromosomes, and the resistance part was recently discovered to be part of a 400,000 nucleotide region of one chromosome. It was further narrowed to 36,000 nucleotide region. The complexity of even a simple parasite like malaria is mind-blowing. The DNA for malaria encodes 5,300 proteins (proteins are essential to the operation of the cell, participating in every process of the cell. This includes being enzymes for metabolism, structural and mechanical functions – like forming the cell structure and building muscles, cell-signaling, immune responses and cell adhesion.) The PfCRT protein (for P. falciparum, a malaria species - Throughout my post when I use ‘malaria’, it is for P. falciparum) normally has 424 amino acids in a strict sequence. When there is a change in the amino acid sequence, the change commonly happens at position number 76 and 220. These mutations are what have provided malaria’s resistance to Chloroquine. This is what evolution can do in making an organism more resistant to an enemy like Chloroquine that is designed to destroy malaria.
So these two mutations at spot 76 and 220 of the amino acid sequence are what Darwinism can do – they provide resistance to the primary drug used to fight malaria; Chloroquine. Remember, that there are 1 trillion malaria cells in an infected person. And there are over 500 million people infected each year. Tom’s Important Point: So with so many malaria cells (1 trillion in a sick person) and so many people infected with malaria (500 million each year), how often does a simple double mutation of the amino acid sequence happen to provide resistance to the top drug used to fight Chloroquine? One researcher has estimated that it has only happened 10 times over the past 50 years.

Resistance to Chloroquine has only appeared 10 times in the whole world in the past 50 years (!!!). And so, one writer estimates that if you count the number of malaria cells in a very sick person times the number of people who get malaria each year times the number of years since Chloroquine was introduced, we see that the odds of a parasite developing resistance to Chloroquine is roughly one in a hundred billion billion. Written in shorthand this is 1 in 10²⁰. Most of the information in this post is from Prof. Michael Behe’s recent book: The Edge of Evolution. My background is not in science, and so if you find anything that needs to be corrected, please be gentle. Your first course in molecular biology is now concluded.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

Does God Still Do Miracles?

Does God Still Perform Miracles, Signs and Wonders?

I am (my health permitting) attending an Alpha retreat this weekend. And part of the Alpha program is praying for each other, asking God to provide miraculous answers to these prayers, and to give different gifts to the Alpha guests (See, 1 Corinthians 12). But a fair question is whether or not God still performs miracles. We don’t see people walking on water, or splitting the Red Sea anymore, and so is it possible that God no longer performs miracles?

I believe God still provides miraculous answers to prayer. But the starting point in looking at this question is that God authenticated Jesus’ message and ministry as well as the ministry of the Apostles. Mark 16:20 and Hebrews 2:4. Hebrews 2:4 is very instructive, where teaches that the great message of salvation (by God’s grace alone through faith in Jesus alone) was first proclaimed by Jesus, and that God Himself bore witness to the truth of this salvation: while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by jgifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

And so God was a witness to Jesus’ message through miracles, signs and wonders, and the giving of spiritual gifts, including the gift of tongues. Miracles and wonders and the giving of gifts was God’s testimony to the truthfulness of Jesus.

But did miraculous gifts, signs and wonders stop after the New Testament writings were completed? This would mean that God relies solely on the writings and message of the New Testament for people to provide salvation for the unbelievers. But this means God has given up helping people through miraculous answers to prayers and giving of gifts.
But here is why I believe that God still provides miraculous answers to prayers. One of the earliest names for God is El Roi (Genesis 16:13), which means God who Sees and Cares’. And so, if we trust the Bible in saying that God is almighty (Genesis 49:25) and Sovereign. It is good to remember that God is sovereign in that He has control over all circumstances. He has total authority.

So we see that El Roi, God is a God who cares for us, and because He is sovereign, He also has the power to miraculously change circumstances. The examples of this throughout the Bible are too numerous to mention. But here’s a couple of quick examples: Jesus feeding thousands; Jesus healing the man by the pool; “many signs and wonders were regularly done among the people by the hands of the apostles.” (Acts 5:12).So God has the power and the love for us to care for what is happening in our lives, and to miraculously help us. And we see in Malachi 3:6 that God’s character is such that He does not change. And so, if He did miracles in the Old Testament (including Creation, the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Elijah and Elisha, etc.) and well as throughout the New Testament, then God’s unchanging nature means that He will do miracles today. And I have seen enough miraculous answers to prayer to believe this. God is powerful, He loves us, He wants to help us, and so there are times when God will use miracles to show His love and concern for us. Praise God, El Roi!

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Beanie’s Comments on the Songs of the 1980’s

My friend Bob from Edina East is a man who has a great deal of musical knowledge, if somewhat more eclectic than my taste. I recently had lunch with him, and he was kind enough to provide me with his list of the top songs from the 1980's, along with his comments:

  1. Billie Jean by Michael Jackson. Created the biggest music BUZZ since Beatle mania;
  2. When Doves Cry by Prince.
  3. Welcome to the Jungle by Guns N' Roses.
  4. Losing My Religion by REM. They were a good influence on music that followed in the 1990's including Nirvana.
  5. Fight the Power by Public Enemy. (Tom's note: OK, Bob has gone off the board with this one. Do you remember how Flavor Flav became somewhat famous? It is from this group. And it received more attention when Spike Lee put the song in one of his movies.)
  6. Back in Black by AC/DC. Welcome Back.
  7. Addicted to Love by Robert Palmer. The Best MTV could get. After this song, it was all down-hill for music videos (and MTV).
  8. Rapture by Blondie. 1st melding of rap with a huge Pop Star's legitimacy making it an important song.
  9. Every Breath You Take by the Police. Personally liked 'Every Little Thing She Does is Magic' better.
  10. Girls Just Wanna Have Fun by Cyndi Lauper. Still sung by girls and gays all over the world today.

I thought Bob's list and comments were very perceptive. His insight on MTV's pinnacle being Robert Palmer's Addicted to Love video, is shear brilliance! After this, everyone put out a bunch of mediocre videos, that caused a deluge of bad music and videos. To the point today, where cheap, inexpensive videos are being put out on You Tube and by-passing MTV altogether.

His list also included entries by Don Henley (Boys of Summer), Tom Petty (Free Fallin') and Simple Minds (Don't You Forget About Me), all of which are good additions. But another great part of Bob's list is that he included a list of the worst hits of the 1980's, calling his list "Refuse to Acknowledge":

  • Wham, anything by them;
  • Physical by Olivia Newton John;
  • We Built this City by Starship;
  • Poison;
  • Endless Love;
  • Bette Davis Eyes;
  • Footloose;
  • And finally, Toto.

I hoped you enjoyed Bob's additions.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Bible Memorization

Have you tried memorizing Bible verses before? If you have and have run into problems, let me suggest a product called Memlok (the website can be found at www.Memlok.com) and it is great! Now I am in my forties, and if I can do it, anyone can. The idea is that if you can get started, then you have a much better chance of remembering the verse. So it gives you a simple picture and from the picture you should be able to get started. Here is an example: a face that is drooling. Can you guess how Acts 4:12 starts?

"Salvation is found in no one else. For there is no other name found under heaven, by which we must be saved." The hint helps by making me think of salivating (ok, sometimes they are silly hints). But they work! The program is simple enough that my 4 year old son was able to memorize some verses, and even an old fogy like me had 75 verses in a year and a half. If you have 5 minutes a day, you can memorize some great verses. Give it a try!

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Top 19 Songs of the 1980's

19. Soft Cell Tainted Love; REASON: It is listed in Wikipedia as one of the top 10 selling songs of the decade.

18. Cyndi Lauper Girls Just Wanna Have Fun/or Time after Time; REASON: #1 for 2 weeks, and became an anthem for women/girls until this day.

17. Blondie Call Me; REASON: #1 for 6 weeks; Blondie melded disco and New Wave to make the Club Scene cool again.

16. Guns N’ Roses Sweet Child of Mine; REASON: #1 for 2 weeks; GNR’s album was the 4th best-selling album of the 1980’s

15. Dire Straits Money for Nothing; REASON: an incredible video. Album Brother’s in Arms was the #9 top-selling album of the decade.

14. George Michael/Wham Careless Whisper; REASON: #1 for 3 weeks. This song was the 7th top selling single of the decade. Throw in his ownership of the top of the charts in 1986, and I can easily be talked into move George up.

13. Whitney Houston How Will I Know?; REASON: #1 for 2 weeks. Part of a string of #1 songs for Whitney. Her sell-named album was the 5th best selling album of the decade (14.2 million units sold!)

12. USA for Africa We are the World; REASON: #1 for 4 weeks. A good case can be made that this song is the top song of the decade. It is far and away the top-selling song of the decade with OVER 20 million units sold.

11. Def Leppard Pour Some Sugar on Me; REASON: a top 3 best video of the decade by VH-1; Hysteria was the 10th best-selling album of the decade.

10. Prince When Doves Cry; REASON: #1 for 5 weeks; Prince put Minneapolis on the musical map; Purple Rain was the 7th best-selling album of the decade.

9. Living on a Prayer Bon Jovi; REASON: #1 for weeks; #1 video of the decade by VH-1.

8. Born in the USA Bruce Springsteen; REASON: Wow, the 1980’s were the Boss’ decade, President Reagan used his song for his campaign – sheesh! Bruce’s album sales in the 1980’s were the only one’s to rival Michael Jackson, with Born In the USA the 3rd best-selling album of the decade with 15.9 million units sold, and his live album the 8th best-selling album of the decade with 13.1 million sold.

7. AC / DC You Shook Me All Night Long; REASON: This album and song were played constantly in Tom’s basement for years. Back in Black was the SECOND best-selling album of the decade with 19.1 million units sold (!!! – wow), and the video was fantastic, for AC/ DC that is. And kids are still wearing their t-shirts. They did something right, and remember this was AFTER they changed their lead singer, having Bon Scott departing on his Highway to Hell. An amazing story of success.

6. Walk this Way Run DMC / Aerosmith; REASON: this song gets in purely for cultural influence. The song was a double winner – it revived the sagging popularity of Aerosmith, and their strong rock, with rap. This was rap’s first entry into real popularity in video, and white people’s CD players. This song helped to put rap music at the top of album sales from 1990 and on. A truly important song from the 1980’s.

5. Like a Virgin Madonna; REASON: Did someone mention cultural importance? Madonna turned a legion of girls into similar make-up/wardrobe/hair style. #1 for 5 weeks. This was also one of a number of songs that topped the charts for the now-spiritual Ms. Madonna.

4. With or Without You U2; REASON: #1 for 3 weeks. U2 is the one band that has survived after the 1980’s to keep cranking out, relevant, good music. And Bono’s relevance on a world stage, where he can talk to the Pope, the President, and kids about third world hunger and third world debt, makes this band a social icon of the Western culture.

3. Addicted to Love Robert Palmer (and the hot babe band behind Mr. Palmer); REASON: #1 for 5 weeks. And Mr. Palmer’s ownership of MTV during the 1980’s. Yes, this is where I am going to tell you I had been cranking his music for years before he released this album. And I still do, the real test of good music!

2. Billie Jean Michael Jackson; REASON: Michael Jackson redefined music in the 1980’s, and his string of #1 songs in the 80’s all could be in the top-10 list. Yes, this song was #1 for an incredible 7 weeks. The album was by far the top-selling album of the decade with over 29 million units sold. His videos made Weird Al Yankovic popular? Enough said!

1. Every Breath You Take Police; REASON: #1 for 8 weeks (bested only by Olivia Newton John’s Physical which was on top for 9 weeks in the musical wasteland of 1981). The haunting lyrics, the cool three person band, the burning cigarette in the ash tray of the video, all make this the best song of the 1980’s. Yes, it was the only true single on the best-selling singles of the decade (#6 behind a song like Survivor’s Eye of the Tiger! Yikes! The Wolff has spoken.)