Adventist Defense League

2014-09-26T16:23:00.001-04:00

>>>>>>>>>>Important Sunday Law Update<<<<<<<<<< ________________________________________________

HELP SUPPORT THIS MINISTRY:

16 identification marks to identify the Antichrist!

e-book: 16 Identification Marks

________________________________________________

Welcome to the Adventist Defense League. Across the internet their are many claiming that they have discovered Ellen White to be a false prophet, and that as a result the whole Adventist movement is false. Among the many accusations, there is one list we have spent much time investigating. It's a list compiled by critics Dirk Anderson and Robert K. Sanders, claiming that Ellen White contradicted the bible at least eight times. The following is our response to these allegations:

1. Did Satan Deceive Adam?

At one point Ellen White said that Adam "was deceived in a simular way." The claim is that she went against 1 Timothy 2:14, which says that Adam was not deceived. But was everything she said considered? Response

2. Was Israel destroyed by Gluttony?

Is there a difference between gluttony and lust? Our critic seems to think so. Find out for yourselves. Response

3. Can we be certain of our salvation?

Was Ellen White really saying that we can not be certian of our salvation? Or was she trying to teach something else? Those who believe in "once saved always saved" seem to be the ones who mostly have a problem with this one. Let's read what she meant together. Response

4. A sin to be sick?

Ellen White said that it is a sin to be sick... but, what did she mean by that? Could it be that she was talking about our sinful choices, which will produce sickness? Response

5. Christians to make trespass offerings?

Our critics use Hebrews 10:12,18 against a comment made by Ellen White in an article addressed to women and the way they dressed in her days. Why did she end her article with this comment? Response

6. Who spoke to Cain?

Sometimes Ellen White reffered to Jesus as an Angel, as the bible has often done as well. What exactly was our critic trying to tell us with this one? Response

7. Is Jesus the Almighty God?

In a half-quoted sentence penned by Ellen White, it seems like she is saying that Jesus was not God. But, what happens when we quote the entire sentance? Response

8. Does God hate wicked children?

In a couple of letters written to her children from countries like Australia, Ellen White urged her children to maintain their relationship with Jesus. Find out what she meant when she made the above comment. Response

Please Note: Dirk Anderson has two versions of the above list. His second version includes another suppossed contradiction called "Is Slavery a Sin?" Click Here for a Response.

_________________________________________________

Other topics of interest:

-80 Questions by Steve Rudd ANSWERED!

Here is a list compiled by an opponent of the Adventist faith which claims to be questions that Sabbath keepers are afraid to answer. Of course, we took them, and answered them one by one. Click on the link above to see their 80 questions, and to see the bible responses we provided. Unfortunately for them, Sabbath keepers are not afraid to answer them, and their are answers.

By the way, they responded to an email we sent them about how we answered each question. No they didn't send us a rebuttel. They said something else. Find out here!

-Point by Point Response to TD Jake's R.S.V.P.

We added TD Jakes to our list or critics because in his sermon he called us out by name. We took the time in listening to his sermon. We heard it dozens of times, and slowed it down to grasp every relevant point he was making against the Sabbath. Then, we put together this article responding to every point. We even made a short video clip to advertise our response, hoping to get his followers attention. Take a look at this response by clicking on the link above. Let us know what you think.

The video we made about this article is called "A Response to T.D. Jake's R.S.V.P. Want to see it? Click here. It's also available at the bottom of the article.

-Online Debate with a Former Adventist

One of our friends from an internet chat room which we've known for some years, read our response to TD Jake's R.S.V.P Sabbath sermon, and took it upon himself to send us a written response to our own points. We read and considered every response he made, and provided a rebuttal hoping he can see that there are responses to his arguments. We got a great reply. He told he us likes what he read, and although he still has many questions, and is not fully decided, is considering his current position against adventist teachings. Take a look at the link provided above. The original responses to TD Jakes are in bold/italic. His responses are in normal type, and our rebuttals are in blue.

-Response to Pastor J. Mark Martin

You know how Adventists have always offered a reward to any evangelical who could cough up a bible verse where it specifically says that Christians should keep the first day of the week holy as a Sabbath? Well, former adventist Pastor J. Mark Martin seems to have taken up this challenge. Although he is not claiming any rewards, he is trying to provide such a verse. But, there's something wrong with the verses he used. Can you guess what that is? Find out by clicking on the link above! You'll learn that the true Sabbath was never replaced or abolished.

There is another page we have where we examine another charge by Pastor J. Mark Martin. He tells us that we Sabbath keepers should stone our members if they break the Sabbath! Really? Find out what we discovered by clicking here.

-Response to Elder Olson's The Bible and Ellen G. White

Here we examine 59 questions which are meant to show that Ellen White contradicted the bible those 59 times. These questions are simular to those compiled by critics Sydney Cleveland and Robert K. Sanders (click here). The biggest difference, however, is how Elder Olson's primery attack is on our Health Message and what Ellen White had to say about it. Click on the above link to see his questions, along with our response, and let us know what you think!

-A Critique of Desmond Ford's critique of the Sabbath School Lesson

Dr. Desmond Ford is most famous for his attacks on our 1844 Investigative Judgment. Following in his foot steps, critics like Dale Ratzlaff have also taken up some of his arguments and have promoted them on their websites and books. In this article, we examine a critique which Desmond Ford did on the 2006 Sabbath School Lesson, which dealt primarily with the Investigative Judgment.

_________________________________________________

All of the articles appearing at this website are ours. None of them have been either reviewed or approved by the General Conferance of the Seventh-day Adventist church and thus all articles should be considered the research and opinions of the authors alone... READ MORE. Contact: adlqanda(at)yahoo.com *replace the (at) with an @. Emails with attachments will not be opened No material can be reproduced in any form without permission. copyright © 2010-2014. Sign our Guestbook!

2010-08-13T19:10:00.003-04:00

Online Debate with an athiest

1) 2 Samuel 24:1

“And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.”
...King James Bible

English Standard Version (©2001)
Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

Chron. 21:1

21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Very problematic contradiction

From this some conclude the Devil and God must be one and the same. However such an obvious contradiction reduces the credibility of scripture.

Nicole, this was not the idea I had in mind, lol. I'll email you what I meant (I think you misunderstood) but I don't want all this on my wall. Its the same out of order as if it were on Ryans wall. However I'll provide answers to satisfy your questions lest I get accused of not having any, but lets do it the way I requested on a facebook open forum, like a group. The public will be able to view our debate there as well.

In regards to this first question, I'd argue that this is a case in which both cases are true, teaching that God's authority extends even over Satan's. Let me explain first with a few examples. Evil men brought Jesus to death at the crucifixion, but notice this verse:

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, (28) to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28, NASB).

God used evil men to accomplish his purpose, which was in sending his Son Jesus to die on our behalf. Herob and Pilate might have sent the death sentence, the solders might have been the once who hammered his hands, but it was God who sent his Son to die for us. These men were instruments. God would have not used "good" men to do this, of course.

Here's another example. In John 13:25-27 Satan entered Judas when Judas decided to betray Jesus, but it was the plan of God that Jesus be betrayed as Acts 4:27-28 above tells us. In the book of Job also, we see God allowing Satan to be the instrument by which he was to test Job's character.

What does this tell us? That God can use evil men, even Satan, to accomplish his will. Yes God was angry with the people and did send forth a punishment (2 Samuel 24:1), but allowed Satan, who is ultimately the originator of sin and death, to be the instrument by which to accomplish it. Let's keep in mind however that its out of protection for the innocent who truly want to live righteously and as a result of their own sins that evil men are put out of the way. God allows the evil one to work His evil yet that work is ultimately used for the glory of God. All this is done without God sinning and it demonstrates God's absolute sovereignty over all creation. This sensitive issue is touched upon some more in the answers to the following questions you posed.

2) An inherent flaw in scripture is its openness to so many varied interpretations. Certainly all denominations cannot be right, thus can it not be concluded that many Christian churches are guilty of false teachings? If there are so many disagreements among Christians what hope is there to truly understand scripture and really can it be understood?

RESPONSE: The problem is that if God would have been too straight forward with the bible people would not spend time in studying it and getting to know God better through it. after reading the entire bible once or twice, there would be no more a need to study. But the mystery embedded within its pages is uniquely designed by God to have a double effect upon the reader. He may read it and need to return to its pages over and over again to understand better and learn more, all the while have it transform his life.

The reason why we have so many interpretations is because people are going against the bible's own method of biblical interpretation. God tells us through his prophet to interpret the pages of this book "line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little, precept upon precept" -Isaiah 28:9-10. However, Christians take it upon themselves to interpret it by themselves, without the aid of the context and of the rest of the bible. This error has caused the confusion in doctrines we see in our churches today. But the mistake is in the people, not the bible.

"The bible is like a Lion, let it go, and it will defend itself." -Martin Luther

Part II

3) Is Jesus God? Within the Christian context a complete agreement on who God is, is not consistent among believers. Thus with this uncertainty how can you be sure as a Christian you are in fact worshipping THE actual God.

RESPONSE: I believe Jesus is God based on the scriptures, and you can only do two things to debunk this. Either show me through the bible I'm wrong, or prove the bible is not true, in which case it wouldn't matter what I believed. I don't have time to go to the biblical reasons why I believe Jesus is God, but I invite you to present a verse or two if you'd like to show me otherwise. In the mean while, I wrote an entire booklet proving through the bible that Jesus is God. You should take a read: http://adventist-defense-league.blogspot.com/2009/03/honest-look-into-trinity-doctrine-we.html

4)Why do Christians often state that scientific facts indeed prove their religion to be right when they ignore mainstream science and instead opt to believe Christian Pseudo Science?

RESPONSE: Simply because its true. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is one such evidence. It states that all things are decreasing, rather then increasing as evolutionists say. Like a hot cup of coffee getting colder, the universe and the earth is deteriorating, not evolutionarily growing. This implies everything had a beginning, which in turn implies someone (an intelligent being) must have been present to have caused it (for every cause has an effect). There is more listed in question 10, and even more listed at www.evolutionfacts.com.

Now I won't go and say all science proves religion or God, and this is because there is much disagreement even within the circles of scientists. Much of the theories are too far-fetched or either illogical at best (as in saying life came from non-life). But I agree that the evidence for a creator within science does exist and the honest person should consider them.

5)Why does a loving God enact so many instances of torture and suffering on his people if he is indeed omnipotent?

RESPONSE: God does not "enact" torture." In fact Adventist Christians have good biblical reasons to believe in annihilation rather then eternal torment. This is a separate issue however. God does however allow (not enact) suffering, simply because he has left us to the consequences of our own choices, which are what bring suffering about. Yet he has not left us without direction. He commands his law to us so that we could, through obedience and faith in him, not suffer the consequences of suffering (the result of violating law). Suffering in the meanwhile has its benefits of teaching is important moral and ethical lessons. The child will only suffer once after burning his hands on the stove (even after being told not to place his hands there). I guarantee he'll never touch the stove again. The saying is true, "all things work together for the greater good to them that Love God." -Romans 8:28.

6) Why does an all-powerful God need men to carry out his will in some instances? I.e., why are there so many instances of orders given out for the complete annihilation of groups of people using other groups of people?

RESPONSE: God does not technically "need" mean to carry out his will, actually. For example, he himself spoke the Ten Commandments when he wanted them to be known to his people. But what happened when he spoke it? The people cried to Moses to tell God not to speak anymore, but to rather tell Moses all the law. This is one of the reasons why God uses human agents. We can bear his mightiness in our sinful, human flesh. Secondly, God uses people to do his will because it serves as a lesson and as a means to transform the human instrument's character to be like that of Christ's. The more I use my child to do my will, like taking out the garbage, cleaning his room, washing the dishes - the more his mind is taught ethical and moral behaviors. Now I'm not sure what your assumption may be when you ask why God would use man to destroy evil nations of other men, but if it were God himself doing the destroying, you'd still accuse him of destroying people, so whats your point? Either way, you'd accuse God. God wanted his army of soldiers (Israelites) to see first hand the results of sin and rebellion against God while performing their duty as solders. It taught the consequences of sin and the seriousness of living a life of righteousness and not one of murder, theft, sexual immorality and so forth. These men returned home to their families to teach their children the consequences of sin, ethical and moral values, and the benefits of following God's law rather then man's own irrational idea of what constitutes right living.

This is ridiculously long lol!

Part III

7) Why is context an issue when non-believers choose to quote scripture? For example it is okay to quote: “Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands.”. Bu...t not okay to quote: “15 Deuteronomy 6:15 (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.” or this one:Amos 3:6 “6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?” ( a personal favourite:).)

I am going to be kicked off Facebook lol!

RESPONSE: Its ok to quote any one of these verses if you have a proper understanding of God's character and person. God's character includes love and justice at the same time, and he demonstrated this at the cross, where for the "love" of the world he sent his sin to satisfy the inevitable result of sin, death (justice). Consequently, God's love and sense of justice has its following results. Not obeying God's law has its results, just like not obeying man's law has its result. The reason why a judge feels it necessary to impose the death penalty on a person is both because the people this person hurt demand justice and because this person will only continue to commit those crimes. God is an even greater Judge, knowing the future more then any man. When God says he will destroy a man, it is because he continued transgressing his law, which will in effect continue to hurt himself, other people, and the person of God. But the mercy of God extends farther then that of a human Judge:

Deu 5:10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

Mat 18:21-22 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven (seven in scripture symbolizes an eternal, completed number i.e creation ended on the 7th day).

Therefore yes God does punish, as would any father to his child, but it is our own willful disobedience to his laws that naturally brings this upon people, and must must protect all his children, even from other people.

Part IV

8) It is said that all versions of the Bible are pure and holy, yet newer translations have cast doubt on the goodness of the King James Version (my favourite:)).

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7
...
This differs from:

New International Version (©1984)
“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.”

And more so from:

New Living Translation (©2007)
“I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things.”

Damn lol!

RESPONSE: Nicole, I invite you to go to www.e-sword.net and download the free Hebrew/Greek Concordance of the KJV bible, that way you can study deeper into the original text of the scriptures. First off, note that the word translated "peace" is the Hebrew word "shalom" which means "safe." Now notice something important about this text. It is contrasting things. It contrasts light from darkness "I form light, and create darkness." Then it contrasts good from evil "I make peace and create evil." Its obvious that if your going to mention one thing and then mention its opposite, it must really be its opposite. For example, the opposite of man, is women, but it would be silly to say the opposite of man, is beast. Now if the word for "evil" meant "moral evil/sin" as you think it does, this wouldn't make sense, because the opposite of "safe" is not "moral evil/sin." The opposite of "safe" is "calamity, destruction, etc." In fact, the word translated "evil" is the Hebrew word "rah" and this same Hebrew word is found in Psalm 141:5, and here is translated "calamities" in your KJV. It's translated "distress" in 1 Samuel 29:7, and "grievous" in Proverbs 15:10.

Now biblically, "rah" can't always mean "moral evil/sin." Take Proverbs 15:10 again for example. This words begins "Correction is grievous (rah)..." But of course, correction is not "moral evil/sin." It can however be grievous.

Contextually the verse is speaking of natural phenomenon. Note that light, darkness and peace (safety) are natural occurrences. Consequently, the fourth word in this list (rah) must also be speaking of natural occurrences, calamities. This verse is dealing with natural disasters and human comfort issues, not moral evil. This is consistent with other scriptures. Translating this word as such by other translations is only in keeping with the original meaning of the ancient text. There is no deception intended.

Part V

In retrospect this should have gone to your inbox lol!

10) Do you not find it strange that your religion asks you to believe in something you cannot prove in life? Once you become Christian you are still not presented with tangible evidence of his existence, you are still asked to wait until death.

RESPONSE: True God asks for faith, but does not leave us without evidence. Not all things require science to be proven. We believe in ethic, but you can't prove with science that it was ethically wrong for Hitler to kill all those people. We can not use science to prove the existence of logic, but we know its there. How do we know, without science, that these things are so? Evidence.

Now God has left plenty of evidence. We have Design as evidence. Chaos does not result in design. It's existence implies a designer. We have logic, telling us that the unbeliever will end up dead whether God exists of not, because if God does not exist, the unbeliever dies. Theres no hope of life afterwords. If God does exist, the unbeliever still dies. On the other hand, if there is no God, yes the believer dies and stays dead, but if God does exist, the believer has a chance at life, because he believed in and obeyed him. Logic tells us we have a greater chance as believers of being right in God's existence then do unbelievers, at least half a chance. Then there's the issue of life coming from non-life. The fact that this is impossible implies that there must have been a beginning, implying furthermore there must have been someone available to cause the beginning, for every cause has an effect. Theres more that space does not allow for here, of course.

11) Why are revelations of the divine limited to only a few? Why not all believers and non-believers? Most are asked to have faith in him without any real proof, yet a select few are given the foundation needed to believe. Favouritism much?

RESPONSE: God may grant revelation to all who request it with an honest and open heart. Now you require absolute proof, but its been proven that absolute proof does not mold the heart and transform it into loving God truly. For example, Lucifer once lived in the very presence of God. He had absolute proof God existed. He communed with him, walked with him, talked with him, and even loved him at one point. But this was not enough to cause him to rebel against him. Surely we would love God if he showed himself to us absolutely, but experience proves this does not last if the heart is still selfish. God desires us to love him willfully in faith, so he does not show himself absolutely that we may, through faith, come to trusting fully in him (The just shall LIVE by faith -Romans 1:17). Consider also that appearing in front us us could destroy us, as his brightness and glory are too magnificent for the presence of the sin embedded within ourselves:

Hab 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the BRIGHTNESS of his coming.

However, this didn't stop him from making himself down to us personally and face to face. He did in fact appear, clothed in the flesh of a human body - Jesus Christ.

The End! lol!

2010-08-11T19:57:00.008-04:00

‎This article is not ready:

Edwin M. Cotto: "It would really be a most miserable end if after all of this there is just nothing." This is likely the reality but you'll be dead before you even realize.

I fear none of your arguments: Bring it! lol!'"

Well... if in the end it turns out you were wrong, I guess it wont matter for you either way since in both cases (if whether he exists or not) you'll end up eternally separated from God anyway.

Nicole: If the Biblical God is anything to go by, then that wouldn't be such a bad fate :).

Edwin M, Cotto: What does that mean ??

Nicole: I thought that was clear. Based on all the characteristics of God presented in the Bible there is no way I could be fulfilled worshiping and loving him when he seems like, pardon my expression, a tyrant.

I still cannot fathom how a decidedly perfect being can be warlike, jealous angry and vengeful. He sounds more like a dictator than the alleged loving creator of the universe. I am not sure how Christians bypass all these obvious flaws and then come to the conclusion that he is a kind, just and merciful God.

Edwin M. Cotto: I think your not distinguishing between God's mercy and his justice. What you call "vengeful, angry, jealous" stems both from his desire to be just and loving. My love for my child could cause me to sometimes be "jealous" if he won't love m...e back and will love someone else over me. I could get "angry" if he won't take out the garbage when I tell him to do so. None of this means I'm evil, of course. ;)

and vengeful? how so?

Nicole: there are various sets of believers.

1) Those who believe because they fear possible damnation.

2) Those who believe because they need a defined purpose. (Though ironically this purpose is even less rewarding than a life without "purpose...", a supposed eternity doing....).

3) Those who believe because they grew up under Christian influence.

4) Those who believe because they cannot face a probable reality that there is no such thing as human immortality.

There are other types I am sure but the one thing they all have in common is that they really don't question anything related to the Bible because they are fine believing for the sake of believing. They want to believe thus ignore leaps of logic.

At this point another person named Robert makes a comment I thought was important enough to share here as well:

Robert: Edwin...that is the point. Critics are not able to distinguish between God's administration of justice, and what they perceive to be petty vengeance.

I return to my conversation with Nicole. She replies to my earlier comment by saying:

Nicole: "My love for my child could cause me to sometimes be "jealous" if he won't love me back and will love someone else over me. I could get "angry" if he won't take out the garbage when I tell him to do so. None of this means I'm evil, of course. ;)" - Yes, that's understandable you are human, God is not, yet from all accounts he appears just as imperfect as your average human being.

"Do you believe there is a Creator God?"

I can't prove or disprove his existence. However I am inclined to believe there isn't a god.

Even if there is a creator, you do realize of course that all religions cannot be right about who or what he/it is. Hence the majority excluding one or in fact all are wrong about the creator's depiction.

"Does it mean that because you have a difficulty with certain accounts in the bible, that that makes out God to be untrustworthy?" - Yes

In a court of law any argument that seems fallacious, or if the evidences are inconsistent then the court must rule based on what has been brought forward not on what it wishes to be just. In other words I refuse to ignore all the absurdities and inconsistencies presented in the Bible, especially those related to His character.

But Bible aside there is still nothing that assures me of a God's existence. If he does exist he is likely indifferent by virtue of his absence. Or possibly sadistic by virtue of the human condition.

Edwin M. Cotto: Nicole, one of the other types is as follows:

5) Those who believe because both facts and logic leave them with no other choice.

An example of logic supporting God's existence (not fully, but at least adding a bit more evidence to our pile) ...is Ryan's reasoning above. I'll quote it now:

"Common Sense tells me that there is such a thing called Good versus evil and that it is not far fetched that there is an ultimate source for both."

The logic that the unbeliever ends up "dead" or "lost" in both cases, whether God exists or not, also lends some more support to our conclusion. In a court of law, absolute solid proof is not always necessary. The side with the most evidence wins the case.

Personally, I think its more illogical and that it takes a greater amount of faith to both deny God's existence and believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution (not that I believe you hold to this theory in case you don't). To me it makes more "sense" to accept that he exists. and the crowning point for my decision to believe as such was when I examined closely the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. If this event did occur, then he is who he claimed to be, and God does indeed exist. I invite you to explore what scholars, archeologists and historians have say in support of this event.

Nicole: ‎"My love for my child could cause me to sometimes be "jealous" if he won't love me back and will love someone else over me. I could get "angry" if he won't take out the garbage when I tell him to do so. None of this means I'm evil, of cour......se. ;)" - Yes, that's understandable you are human, God is not, yet from all accounts he appears just as imperfect as your average human being.

Nicole, my point was that's its not necessarily wrong or evil to be jealous or angry. accusing God of being evil or sadistic based on these just won't work, because you or I can do these and not be sadistic or evil ourselves. How much more "not evil" will then God be if he does these, who is far greater then I?

Nicole: Jealousy is a flaw that is considered a human flaw. Being warlike is also a flaw that is considered a human flaw. So are anger and vengeance.

Yet God has all these flaws. I was not even referring to his perceivable acts of evil here, merely... his deviation from perfection.

Edwin M. Cotto: These are considered "human flaws" to you, Nicole, but that does not necessarily have to be true. There is such things as justifiable... say, jealousy. For example, its not a flaw for a man to be jealous for for his wife, because she "belongs to him." That's justifiable. Now if he, having a wife or no, gets jealous of another mans wife, this is wrong and is considered a flaw. Or, if I'm angry for no good reason, this is a flaw. But if I get angry because my child disobeyed my rules, this is not wrong. I'm justified in doing so. There my rules and those rules exists to protect him. Your argument is one sided, but lets consider both sides here and get bigger picture. Yes God gets jealous for his children, but that's because he made us and we "belong to him." Yes he does get angry, but that's because we disobey him. as a mother to her child, he does it for all the right reasons. He is motivated by "love."

Robert makes another important point:

Robert: Let us say for argument sake that Iran decides to send missiles to destroy Israel, would it be justified for any nation with the power to stop Iran to not do something to prevent such an attack?

If the US makes a pre-emptive attack, would i...t be seen as justifiable by peace-loving people across the globe?

But when God does it its an issue. When God destroys a wicked and deviant nation its because He is evil...right? LOL

The bottom line is that critics of God are naive to God's justice system, and that is because they have not fully grasped the sin concept. People like these would have no qualms with a doctor removing a piece of cancerous tissue to prevent it from spreading, but they are quick to judge God for preventing any evil nation from spreading their evil influence upon others.

Its a pity that they can't see God's actions in destroying such a nation as being just, and that in so doing God is putting them out of their miserable existence, because in truth and in fact, living under such circumstances is no life at all.

Finally every person or nation has a probationary time period assigned to them. God has given every man ample reason to believe in Him, and as I have alluded to before, everyman believes in Him...Even those who say otherwise.

I return by replying to Nicole's comments on "free-will":

Edwin M. Cotto: "Free-will as far as I can tell is a fallacy if an all-knowing being had his hand in the creation of all things. He knew what the world would be, what the world would become before he even created it. Yet he did, despite all the atrocities... that would prevail."

Yes, he did, because he also saw you in that future, and wanted you to have the opportunity to live. He also saw the innocent children, the believing families, and the opportunity to have a real relationship with them. again, his entire motivation behind it all, was love for us. Would you have preferred he not take that risk and not create us all? Now that would seem unjust, to not give these other a chance at life.

Nicole: ‎"Would you have preferred he not take that risk and not create us all." If it would spare so many the horrifying events that have occurred throughout human history, yes.

His paradise was destroyed because of one man's mistake. Our beloved c...reator could not bring himself to forgive one man his mistake, one man who was essentially childlike and innocent, until the invention of woman. The good book endorses sexism. Sad. But I digress. My simple point is this, he was certainly capable of giving humans a taste of heaven from the get go. But chose not to. One man's sin is everyone else's, how absurd. It follows that God must be a sadist.

Edwin M. Cotto: ‎"If I allow my child to stab himself with a knife by simply watching him do it, I would be chastised for my negligence. Even though I did not do it myself what has happened would still essentially be my doing because I could have prevented... it yet didn't."

You can make this argument, Nicole, because you seem to not understand the depth of God's holiness and awesomeness. For God to appear in front of us, and tell us "hey, don't stab yourself!" would mean to have his brightness and glory destroy us in an instant! Imagine, even at Mount Sinai the people trembled at his voice. So this too, is an act of mercy towards us, besides giving us "free will."

But... God solved this issue. He sent his Son, Jesus Christ, who as God covered himself with the veil of human flesh to prevent any harm, and instructed us through him not to do such things. His Son then returned to God after his resurrection. Then, he continued his instructions through his Son by his Word, the Bible, available to us today. Your logic fails Nicole because God is not human. Not appearing in front of you, to stop u from stabbing yourself, while becoming a man and literally coming to earth to tell you not too, is in it of itself an act of love. I rather you hurt yourself, then I hurt you, and in the end have something to blame and accuse me of. However, again, I tried everything I could without removing from myself my own deity (I'm speaking for God of course) to tell you not to do this.

He can prevent such a thing by various means, by the way, not just by the written word or by his historical appearance 2000 years ago. He can send his messenger, or use any one or more person, to prevent this. He can even use you, the child's mother, to stop it. all this without risking hurting you with his brightness.

Nicole: ‎"Your logic fails Nicole because God is not human. Not appearing in front of you, to stop u from stabbing yourself, while becoming a man and literally coming to earth to tell you not too"

He doesn't have to appear in front of anyone to stop... an atrocity. My example is used as a comparison. He is omnipotent may I remind you that that type of unlimited power can do fantastical and magical things. If he wants to cure us all of diseases he could, if he wanted us all to look the same he could. If he wanted donkeys to fly and birds to swim in the ocean he could: he can do all things.

So essentially you're okay with a God that applies a roundabout method to saving a few. Even Jesus says "The knowledge of the secrets of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. This is why I speak to them in parables, ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand". His word is shrouded in mystery to ensure that all people will not attain heaven. Only the "smart" people will understand. This type of elitist logic works well for many Christian, after all what would be the point of heaven if every man, woman and child could get automatic admission.

Edwin M. Cotto: "Would you have preferred he not take that risk and not create us all." If it would spare so many the horrifying events that have occurred throughout human history, yes."

and yet you wouldn't be alive at this moment to be able to answer yes.... How grateful u must be he chose otherwise.

Yes sin did destroy everything, and your wrong that God did not forgive him. He did, but nevertheless the consequences of his actions still follow. I can forgive my wife for cheating me, but the consequences of having to live with that will follow either way. Note how great was his forgiveness, that God said "I'll die on his behalf." See, you don't yet know the story of redemption, and you should consider it before making this claim. God solved the problem by dieing the death Adam deserved. Adam now has a resurrection to look forward too, that's how forgiven he is. and you can have the same. God proved it all through the resurrection of Christ, and I think for you to successfully cast any doubt in any one of us as to the existence of God, you'd have to prove that this historical event did not take place. But this is a task I haven't seen you take on although I mentioned it before. Your answer is in the resurrection.

Edwin M. Cotto: ‎"I would say so are Christians. No Christian can properly explain the mass killing of innocent children and women..."

and I'm sure if God would have killed baby Hitler before Hitler grew and killed 50,000 innocent people, including believer...s in him, you'd still call him sadistic for killing a child.

God knows the future, and knew full well that due to the teachings and sinful lifestyles of the parents, the children would grow to be just as bad, or worst even. So he is merciful enough to put a stop to it before it happens and prevent these children from growing up and cause the death of, say, your family (if you were alive during that time). and yet for this act of mercy you accuse him is being sadistic.

Nicole: "God proved it all through the resurrection of Christ, and I think for you to successfully cast any doubt in any one of us as to the existence of God, you'd have to prove that this historical event did not take place." Have you proved this? How exactly do you prove that a resurrection took place?

Nicole: "and I'm sure if God would have killed baby Hitler before Hitler grew and killed 50,000 innocent people, including believers in him, you'd still call him sadistic for killing a child." Actually with his foreknowledge God could have spared ...us by either re-creating a perfect world, or forgetting about human existence altogether.

"and yet you wouldn't be alive at this moment to be able to answer yes. How grateful u must be he chose otherwise." But that's just it, I wouldn't be alive to know that I was missing out on anything. Hence it would not matter. If something does not exist it cannot experience any emotion, it cannot regret not being born, it cannot yearn to be, because it is not.

Edwin M. Cotto: ‎"If he wants to cure us all of diseases he could"

and how would that fix our character? He could spoon feed us all he wants, but my mind will still want to rebel against him. He desires to mold us to be more like him, so he allows us to rea...p our own consequences so we realize that our ways are wrong; our bad habits, our sinful ways, all wrong, and his way is better.

"if he wanted us all to look the same he could."

If he would have done this, creationists wouldn't have a case when they argue for "design." But since this is not the case, I appeal to Design as an argument for his existence.

"If he wanted donkeys to fly and birds to swim in the ocean he could"

He simply chose not to have donkeys fly. But this argument is irrelevant because we're debating the sin issue.

"he can do all things."

I disagree. He can't "sin" because he has chosen in eternity past to not do so, so it is his own character not to. Thank God for that!

"So essentially you're okay with a God that applies a roundabout method to saving a few. Even Jesus says "The knowledge of the secrets of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. This is why I speak to them in parables, ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand". His word is shrouded in mystery to ensure that all people will not attain heaven. Only the "smart" people will understand."

Context, Nicole. The people were willfully unbelieving, even accusing Jesus is working for the Devil himself (see Matt. 12:24). He spoke to them in parables simply because he knew they were not going to believe otherwise. and in fact he did them a favor, because straight up telling them things like "Hey, I'm God" would have caused more doubt and possibly a revolt. He spoke straight to his disciples, because they were open minded enough, and believed.

Nicole: Where the statement Jesus is God is concerned. My understanding is he's the son of God. That's also what I gather from scripture. But that's another argument for another time.

You are arguing points that are merely used to exemplify the abs...olute power that omnipotence allows.

The question I have asked that you have not yet answered is "How do you prove the resurrection occurred?"

Edwin M. Cotto: ‎"and I'm sure if God would have killed baby Hitler before Hitler grew and killed 50,000 innocent people, including believers in him, you'd still call him sadistic for killing a child." Actually with his foreknowledge God could have spared ......us by either re-creating a perfect world, or forgetting about human existence altogether.

Both of these require God also turn his back on the innocent people he also saw far into the future. I made this point already above.

"and yet you wouldn't be alive at this moment to be able to answer yes. How grateful u must be he chose otherwise." But that's just it, I wouldn't be alive to know that I was missing out on anything. Hence it would not matter. If something does not exist it cannot experience any emotion, it cannot regret not being born, it cannot yearn to be, because it is not.

But God would remain alive, so it would matter to him. Therefore he made you anyway.

Edwin M. Cotto: ‎"they would have worshiped God out of fear and not love."- "Thou shalt fear thy God: for I am the LORD your God." What's the problem then?"

the problem is that fear-motivated love is forced love, and if God did this, you'd accuse him of being unfair and tyrannical anyway. But the fact that he did not make us robots, proves how much more merciful he is, and how sadistic he is not.

aDD COMMENT HERE ON TWO KINDS OF fear

‎Edwin M. Cotto: "The question I have asked that you have not yet answered is "How do you prove the resurrection occurred?"

I must have missed where you asked me this question, if it was me you asked.

Through many means. First, it can't be proven that it DID...N'T happen. Second, the eyewitness accounts. History records many many people giving up their very lives for the truth that they saw him alive after his death. Logically, these people would not willingly give up their lives, and the lives of their families, for a lie. I'm not speaking of someone who honestly believes in something, but that that something is actually untrue. I'm speaking of people who actually "saw" him alive. Third, the biblical record. Until you prove otherwise, it stands as true to history. Fourth, the corroborative evidence. There is plenty of this outside of scripture, backing up the story that the resurrection took place. Then there's the easily refuted arguments against it, that show it can't be shown as false causing it to remain vindicated. For example, some people say everyone who died for claiming they saw the risen Christ were all hallucinating. But, hallucinations do not happen in groups. The medical proofs. Some say Jesus faked his death, but this is impossible considering what history tells us on how the Romans executed torture and death on their victims. Theres so much more that won't fit in this small forum.

Nicole: ‎"Both of these require God also turn his back on the innocent people he also saw far into the future. I made this point already above." But he turns his back on the innocent when he has them slaughtered. So clearly he's not above turning h...is back on anyone.

"But the fact that he did not make us robots, proves how much more merciful he is, and how sadistic he is not." - That proves his mercy? Mercy is accepting that your creations are flawed and allowing them to thrive despite this. In the event that you realize that your creations will ultimately fail, well a majority of them anyway, it would be more merciful to put them out of their misery without the evils of torture and mass killings.

"But God would remain alive, so it would matter to him. Therefore he made you anyway." Exactly, he is perfectly okay with human suffering. And in this case the ends do not justify the means.

Nicole: "Second, the eyewitness accounts. History records many many people giving up their very lives for the truth that they saw him alive after his death. Logically, these people would not willingly give up their lives, and the lives of their fa...milies, for a lie. I'm not speaking of someone who honestly believes in something, but that that something is actually untrue. I'm speaking of people who actually "saw" him alive. Third, the biblical record. Until you prove otherwise, it stands as true to history." None of these are adequate proofs for a sceptic. Accounts from various sources can be wrong. There is no solid evidence for the resurrection nothing you have mentioned is unquestionable proof of its occurrence.

"But, hallucinations do not happen in groups." But belief in something and claiming it is true does happen. Belief can allow people to "fudge" the truth to buy into that particular belief system. Furthermore, groups of people have the capacity to lie, that is not at all far-fetched.

Edwin M. Cotto: ‎"Both of these require God also turn his back on the innocent people he also saw far into the future. I made this point already above." But he turns his back on the innocent when he has them slaughtered. So clearly he's not above turning h......is back on anyone."

This was also already responded too. When God ordered the slayings of peoples, it was first of all on conditions they were given enough time to learn of God and repent. Second, if it happened it was only because God saw in the future that they'd grow up to be worst then their parents and possibly cause the death of millions of the ones who truly are innocent. how many baby Hitlers could this world take before we end up eliminating ourselves??? But on the other hand if God would have allowed those babies to survive, and they grew up to kill millions of innocent people, you'd still accuse God of being tyrannical for allowing it, and you'd use your "allowing my child to stab himself" analogy again. Your reasoning does circles and circles Nicole. Can't you see that ??

"But the fact that he did not make us robots, proves how much more merciful he is, and how sadistic he is not." - That proves his mercy?"

Yes it does.

Mercy is accepting that your creations are flawed and allowing them to thrive despite this.

He does this already Nicole but you use this very thing to accuse him of being sadistic (remember your "allowing my child to get stabbed analogy"?). Your arguing in circles again. Gosh this is eeeasy !!!

"In the event that you realize that your creations will ultimately fail, well a majority of them anyway, it would be more merciful to put them out of their misery without the evils of torture and mass killings."

According to you Nicole, but God thought of me when he saw the future and I'm happy he gave me a chance to live despite the risk. He loves me, and his enemies (since he allowed them to live as well) THAT much.

"But God would remain alive, so it would matter to him. Therefore he made you anyway." Exactly, he is perfectly okay with human suffering. And in this case the ends do not justify the means."

What? My point was that it would matter to him if you were not born because you were predestined in his mind already. But he loved you that made to allow you to become born despite the suffering that WE caused. He is not ok with human suffering, but he is also not ok with intruding on our freedom to chose.

Edwin M. Cotto: "None of these are adequate proofs for a sceptic. Accounts from various sources can be wrong. There is no solid evidence for the resurrection nothing you have mentioned is unquestionable proof of its occurrence."

Nicole, these and more that... I didn't mention are a collection of circumstantial and corroborative evidences that together "may more strongly support one particular inference over another." -Evidence, wikipedia. In support of the Resurrection, also, we may add archeological evidence as well. You on the other hand only have your doubts and skepticism. Which will a judge rule in favor for? The guy saying "there's no proof what you believe happened!" or the guy saying "well we have plenty and all sorts of evidence to prove" ?? Now you said accounts from various sources can be wrong. Well since your making this claim then the burden of proof is on you to prove this. Scholars have ways to show how the accounts of the authors of the New Testament can be dated to up to only a few years of the cross, even 7 to 9 years, especially with the writings of Paul. This makes it nearly impossible for legend to corrupt the story of the cross. It also makes it impossible for someone to lie about the story, because this means that eyewitnesses to the events would have contradicted those writings. This would apply even if the writings were dated up to 60 years from the cross! But you will never find an ancient writing of something like that. In fact Christs enemies, instead of denying the empty tomb, just said his body was stolen, an impossible tack considering the death penalty for Roman soldiers who didn't guard their tombs!

"But, hallucinations do not happen in groups." But belief in something and claiming it is true does happen. Belief can allow people to "fudge" the truth to buy into that particular belief system. Furthermore, groups of people have the capacity to lie, that is not at all far-fetched."

This will still not work because for reasons already mentioned. Because massive people died for their claim that they literally "saw" the risen Christ, and its not logical to believe they die and willing give up their families to death for something they didn't really see! This was more then just a "belief" to these people, they 'saw' him. We have up to 500 eyewitnesses who were willing to die for this claim, and in a court of law you hardly need two to convict someone to the rest of their lives in jail. This is hard evidence critics won't really confront head on.

Nicole: "But on the other hand if God would have allowed those babies to survive, and they grew up to kill millions of innocent people, you'd still accuse God of being tyrannical." Thus to avoid this altogether, only allow humans with a good heart... to be born into the world, or wipe out your creation completely because it has failed.

"What? My point was that it would matter to him if you were not born because you were predestined in his mind already. But he loved you that made to allow you to become born despite the suffering that WE caused. He is not ok with human suffering, but he is also not ok with intruding on our freedom to chose."

Many of us were pre-destined to suffer and what's worse will still, according to scripture, not attain the "wonderment" of eternity. Essentially you're saying he'd rather see a world where misery is rampant simply because he has already foreseen it in his mind. It is therefore clear that he is okay with human suffering. What he's not okay with is not fulfilling what he has foreseen. Remember the choice lies with him. He is not being held against his will to see these things come to pass. His reasons for letting us live (to love, fear and serve him) seem far too superficial for such an all-powerful being.

Nicole: ‎"Christs enemies, instead of denying the empty tomb, just said his body was stolen, an impossible tack considering the death penalty for Roman soldiers who didn't guard their tombs." It's impossible for his body to be stolen from a tomb th...at was allegedly guarded? The last time I checked heavily guarded vaults with up-to-date security systems have failed at one point or another, even now.

"Because massive people died for their claim that they literally "saw" the risen Christ, and its not logical to believe they die and willing give up their families to death for something they didn't really see!" According to which text, the Bible, right. Who wrote the Bible? Men. Were these men entirely truthful in their writings? Probably not based on some startling contradictions and inconsistencies. Would they claim witnesses even if there were none? Quite possibly.

Archaeologists cannot prove the resurrection because an empty tomb now proves nothing.

Hard evidence would include but would not be limited to videotape footage of the entire event from crucifixion to resurrection plus DNA evidence to confirm that indeed the person who rose was the same person who was buried. Unfortunately we do not have such evidences.

Edwin M. Cotto: "But on the other hand if God would have allowed those babies to survive, and they grew up to kill millions of innocent people, you'd still accuse God of being tyrannical."

"Thus to avoid this altogether, only allow humans with a good hear...t... to be born into the world,"

Then God could be accused of the angels of a bunch of things, including uncertainty, unfairness, mystery and/or not giving "everyone" a chance to decide for themselves. also, allowing an evil person to be born who God knew would later repent and change would show the world how God has the power to change an individual. It will show how merciful and forgiving he is. Without this we wouldn't not truly understand forgiveness because there wouldn't be an example of it. and God wants us to fully understand his merciful and loving character that he could be better loved and appreciated.

"or wipe out your creation completely because it has failed."

This will also raised too many questions against God's character by the angels who God also loves. They could accuse him of injustice. This would also cause them to worship him out of fear and not out of a willful loving heart which is what he desires. He dealt with the entire situation in the best way possible. The cross justifies him. It vindicates his character.

"Many of us were pre-destined to suffer and what's worse will still, according to scripture, not attain the "wonderment" of eternity. Essentially you're saying he'd rather see a world where misery is rampant simply because he has already foreseen it in his mind. It is therefore clear that he is okay with human suffering. What he's not okay with is not fulfilling what he has foreseen. Remember the choice lies with him. He is not being held against his will to see these things come to pass. His reasons for letting us live (to love, fear and serve him) seem far too superficial for such an all-powerful being."

Not simply because he has already foreseen it in his mind, but most importantly because he also saw, in the midst of the chaos, true love, peace and innocence. He saw many who would truly dedicate themselves to him. He saw you, and the possible conversion and love you might soon give him in the future.

"Christs enemies, instead of denying the empty tomb, just said his body was stolen, an impossible tack considering the death penalty for Roman soldiers who didn't guard their tombs." It's impossible for his body to be stolen from a tomb th...at was allegedly guarded? The last time I checked heavily guarded vaults with up-to-date security systems have failed at one point or another, even now."

Yes because technology is not perfect and has the tendency to fail, but back then they did not use technology. They used real human guards. Those guards were threatened in a way that guards are not threatened today, so this is hardly comparable. Today a guard will not have his property stripped from him and his life along with the life of his family taken from him if he failed.

"Because massive people died for their claim that they literally "saw" the risen Christ, and its not logical to believe they die and willing give up their families to death for something they didn't really see!" According to which text, the Bible, right. Who wrote the Bible? Men. Were these men entirely truthful in their writings? Probably not based on some startling contradictions and inconsistencies. Would they claim witnesses even if there were none? Quite possibly."

Nicole, two things. First history records their willingness to die for what they saw as well. Second, the testimony of scripture is reliable. Archaeology and the dating of the ancient writings of the New Testament has been able has been able to prove this. The writings of Paul have been dated to have been written only a few years from the cross. When he mentioned the 500 witnesses and what they saw, these witnesseses were alive to testify to this fact, or to contradict it. They never contradicted it.

"Archaeologists cannot prove the resurrection because an empty tomb now proves nothing."

What archaeology proves is a few things. One is that the writings can be dated too close to the events they describe to have been both verified by the witnesseses still living and to prevent legendary corruption of the stories. It also helps validate the honesty of the witnesses. For example, many of the tittles and places Luke described have been supported to have actually existed through archeological findings. This is very significant. Luke is a Historian, so his testimony provides what a court of law describes as "expert witness." an expert witness, in court, is often questioned first on his knowledge of his field of study before anything else to very if he is qualified to be an expert witness (see Wikipedia). This has been done to the writings of Luke through archeological findings. These have put him to the test, and he has been found 100% faithful even to the smallest details of history. This lends a lot of support. If he can be faithful to the small details, its likely he was truthful about his account of the resurrection story, despite the mockery and so forth that would probably follow.

"Hard evidence would include but would not be limited to videotape footage of the entire event from crucifixion to resurrection plus DNA evidence to confirm that indeed the person who rose was the same person who was buried. Unfortunately we do not have such."

This is unrealistic and you wouldn't be taken seriously if you used this argument in a court of law today, because we have to judge and test a historical event in its own historical context. Videotapes didn't exist then, but regardless of that we have other evidences we can point too sufficient to make a case for Christ. I don't think you've taken a look at all the evidence yet."

‎Nicole: "Videotapes didn't exist then, but regardless of that we have other evidences we can point too sufficient to make a case for Christ." Sufficient here being subjective because I gather from all that you have said that you are still relying ...on the words of a few.

"They used real human guards." Real human guards are often unreliable. No matter the consequences of their failures, they are still likely to fail at some point.

"He saw many who would truly dedicate themselves to him." So essentially his selfishness is what prompted him to continue the horrors of existence. From the multitude he would find a few to love him, how noble.

"Then God could be accused of the angels of a bunch of things, including uncertainty, unfairness, mystery and/or not giving "everyone" a chance to decide for themselves." Ultimately this wouldn't matter because the angels are aware that God already knows the fate of his creatures. He would indeed be merciful for not perpetuating his flawed creation.

"This will also raised too many questions against God's character by the angels who God also loves. They could accuse him of injustice." Many humans accuse him of that now.

"God wants us to fully understand his merciful and loving character." He has a strange way of showing this.

Though I have no faith in any religion I can understand why some people believe in religions that profess the laws of Karma and reincarnation. At least their logic makes the deity seem more merciful. People are given many different life times to work off their Karma, essentially no one is sent to hell they merely go through different stages of enlightenment through different life experiences. Some Christians say they are insane for believing such a ludicrous idea. I think both are fairly absurd however at least I can say the Karma/reincarnation belief system exemplifies a kinder/more loving deity.

Yet in the end most people believe what brings comfort. I can imagine how scary it would be for a Christian to accept as I have the probability that this is inevitably it. Death ends absolutely.

Robert: ‎(((I question the evidences that Christians use to valida...te the Bible because in most cases they still seem fairly flawed and do not stand up to thorough investigation.)))

This happens to be a flawed statement because the research is con...ducted by independent scientists in most instances, most of whom are not religiously inclined. In fact some of these archeological findings were purely coincidental findings. Besides, Christians have no reason to scew their research since they are also looking for the truth.

There is a long list of evolutionist scientists who are jumping ship and are leaning towards Intelligent Design.

(((From what I have read, from what devout Christians have said, from what others who write on the topic have said. The Bible is open to interpretation mainly because people wish to believe it is infallible without assessing the many factors that may and possibly did affect its credibility.)))

And why is it you are not able to list those factors? In my previous discourse I have alluded to the fact that science if anything is catching up with the bible. Science is confirming its usefulness, purpose, and the fact that God had indeed inspired holy men to write it. How would a person without scientific knowledge as we have it now, would have known that the earth was round. Yet long before science confirmed that the earth was indeed round, Isaiah the prophet declared it so. The bible declared that air has weight long before science discovered it.

Nicole you are allowing the graphics of children having to die by God's righteous judgment to blur your understanding. When God decides to completely destroy a nation, His judgments don't come without prior warnings. In the case of God commanding king Saul to completely destroy the children on the breast, including adults, goes to show how extensive evil had prevailed in that region. Even the children had to be killed lest they would have continued the evil to an even greater extent than their fore parents.

That is the very same reason why God had to completely destroy Sodom. Christ had confirmed with Abraham that if there were 5 righteous persons there, he would have spared the city, but alas only Lot's blood family barely survived. They had to be pulled to safety by God's angels.

Besides, peradventure there be any righteous children who were destroyed, rest assured God will raise them up in the resurrection.

Edwin M. Cotto: "Videotapes didn't exist then, but regardless of that we have other evidences we can point too sufficient to make a case for Christ." Sufficient here being subjective because I gather from all that you have said that you are still relying ......on the words of a few.

I realize everything is subjective to you, and that's fine, but theres too much evidence for this to be so easily dismissed by a court of law. "on the words of few" No on the words of many many people. Written testimony is also sufficient in a court of law is is also considered eyewitness report (see Wikipedia).

"They used real human guards." Real human guards are often unreliable. No matter the consequences of their failures, they are still likely to fail at some point.

Maybe so, but this is rather unlikely considering one very important fact. Everyone knew, the Jews and the Romans, that Jesus claimed he would raise from the dead, so extra care was taken at the tomb of Christ to ensure this did not happen.

"He saw many who would truly dedicate themselves to him." So essentially his selfishness is what prompted him to continue the horrors of existence. From the multitude he would find a few to love him, how noble."

But then if God would have dismissed as irrelevant those innocent ones he also saw, he'd be accused, at least by the angels, of unfairness and of being heartless.

"Then God could be accused of the angels of a bunch of things, including uncertainty, unfairness, mystery and/or not giving "everyone" a chance to decide for themselves." Ultimately this wouldn't matter because the angels are aware that God already knows the fate of his creatures. He would indeed be merciful for not perpetuating his flawed creation"

It mattered to them who understand this as much as it matters to us who also understand this. Yes God knows their fate, but allows people to live to at least give them a chance at life. He loves his enemies that much. They will also serve his purpose of justifying his character which was tainted by Satan's accusations. No one will turn around and say "you didn't even give him a chance." Because of free will, the rise of evil was inevitable, but God dealt with it in the best possible way, through his Son Jesus. any other way would have raised too many questions.

"This will also raised too many questions against God's character by the angels who God also loves. They could accuse him of injustice." Many humans accuse him of that now.

yes.

"God wants us to fully understand his merciful and loving character." He has a strange way of showing this.

You shouldn't expect to fully understand his ways. If we could fully understand his ways, he wouldn't be God anymore.

"Though I have no faith in any religion I can understand why some people believe in religions that profess the laws of Karma and reincarnation. At least their logic makes the deity seem more merciful."

Have you studied what these people actually believe? I have. To them we can be reincarnated into anything. Imagine becoming a fly who can be slowly and painfully digested alive by the toxic and digestive chemicals of a spider saliva for days while entangled and enslaved in his web? Or into a goat that can be eaten alive by a lion or giant lizard? Then have this happen over and over again, possible for millions of years until finally becoming part of the "eternal one/essence," if that EVER happens. When they reach their final stage in the process of reincarnation, they merge into this eternal "essence" which is impersonal, unknowing and distant. They just become "it." No emotion, no experience, no personality. I'm not sure what ur definition of mercy is, but I think most would agree that this is not it. By contrast, the Christian God offers a personal eternal relationship with him throughout eternity by the gift of his Son Jesus Christ without tampering with our characters and abilities to love and experience.

"Yet in the end most people believe what brings comfort. I can imagine how scary it would be for a Christian to accept as I have the probability that this is inevitably it. Death ends absolutely."

I can imagine it scarier for the unbeliever, who in the ends up dead regardless of God's existence or not. at least the believer has a 50% chance of being right in his belief in the existence of God.

although you politely ignored my comments about Luke as an expert witness, his accuracy to the smallest of details, archeology, the dating of manuscripts with its ability to be tested by the living witnesses and to prevent legendary corruption, I was hoping to read a response.

I honestly see in you the ability to come to faith in God. Oh If only you would consider all the facts.

Nicole (replies to Robert): The Bible suggests that the universe is thousands of years old not billions as scientists have deduced. The age of the earth also surpasses thousands of years. It also doesn't account for dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago.

There is... mention of a circle (not a sphere) hanging in space. However there is also mention of an earth with corners.

"He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." Yet we have travelled to outer space and surpassed the clouds and not encountered the heaven above.

However the shape of the earth being spherical would have been known by a few astronomers during and before the time of Isaiah, the first being the Egyptians who are said to have known from about 2550 BC. Pythagoras who lived around the period of 532 B.C. also knew and defended the fact that the earth was spherical. Hence why the knowledge of the earth's shape did not require divine intervention of any kind.

"...the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again." The Earth is believed to be stationary according to Biblical accounts. The sun moves, but not the earth.

The great flood that encompassed all the earth with 8 people and a few animals surviving has also gone unproven. Even if a flood can be accounted for these people cannot.

The creation story has pretty much been proven fallacious. Some try to use the Out of Africa theory to prove that we originated from one man and one woman. However they distort the theory by not including the primary fact that Y chromosome Adam (male ancestor) lived 100,000 years after Mitochondrial Eve (female ancestor).

There are many more, of course but these are the only ones I could think of now.

Nicole: ‎"Yes God knows their fate, but allows people to live to at least give them a chance at life. He loves his enemies that much. They will also serve his purpose of justifying his character which was tainted by Satan's accusations." - He loves... his enemies so much that he would prefer they endure the torment of a miserable life. What a good god:).

"50% chance of being right" Not exactly. You would have a 50% chance of being right about there being a deity. However your odds of being right about your religion are much less considering the abundance of "divinely" inspired religions. I'd say 1 in 40 at least (there are 40 organized religions worldwide). Maybe even less because we cannot account for those unknown.

An atheist has a 50% chance of being right because he or she does not subscribe to any other theory other than the non-existence of a deity.

"You should expect to fully understand his ways. If we could fully understand his ways, he wouldn't be God anymore." Again we come back to the Christian slogan: "God works in mysterious ways":).

Robert: Nicole

Most of what you are debating I have been through over and over on different forums, and frankly speaking have grown a bit weary of such. I am not prepared to facilitate copy and paste discussions anymore. Most critics are famous ...for ferreting so-called facts from websites, be they historical, or otherwise to render support to their views.

As I have said before I will pray for those who take a different position.

Nicole: "Most of what you are debating I have been through over and over on different forums, and frankly speaking have grown a bit weary of such." That's sad. It should re-affirm your beliefs to repeat what you are so sure of whenever the need ar...ises. "so-called facts from websites" Facts are unusable if there are derived from websites? Linda and Ryan have shared links from different websites to prove what they are trying to get across. Unfortunately none of those links have been effective on me.

We both do the same thing, you use findings that back your claims to support your arguments so do I. It's wrong for me to do this, but not for you. Okay then:).

Robert: Nicole...as I have said this is where I take my leave. Wish you all the best in your quest. God bless.

Edwin M. Cotto: ‎"Yes God knows their fate, but allows people to live to at least give them a chance at life. He loves his enemies that much. They will also serve his purpose of justifying his character which was tainted by Satan's accusations." - He loves...... his enemies so much that he would prefer they endure the torment of a miserable life. What a good god:)."

This does not refute the reasons I just gave, but I guess I can try to appreciate your "emotional" response (a logical fallacy in any debate).

"50% chance of being right" Not exactly. You would have a 50% chance of being right about there being a deity. However your odds of being right about your religion are much less considering the abundance of "divinely" inspired religions. I'd say 1 in 40 at least (there are 40 organized religions worldwide). Maybe even less because we cannot account for those unknown."

I'm happy you freely admit we believers have a greater chance of being right, 50%, in believing in God's existence. Now this very facts helps lesson the number of other religions. It eliminates New age, Buddhism and Hinduism, which don't have a personal God in the first place. This weakens your "other religions" response. But then again, those other religions don';t have what we Christian claim is the ultimate proof of our God's existence, a resurrected leader. What Jesus claimed was confirmed by his death and his rising from the dead. This historical event has not yet been successfully shown as something that didn't happen by you or any critic.

"An atheist has a 50% chance of being right because he or she does not subscribe to any other theory other than the non-existence of a deity."

again your arguing from the "many religions" point. You can do that, but it wont work unless you refute the resurrection which shows every other religion is false but that of Christ's religion. I'm arguing your 100% hopeless in your belief that God does not exist while I'm at least 50% of being right that he does. This very simple fact is deteriorating for atheists. It's hopeless and actually fearful considering you'll have to answer to this some day if it turns out he does exist. But hey, if you can live with that, more power to you. I hope you have a change of heart.

"You should expect to fully understand his ways. If we could fully understand his ways, he wouldn't be God anymore." Again we come back to the Christian slogan: "God works in mysterious ways":)."

I have no problem with that, but apparently you do. However if it were rather true that he doesn't, and that we knew his every way, then this debate would be pointless as he would no longer be truly God.

I pray you consider the facts soon and taste the wonderful experience of what its like to know God personally soon, but if not, I'm happy at least those reading this debate can see the strength in the pro-God arguments (especially when the hard facts presented are ignored) and that there are answers to your accusations. I'm also happy to learn and have fun in the process :))

Edwin M. Cotto: Nicole, I'm interested in your claims about the earth, its corners, and so on in your response to Robert. I'd like to respond on his behalf, maybe tomorrow (its very late over here in the east US) before ending our conversation. For now I have to get some rest. Good night (or good day I think, lol). :)

Nicole: ‎"I'm arguing your 100% hopeless in your belief that God does not exist while I'm at least 50% of being right that he does." That doesn't compute. Then what accounts for the other 50%? A god may or may not exist hence there is a 50/50 chanc...e of either position being correct. The argument is never Christianity or one other religion must be right. Therefore I indeed have the higher probability of being right overall:).

"pro-God arguments (especially when the hard facts presented are ignored) and that there are answers to your accusations. I'm also happy to learn and have fun in the process :))" - Hard facts? We must have been indulging in two very different conversations:). Yes I find these discussions to be intellectually stimulating and fun too:).

Nicole: "Luke as an expert witness." I wasn't ignoring it I just don't put that much trust in any one person expert or not (especially if what's being presented seems unbelievable). I addressed it by saying one had to believe the words of a few or something to that effect.

Nicole: Yeah it's night here, same place tomorrow lol!

Edwin M. Cotto: I'm obliged to consider them hard-facts on the basis of your casually ignoring them, among other reasons. :)) But I understand you probably don't have the time to respond to everything I present I suppose. I'll be back tomorrow.

Edwin M. Cotto: "I'm arguing your 100% hopeless in your belief that God does not exist while I'm at least 50% of being right that he does." That doesn't compute. Then what accounts for the other 50%? A god may or may not exist hence there is a 50/50 chanc......e of either position being correct. The argument is never Christianity or one other religion must be right. Therefore I indeed have the higher probability of being right overall:).

Maybe your not understanding me. Yes God may or may not exist, but if he does, and you never believed in him, the unbeliever will die eternally, because God requires believing in him to be saved. The believer believes in him, therefore he will live forever. If he does not exist, we both die and stay dead. But look, whether he exists or does not exist, the UNbeliever STILL dies in both cases. On the other hand, if he does not exist, yes the believer will stay dead, but if he does (here's that 50% chance) he will live forever with him. On your end, you stay dead regardless. So simply logic points towards the possible existence of a god.

"Luke as an expert witness." I wasn't ignoring it I just don't put that much trust in any one person expert or not (especially if what's being presented seems unbelievable). I addressed it by saying one had to believe the words of a few or something to that effect.

No you never addressed and I think the points I made prove quite well that the writings of the scriptures can be trusted as true to history. The points I made, therefore, with regards to Luke above, his attention to details, the accuracy of his account on history, etc, merit consideration in this debate, because if its true that the writings of the manuscript can be dated to only a few years of the event, they reliably record the things that actually happened, like the resurrection.

Edwin M. Cotto: Here are my thoughts on your response to Robert:

"The Bible suggests that the universe is thousands of years old not billions as scientists have deduced. The age of the earth also surpasses thousands of years. It also doesn't account for din...osaurs that lived millions of years ago."

Scientists are contesting this long held belief are are suggesting it is younger then previously thought. The idea in science is not prevailing that the earth is very young. One of the reasons for this conclusion is due to the laws of Thermodynamics, especially the 2nd law, which says everything is dieing, or decreasing (like a hot cup of tea getting cooler).

Dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. I'll site them from the books of Job and Isaiah if you must have them.

"There is... mention of a circle (not a sphere) hanging in space."

When in doubt, I once question a Christian on this same thing. I argued that a circles is different from a sphere. He pointed me towards the full moon that night and said "look at that circle, is it a sphere or not?"

"However there is also mention of an earth with corners."

When the bible speaks of the four corners, is means north, south, east and west. Not literal corners.

"He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." Yet we have travelled to outer space and surpassed the clouds and not encountered the heaven above."

The bible mentions more then one kind of heavens:

2 Cor. 12:2 "...such an one caught up to the third heaven."

First heaven: the sky we can see, our atmosphere
Second: out space
Third: Heaven God's dwelling place

I things your confusing them. Isaiah says "to live in" so he is speaking about the First heavens, our atmosphere, which we live in.

"However the shape of the earth being spherical would have been known by a few astronomers during and before the time of Isaiah, the first being the Egyptians who are said to have known from about 2550 BC. Pythagoras who lived around the period of 532 B.C. also knew and defended the fact that the earth was spherical. Hence why the knowledge of the earth's shape did not require divine intervention of any kind."

Thats fine, but the point is that the bibles statement is in accord with scientific knowledge, and can today be proven WITH science. In the meanwhile, you should provide proof of your statements about the Egyptians and Pythagores knowing through science that the earth was a sphere.

"...the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again." The Earth is believed to be stationary according to Biblical accounts. The sun moves, but not the earth."

The author is simply describing what he is seeing from his literal point of view from earth. He is not making a scientific statement. Indeed if you look at the sun yourself you'll see it rising and setting in the same place, although you know the earth is not stationary.

"The great flood that encompassed all the earth with 8 people and a few animals surviving has also gone unproven. Even if a flood can be accounted for these people cannot."

actually much has been discovered through archeology proving the earth was once flooded. Some scientists call this an Ice age (they made it cold). Man made steps and torn down buildings have been discovered under water, and pieces of a man made ship has been unearthed at the exact same spot where the bible claims the ark landed. If whether the 8 people can be accounted for or not is not debilitating to my belief in the bibles flood story at all.

"The creation story has pretty much been proven fallacious. Some try to use the Out of Africa theory to prove that we originated from one man and one woman. However they distort the theory by not including the primary fact that Y chromosome Adam (male ancestor) lived 100,000 years after Mitochondrial Eve (female ancestor)."

But if male lived 100,000 years after female, how did he survive without her to help him reproduce? How did "she" come into existence 100,000 years later if man had no female to reproduce with those 100,000 years before?

"There are many more, of course but these are the only ones I could think of now."

Bring it.

Nicole: "UNbeliever STILL dies in both cases."- If you recall I did say death ends absolutely and for me that's not such a terrifying thought. Think about what an eternity would feel like, I could not fathom it. There is the possibility that an et...ernity would be even more cyclical/repetitive than this life.

"that the writings of the scriptures can be trusted as true to history." What about the disparities in the accounts from different sources? Also what about the debates that still ensue? No one has been able to definitively (and likely cannot) state that these writings whether form Paul, Luke or the like are indeed historically accurate (I doubt they are). We already now that the apostles had a bias: "If Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless.", thus it would make sense for them to claim visions and confirmation from eyewitnesses of his resurrection. These are not from independent objective sources. Hence I wouldn't be quick to believe their accounts.

"the manuscript can be dated to only a few years of the event." I am not sure I see how the dating of the manuscripts affect authenticity. We assume that whatever is written would be written close enough to the time of the alleged event. Unless it was passed down through an oral tradition and written later on. But regardless of when it was written, the possibility for it being flawed still exists.

Edwin M. Cotto: ‎"UNbeliever STILL dies in both cases."- If you recall I did say death ends absolutely and for me that's not such a terrifying thought."

Well its fine that you can live with that, but there are two points this was meant to show. First that t...he unbeliever dies regardless, second that the believer has a greater chance at being right in his belief in God then you do. Therefore simply logic suggests the existence of God.

"Think about what an eternity would feel like, I could not fathom it."

Neither can I, but Christians, whose possibility of being right in Gods existence is greater, look forward to finding out soon.

"There is the possibility that an et...ernity would be even more cyclical/repetitive than this life."

I'm sorry but I don't understand what this means.

"that the writings of the scriptures can be trusted as true to history." What about the disparities in the accounts from different sources? Also what about the debates that still ensue?"

I invite you to share some of those with me. Scholars have responded to these long ago. Example, sometimes one accounts mentions something happened in one place, when another account mentions that same event happened, but in a different place. Two answers have proven enough to the honest critic. One that the event happened twice in both place, two, that the place had two names for the same place, similar in pronunciation but a bit different in spelling.

"No one has been able to definitively (and likely cannot) state that these writings whether form Paul, Luke or the like are indeed historically accurate (I doubt they are). We already now that the apostles had a bias: "If Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless.", thus it would make sense for them to claim visions and confirmation from eyewitnesses of his resurrection. These are not from independent objective sources. Hence I wouldn't be quick to believe their accounts.

In concur that this is indeed possible as with any other writings, but if you consider a few points you'll see that this was not likely in the case of the apostles. One important point is that this claim that Jesus rose from the dead put them at risk for torture and death by the Jewish and Roman authorities. another point is their honesty in their accounts of the events that took place. For example, they mentioned that "women" were the first to find the tomb empty. This gave much honor to the women during a time when they were looked upon as useless and inferior to males. If they wanted to impress people with their stories, it would have been best not to include details like this. But the fact that they including these sorts of details, despite the risks that people would not take them seriously, shows how faithful they were. If they could be faithful in things like they, they can be trusted with the major parts of the story.

"the manuscript can be dated to only a few years of the event." I am not sure I see how the dating of the manuscripts affect authenticity."

This is probably because you didn't read my comments on this above. This dating is important because it prevents first, legendary corruption. Second its important because this means the stories were written during the time when the eyewitnessess of those same events were still alive. If therefore what they wrote or said was false those eyewitnessess would have controdicted them. also readers could simply walk up to those witnesses and ask them if this these things really took place. In fact, Paul seems to invite people to put his story to the test by mentioning that these eyewitnesses are still alive and available:

1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain UNTO THIS PRESENT, but some are fallen asleep.

"We assume that whatever is written would be written close enough to the time of the alleged event. Unless it was passed down through an oral tradition and written later on. But regardless of when it was written, the possibility for it being flawed still exists."

That possibility is weakened if you consider the points I just made above.

Nicole: ‎"Scientists are contesting this long held belief are are suggesting it is younger then previously thought. " - Surely they can contest it, will that make their claim right? Even if we adjust the estimate for errors there is no way billions... of years can suddenly become thousands.

"Dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. I'll site them from the books of Job and Isaiah if you must have them." I suspect I know which verses you will use but I will say this, Dinosaurs and humans didn't exist together at any point in the world's history and if we are to go by the creation story or biblical accounts then any mysterious beast described and labelled as a dinosaur would be done falsely so.

"Thats fine, but the point is that the bibles statement is in accord with scientific knowledge, and can today be proven WITH science. In the meanwhile, you should provide proof of your statements about the Egyptians and Pythagores knowing through science that the earth was a sphere."

Wikepedia which is a reliable source states this:

"The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to ancient Greek philosophy from around the 6th century BC,[1] but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given."

"Early Greek philosophers alluded to a spherical Earth, though with some ambiguity.[12] Pythagoras (6th century BC) was among those said to have originated the idea, but this may reflect the ancient Greek practice of ascribing every discovery to one or another of their ancient wise men." Even if not conclusively Pythagoras, it was at the very least suspected the case at this point.

There is a claim that the possibility existed that Ancient Egyptians knew of the earth's spherical shape based on the architecture of the pyramids, although this knowledge would have been arcane because it was still widely accepted in Egypt that the earth was flat.

"actually much has been discovered through archeology proving the earth was once flooded. Some scientists call this an Ice age (they made it cold)." You're referring to the transition from an ice age to a period of relative stability and warmth now. The ice age melting cycle occurs in 40,000-100,000 year intervals. Which would mean that any great flood that occurred would have to have been no less than 40,000 years ago. Also if you are going to get scientific any people around during that period would have been hunter-gatherer nomadic groups that did not live in civilized society as the Bible would have suggested. Earliest civilisations date back to about 6,000 years ago. Also, there wouldn't have been any ships around when the last ice age period ended, thus no way to place Noah and his arc anywhere near that period of flooding.

'But if male lived 100,000 years after female, how did he survive without her to help him reproduce? How did "she" come into existence 100,000 years later if man had no female to reproduce with those 100,000 years before?" This is why Christians shouldn't try to use scientific facts. There were other Hominid species around at that point. In other words, our X and Y ancestor genes would have converged after thousands of years of reproduction. Mitochondrial Eve passed her DNA into her offspring, at some point way down the road one of her descendants would have then reproduced with our Y contributing ancestor. But remember that she was not the first woman but one of many women whose genes happened to have been passed on to human populations today. We do also have other common ancestors that pre-date Mitochondrial Eve this is the closest common ancestor they have dated thus far.

It has already been brought lol! =).

Nicole: "First that the unbeliever dies regardless, second that the believer has a greater chance at being right in his belief in God then you do. Therefore simply logic suggests the existence of God." How does a believer have a greater chance of ...being right? It appears you forgot to explore a critical part of your logic to come to your conclusion.

"If they could be faithful in things like they, they can be trusted with the major parts of the story." Actually traditionally women were just more likely to visit tombs hence this is the only way to make it seem more plausible.

"If therefore what they wrote or said was false those eyewitnesses would have contradicted them." The eyewitnesses were those who were already convinced that this Jesus was God or the son of God. Why would they contradict it? People in the past have believed in vampires and would have readily corroborated a story about seeing actual evidence of the undead. Why would it shock me to hear eyewitness accounts from superstitious people, who were willing to admit to seeing something they probably didn't in order to appear that they too are in some way special?

"That possibility is weakened if you consider the points I just made above." No it is not:).

Edwin M. Cotto: This would be so much more motivating if you would respond to my entire rebuttal (instead of just pieces) as I've been doing to yours. :(

"Surely they can contest it, will that make their claim right? Even if we adjust the estimate for error...s there is no way billions... of years can suddenly become thousands."

lol... I'll flip your question: Surely they can contest that 'the earth is billions of years old' will that make their claim right?

"Dinosaurs and humans didn't exist together at any point in the world's history and if we are to go by the creation story or biblical accounts then any mysterious beast described and labeled as a dinosaur would be done falsely so."

Thanks for your opinion, but I disagree, and so do many many scientists who agree there were humans alive as well. They call them cavemen. Besides, Dinosaurs aren't so big and bad as the media portrays them. The average size of a Dinosaur was that of a small horse. You should do some research on this. Check out:

http://www.carm.org/did-men-and-dinosaurs-live-together

"Wikipedia which is a reliable source states this:"

Thanks for the reference, but my point remains, that the bibles statement about the earth being round is proven scientifically. Now, where exactly in the bible does it state the earth is flat? and if it does not state this, why is this even an issue for you?

"actually much has been discovered through archeology proving the earth was once flooded. Some scientists call this an Ice age (they made it cold)." You're referring to the transition from an ice age to a period of relative stability and warmth now. The ice age melting cycle occurs in 40,000-100,000 year intervals. Which would mean that any great flood that occurred would have to have been no less than 40,000 years ago. Also if you are going to get scientific any people around during that period would have been hunter-gatherer nomadic groups that did not live in civilized society as the Bible would have suggested. Earliest civilisations date back to about 6,000 years ago. Also, there wouldn't have been any ships around when the last ice age period ended, thus no way to place Noah and his arc anywhere near that period of flooding."

I shouldn't of even mentioned "ice age" because it diverted you from the point I was really trying to make. Theres too much doubt the ice age even took place withen the scientific field so I'm not going to concern myself with it. I will continue to point out the discoveries that were made supporting the world wide flood, which I detailed above.

"But if male lived 100,000 years after female, how did he survive without her to help him reproduce? How did "she" come into existence 100,000 years later if man had no female to reproduce with those 100,000 years before?" This is why Christians shouldn't try to use scientific facts. There were other Hominid species around at that point. In other words, our X and Y ancestor genes would have converged after thousands of years of reproduction.

Mitochondrial Eve passed her DNA into her offspring, at some point way down the road one of her descendants would have then reproduced with our Y contributing ancestor. But remember that she was not the first woman but one of many women whose genes happened to have been passed on to human populations today. We do also have other common ancestors that pre-date Mitochondrial Eve this is the closest common ancestor they have dated thus far."

Ugh... now I have to get technical. Let's go a little deeper.

No, because protein, dna and rna would first have to be somehow created, then form a living cell, in order for life to come about. But amino acids, the building blocks of protein, can not be spontaneously formed neither by chance nor my some evolutionary process of some sort. Even Stanley Millers 1953 experiment proved how impossible it would be for these things to come together spontaneously and form the complex cells we need to be "alive." His experiment failed because:

1: Only about half of 20 amino acids from which proteins are formed were produced.
2: Much larger quantities of other chemicals (like useless tar) was also formed.
3: Oxygen in the atmosphere would prevent amino acids from being formed. Researchers believe there actually more oxygen and less hydrogen in the air during that time then there is our in atmosphere today.
4: after the first spark had produced the first amino acid, additional sparks would have broken them down again. We know lighting storms spark more then once. ;)

The cell is too complex to have been formed by chance,so complex it actually suggests the work of a designer. Even if amino acids were formed somehow, dna and rna would have to have somehow been formed separately, out of no where and from lifeless matter and then mixed with the protein. Impossible! You can't get living organisms from lifeless matter. You can't get something out of nothing.

"It has already been brought lol! =)."

Without responding to my every rebuttal, of course. :))

‎Edwin M. Cotto: "First that the unbeliever dies regardless, second that the believer has a greater chance at being right in his belief in God then you do. Therefore simply logic suggests the existence of God." How does a believer have a greater chance of ......being right? It appears you forgot to explore a critical part of your logic to come to your conclusion."

are you just throwing comments out there just to throw them? I believe I made my point with this already and even got to you admit it earlier. If you still don't get how the believer had a greater chance after explaining it three time and after you admit to it, then I don't know what else to do. I'll just let this issue rest.

"If they could be faithful in things like they, they can be trusted with the major parts of the story." Actually traditionally women were just more likely to visit tombs hence this is the only way to make it seem more plausible."

But this was something a person seeking to push a false story during that time would have never included in his story, because it would have made it unpopular considering how inferior and "not as important" (for lack of a better term) a women's testimony was during that time. In fact the account goes on to say Jesus told THEM (the women) to preach the good news FIRST... to the disciples. Women preaching was VERY unpopular. If I were trying to deceive people during that time into believing my story, I certainly wouldn't have included this.

"If therefore what they wrote or said was false those eyewitnessess would have controdicted them." The eyewitnesses were those who were already convinced that this Jesus was God or the son of God."

Not entirely. Eyewitnesses including unbelievers and skeptics who were converted after such appearances. This makes this an even stronger argument. Unbelievers had nothing to gain, except the inevitable results of claiming Jesus was risen, torture and death.

"Why would they contradict it? People in the past have believed in vampires and would have readily corroborated a story about seeing actual evidence of the undead. Why would it shock me to hear eyewitness accounts from superstitious people, who were willing to admit to seeing something they probably didn't in order to appear that they too are in some way special?"

Read my response just above this one.

"That possibility is weakened if you consider the points I just made above." No it is not:)."

Yes it still is :))

Nicole: I am debating you on all your points. I am selecting key sentences/paragraphs to use as the central focus of my rebuttal.

"I'll flip your question: Surely they can contest that 'the earth is billions of years old' will that make their claim... right?" That claim has actual scientific basis, the claim you mentioned sounds more like wishful thinking.

"Thanks for your opinion, but I disagree, and so do many many scientists who agree there were humans alive as well. They call them cavemen. Besides, Dinosaurs aren't so big and bad as the media portrays them. The average size of a Dinosaur was that of a small horse. You should do some research on this. Check out:"

Disagree all you want that won't change the scientific fact that Dinosaurs pre-date humans and were extinct before the first hominids appeared. This is not an opinion this is basic scientific knowledge: "Dinosaurs and people coexist only in books, movies and cartoons. The last dinosaurs - other than birds - died out dramatically about 65 million years ago, while the fossils of our earliest human ancestors are only about 6 million years old." This isn't even a debatable point. The only claims to this theory online have obvious Christian links.

"I shouldn't of even mentioned "ice age" because it diverted you from the point I was really trying to make. Theres too much doubt the ice age even took place withen the scientific field so I'm not going to concern myself with it. I will continue to point out the discoveries that were made supporting the world wide flood, which I detailed above." Yes but any worldwide flooding would be attributed to that period hence you cannot remove that piece of the information when trying to justify your point.

"Thanks for the reference, but my point remains, that the bibles statement about the earth being round is proven scientifically. Now, where exactly in the bible does it state the earth is flat? and if it does not state this, why is this even an issue for you?"

It was said that science is catching up to the Bible and I am saying that, that statement is misleading. The Bible makes both claims of a flat and circular earth not because of divine inspiration but because there were two schools of thought on the subject around the time various authors began writing scripture. Less people believed the earth was round, but there were still people around who knew this. Hence it is not far-fetched for this influence to be seen in some writings. Ultimately you cannot use the vague descriptions put forward about a flat or round earth to claim divine inspiration. That is why I mentioned the round/flat earth controversy.

"Even Stanley Millers 1953 experiment proved how impossible it would be for these things to come together spontaneously and form the complex cells we need to be "alive." His experiment failed because:" I am aware of experiments on abiogenesis. The point is they will fail because no one can recreate the conditions that were present before the first cells emerged on the earth's surface. I won't tell you that this is exactly how life began but it is no less absurd (perhaps more plausible) than a supernatural force calling things into existence.

"The cell is too complex to have been formed by chance,so complex it actually suggests the work of a designer. Even if amino acids were formed somehow, dna and rna would have to have somehow been formed separately, out of no where and from lifeless matter and then mixed with the protein. Impossible! You can't get living organisms from lifeless matter. You can't get something out of nothing."

At some point something came from nothing. If there is a God then he had to come from somewhere, but because there isn't a claim that there is another greater creator he is therefore self-created. Thus he popped out of thin air. Regardless of the theory you buy into you are still going to be stuck with the problem of something being derived from nothing. Hence belief in a creator is no more logical. It is also less logical because we have no actual physical proof of this mighty being.

I mention mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam because this is what many Christians are now using to say we came from one man and one woman (the Out of Africa theory). They then go on to say this scientific evidence proves the creation story which as I have pointed out it does not by virtue of how the events unfolded.

Nicole: "are you just throwing comments out there just to throw them? I believe I made my point with this already and even got to you admit it earlier. If you still don't get how the believer had a greater chance after explaining it three time and... after you admit to it, then I don't know what else to do. I'll just let this issue rest."

No I am telling you, your logic is flawed. You went a round about manner to come up with unreliable probabilities.

I will state the probability of your rightness again.

1 in 2 of being right about a God.

And a 1 in 40 chance at the very least of being right about your religion.

This is a very simple and easy to understand explanation.

[But this was something a person seeking to push a false story during that time would have never included in his story, because it would have made it unpopular considering how inferior and "not as important"]

I get what you are trying to say, however women were the ones who visited the tombs hence no matter how inferior they thought they were (which they did) the first account must have been from the women who went to mourn and do whatever else first. How would it look if no mention of the female mourners were put in these "historical" writings?

"Not entirely. Eyewitnesses including unbelievers and skeptics who were converted after such appearances. This makes this an even stronger argument. Unbelievers had nothing to gain, except the inevitable results of claiming Jesus was risen, torture and death."

Again eyewitness accounts cannot always be trusted. Also let us not forget that the number of eyewitnesses could have been inflated during the recording of the events, some could also have been a part of the writer's imagination. Like I said the writers lacked objectivity.

["That possibility is weakened if you consider the points I just made above." No it is not:)."

Yes it still is :))]

No it's not x infinity lol:).

Edwin M. Cotto: ‎"I am debating you on all your points."

No, your not. But that's fine. It can only mean your time is limited, your tired, or you simply don't have an answer to a particular response. I'll let the readers decide.

"I am selecting key sentences.../paragraphs to use as the central focus of my rebuttal."

On the other hand, I'm responding to your EVERY point. Which will the readers decide is more convincing of the two?

"I'll flip your question: Surely they can contest that 'the earth is billions of years old' will that make their claim... right?" That claim has actual scientific basis, the claim you mentioned sounds more like wishful thinking."

The claim that its actually younger also has scientific basis according to recent research by scientists. I'm only sharing what scientists are now claiming.

"Thanks for your opinion, but I disagree, and so do many many scientists who agree there were humans alive as well. They call them cavemen. Besides, Dinosaurs aren't so big and bad as the media portrays them. The average size of a Dinosaur was that of a small horse. You should do some research on this. Check out:"

Disagree all you want that won't change the scientific fact that Dinosaurs pre-date humans and were extinct before the first hominids appeared. This is not an opinion this is basic scientific knowledge"

and we ignore my comment that scientists are forced to admit there were humans alive during that time which they named "cavemen." How convenient of you.

"Dinosaurs and people coexist only in books, movies and cartoons."

Ok, and also in ancient manuscripts dated hundred and thousands of years before the cross, and in archeological artifacts.

"The last dinosaurs - other than birds - died out dramatically about 65 million years ago, while the fossils of our earliest human ancestors are only about 6 million years old." This isn't even a debatable point. The only claims to this theory online have obvious Christian links."

Yes it is debatable lol. Its debated all the time. You' even find videos on open debates on this subject.

"I shouldn't of even mentioned "ice age" because it diverted you from the point I was really trying to make. Theres too much doubt the ice age even took place withen the scientific field so I'm not going to concern myself with it. I will continue to point out the discoveries that were made supporting the world wide flood, which I detailed above." Yes but any worldwide flooding would be attributed to that period hence you cannot remove that piece of the information when trying to justify your point.

It would not be attributed to that period because the period of the flood is said to have happened a few thousand years ago while the period of the ice age is said to have happened millions of years ago. Both also being to very different events. The only point I was making is that some Christians believe that what scientists think was an ice age, was actually a world wide flood.

"Thanks for the reference, but my point remains, that the bibles statement about the earth being round is proven scientifically. Now, where exactly in the bible does it state the earth is flat? and if it does not state this, why is this even an issue for you?

It was said that science is catching up to the Bible and I am saying that, that statement is misleading. The Bible makes both claims of a flat and circular earth not because of divine inspiration but because there were two schools of thought on the subject around the time various authors began writing scripture."

'the bible makes both claims of a flat and circular earth...' no it does not make the claim of a flat earth and you can not show one verse to prove this. I challenge you to find such a verse.

"Less people believed the earth was round, but there were still people around who knew this."

God did not allow these people to place such a statement in his perfect Word because he knew it was not true. You cant quote one bible author saying such a thing, in or outside of scripture.

"Hence it is not far-fetched for this influence to be seen in some writings."

Which writings, the writings of the bible which we believe are perfect? Or the writings of authors we believe are uninspired and subject to error?

Ultimately you cannot use the vague descriptions put forward about a flat or round earth to claim divine inspiration. That is why I mentioned the round/flat earth controversy.

"Even Stanley Millers 1953 experiment proved how impossible it would be for these things to come together spontaneously and form the complex cells we need to be "alive." His experiment failed because:" I am aware of experiments on abiogenesis."

Interestingly enough, the term "abiogenesis" in its greek root implies the meaning: No spontaneous generation of life. The very opposite its trying to prove.

"The point is they will fail because no one can recreate the conditions that were present before the first cells emerged on the earth's surface. I won't tell you that this is exactly how life began but it is no less absurd (perhaps more plausible) than a supernatural force calling things into existence.

Well it takes more faith to believe something came from nothing, actually. an even more absurd claim.

"The cell is too complex to have been formed by chance,so complex it actually suggests the work of a designer. Even if amino acids were formed somehow, dna and rna would have to have somehow been formed separately, out of no where and from lifeless matter and then mixed with the protein. Impossible! You can't get living organisms from lifeless matter. You can't get something out of nothing."

I think you forgot to respond to this point as well. What an interesting style of debate you have :) I must say your less convincing when you do this, but we Christians are used to this.

At some point something came from nothing. If there is a God then he had to come from somewhere, but because there isn't a claim that there is another greater creator he is therefore self-created. Thus he popped out of thin air. Regardless of the theory you buy into you are still going to be stuck with the problem of something being derived from nothing. Hence belief in a creator is no more logical. It is also less logical because we have no actual physical proof..."

This is why atheists shouldn't make doctrinal claims. :) The bible states God simply always existed "from everlasting to everlasting" -Psalm 90:2. Therefore he did not come from nothing, lol. His "eternity" is part of his divine attribute that makes him by definition "God."

Regarding material things, which is the central focus of atheism, you simply can't get life from non-life, or something from nothing. This is illogical, and somewhat laughable, actually.

Edwin M. Cotto: "No I am telling you, your logic is flawed. You went a round about manner to come up with unreliable probabilities.

I will state the probability of your rightness again.

1 in 2 of being right about a God.
...
And a 1 in 40 chance at the very least of being right about your religion.

This is a very simple and easy to understand explanation."

Letting this issue rest. I made my point and it remains refuted.

"[But this was something a person seeking to push a false story during that time would have never included in his story, because it would have made it unpopular considering how inferior and "not as important"]

I get what you are trying to say, however women were the ones who visited the tombs hence no matter how inferior they thought they were (which they did) the first account must have been from the women who went to mourn and do whatever else first. How would it look if no mention of the female mourners were put in these "historical" writings?

Your having difficulty getting around this. My central point is that the author mentioned it when it wouldn't be convenient to do so for a so called false story. I already acknowledge that women (well, men too you know) visited tombs.

"Not entirely. Eyewitnesses including unbelievers and skeptics who were converted after such appearances. This makes this an even stronger argument. Unbelievers had nothing to gain, except the inevitable results of claiming Jesus was risen, torture and death."

"Again eyewitness accounts cannot always be trusted."

It can be when their putting their own lives at risk and when there's so many of them. an unbeliever doubting everything and usually hating the Jesus event (like Paul) would hardly put his life at risk if he really didn't actually see with his eyes the risen Christ. Its not logical to believe otherwise, and you do emphasis logic, don't you? ;)

"Also let us not forget that the number of eyewitnesses could have been inflated during the recording of the events,"

Nope, because that number, like the 500 Paul mentioned, were still alive. So people wanting to verify it all could easily approach and interrogate each one of those witnesses.

"some could also have been a part of the writer's imagination."

again, there were too many risks involved. It was wiser, if this were a lie, to not even mention Christ in those days. But because they were so convinced of what they "saw" they put their lives on the line to proclaim it. This makes for a strong case in any court of law.

"Like I said the writers lacked objectivity."

Speaking of objectivity, you claim that all belief are subjective. But you fail to see that your claim that all religious truths are subjective is based on an objective truth claim (that religious truths or beliefs are subjective). Therefore subjectivisim refutes itself.

"["That possibility is weakened if you consider the points I just made above." No it is not:)."

Yes it still is :))]

No it's not x infinity lol:)."

Yes it is infinity times 2. hahaha :))

Nicole: "On the other hand, I'm responding to your EVERY point. Which will the readers decide is more convincing of the two?"

You may have highlighted my points by reposting them in your arguments but believe me you are no more thorough, less so in... fact:).

"The claim that its actually younger also has scientific basis according to recent research by scientists. I'm only sharing what scientists are now claiming."

Yet these claims are clearly not strong enough to alter current scientific positions on the age of the earth.

[The last dinosaurs - other than birds - died out dramatically about 65 million years ago, while the fossils of our earliest human ancestors are only about 6 million years old." This isn't even a debatable point. The only claims to this theory online have obvious Christian links."

Yes it is debatable lol. Its debated all the time. You' even find videos on open debates on this subject.]

It's debatable to a delusion set lol! This is not even a debate from where I am standing.

[It would not be attributed to that period because the period of the flood is said to have happened a few thousand years ago while the period of the ice age is said to have happened millions of years ago. Both also being to very different events. The only point I was making is that some Christians believe that what scientists think was an ice age, was actually a world wide flood.] - Science ties any period of flooding to the melting of the polar ice caps. Thus the flooding that occurred would have to be directly related to that transitional period from ice age to a warmer climate.

"God did not allow these people to place such a statement in his perfect Word because he knew it was not true. You cant quote one bible author saying such a thing, in or outside of scripture."

[Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”]
[Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”]

According to the Bible the earth is stationary, we know this is not true.

[These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. 11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.]

That the tree could be seen from all "ends" of the world suggests a flat earth.

I only use these examples to show you that the Bible does indeed make reference to a flat earth. In fact the earth wasn't just considered flat in parts but erected on pillars: "He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble." By the way I am sure you'll find a way to say this represents plate tectonics and earthquakes, (pre-emptive strike).

["The cell is too complex to have been formed by chance,so complex it actually suggests the work of a designer. Even if amino acids were formed somehow, dna and rna would have to have somehow been formed separately, out of no where and from lifeless matter and then mixed with the protein. Impossible! You can't get living organisms from lifeless matter. You can't get something out of nothing."

I think you forgot to respond to this point as well. What an interesting style of debate you have :) I must say your less convincing when you do this, but we Christians are used to this.]

No I assume you have also read on the theory and experimentations that have been done to prove the possibility of abiogenesis. However like I already said the conditions would be impossible to re-create. Darwin and others suggested that the earth would have been filled with phosphoric type compounds, light, electrical energy, heat among other elements that would have produced very simple structures that could (and perhaps did) slowly evolve over time. But I am not trying to convince you of abiogenisis. It's just one theory that seems no less plausible than super angry/loving god theories.

[This is why atheists shouldn't make doctrinal claims. :) The bible states God simply always existed "from everlasting to everlasting" -Psalm 90:2. Therefore he did not come from nothing, lol. His "eternity" is part of his divine attribute that makes him by definition "God."]

If you are willing to accept that, good for you:). Many things in the Bible are undoubtedly fallacious, regardless of your unwillingness to accept that.

I am not making a doctrinal claim I merely stated a problem with your logic. If one says to exist one must have been created then it should follow that a creator must also be created. This is simple logic:).

"Regarding material things, which is the central focus of atheism, you simply can't get life from non-life, or something from nothing. This is illogical, and someone what laughable, actually :)"

Refer to the previous argument, this way you won't say I ignored this lol!

If you can believe God always was, why do you find it so hard to believe that quite possibly the Universe always was? At least you have evidence that there is earth and the surrounding universe, these things are tangible. Supernatural absent being not so much.

Nicole: "Your having difficulty getting around this. My central point is that the author mentioned it when it wouldn't be convenient to do ...so for a so called false story. I already acknowledge that women (well, men too you know) visited tombs." - Traditionally women visited tombs first hence it is more plausible to account for those women discovering it.

"It can be when their putting their own lives at risk and when there's so many of them. an unbeliever doubting everything and usually hating the Jesus event (like Paul) would hardly put his life at risk if he really didn't actually see with his eyes the risen Christ. Its not logical to believe otherwise, and you do emphasis logic, don't you? ;)"

But people do not necessarily succumb to logic do they? Religions have taught me that:). Paul would put his life at risk for the devotion of delusional followers I am sure, I probably would, you probably would. Especially a man. Men like power, this in some way was a kind of power. People listened to him, he was the holder of "truth".

"Speaking of objectivity, you claim that all belief are subjective. But you fail to see that your claim that all religious truths are subjective is based on an objective truth claim (that religious truths or beliefs are subjective). Therefore subjectivisim refutes itself"

Okay still doesn't change the fact that one loses objectivity when one wants to believe something. And of course being objective I am aware that it works both ways. I too can be said to use some amount of subjectivity in my arguments, even if to a lesser degree than you:).

"Yes it is infinity times 2. hahaha :))"

No it isn't x infinity x π:). muahahaha!

Edwin M. Cotto: Well, I look forward to responding to both these tomorrow after work, especially to the verses you "think" mean to say the earth is flat. In the meanwhile, I'll here post a part of my reply that you did not respond to (lest I have to accuse... you again, lol), and I'll read your reply to it when I return after work tomorrow:

"Also let us not forget that the number of eyewitnesses could have been inflated during the recording of the events,"

Nope, because that number, like the 500 Paul mentioned, were still alive. So people wanting to verify it all could easily approach and interrogate each one of those witnesses."

Good night for now.

Nicole: ‎[Nope, because that number, like the 500 Paul mentioned, were still alive. So people wanting to verify it all could easily approach and interrogate each one of those witnesses."] I could see them choosing not to interrogate them. But the f...act still remains we can't do that now, hence we have no real proof of this (they are all dead). We have to trust that these men who had their biases produced something reasonable. Trust is not an easy thing for a sceptic and rightly so:).

Good Night.

Edwin M. Cotto: "Yet these claims are clearly not strong enough to alter current scientific positions on the age of the earth."

Well, I wouldn't expect Universities, Colleges, Libraries and so forth to throw out their books and recant their teachings. But ...nevertheless this is an alternate belief based on much evidence and research. Many scientists have changed their positions as a result.

"Yes it is debatable lol. Its debated all the time. You' even find videos on open debates on this subject.]

It's debatable to a delusion set lol! This is not even a debate from where I am standing."

I expect most of what we're discussing to not be debatable, so I'm not surprised.

[It would not be attributed to that period because the period of the flood is said to have happened a few thousand years ago while the period of the ice age is said to have happened millions of years ago. Both also being to very different events. The only point I was making is that some Christians believe that what scientists think was an ice age, was actually a world wide flood.] - Science ties any period of flooding to the melting of the polar ice caps. Thus the flooding that occurred would have to be directly related to that transitional period from ice age to a warmer climate."

But implied and hidden in this line of reasoning is actually a case for a young earth. Transition from a colder to a warmer climate only shows that things are decreasing (2nd law of thermodynamics), meaning the earth, along with the rest of the universe (which scientists also believe is decreasing) had a beginning,. What accounts for this? Christians believe a creator God does.

"God did not allow these people to place such a statement in his perfect Word because he knew it was not true. You cant quote one bible author saying such a thing, in or outside of scripture."

[Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”]
[Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”]

According to the Bible the earth is stationary, we know this is not true."

First, you answered out of context. I was speaking about the young earth idea, responding to the following comment you made:

'Less people believed the earth was round, but there were still people around who knew this.'

Not about if whether bible authors believed the earth was stationary. But no worries, there are answers to this as well.

Psalm 93:1: The author is implying that the earth will never be moved out of place (as in moved to another location of the universe, or perhaps destroyed completely), not that it does not move. The Hebrew word "mot" translated "moved" as the KJV has it, means "shaken, overthrown, fallen." This is why I agree with the KJV's translation.

Psalm 104:5: Same Hebrew word "mot" and rightly translated "removed" in the KJV. "Shaken" is not so bad either though. The point is that it will never be removed out of its place. Its like setting a small windmill on the roof of your house and saying it will never be removed to another location of that roof. But the windmill still rotates when the wind blows.

"[These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. 11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.]

That the tree could be seen from all "ends" of the world suggests a flat earth."

I couldn't find this verse, but it does not matter because the answer is in the first four words ..."These are the VISIONS..." Prophets in vision saw beasts and monsters (see Daniel 7), but understood they represented things and were not literal (see Daniel 7:23 for example). In other words, he is not being literal in those verses. He is describing a symbolic vision. Not to be taken literal.

I only use these examples to show you that the Bible does indeed make reference to a flat earth."

These are very poor example. Try again.

In fact the earth wasn't just considered flat in parts but erected on pillars: "He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble." By the way I am sure you'll find a way to say this represents plate tectonics and earthquakes, (pre-emptive strike)."

No, I believe Job is he being symbolic in his description of the awesomeness of God via the context. He is not making scientific statements.

["The cell is too complex to have been formed by chance,so complex it actually suggests the work of a designer. Even if amino acids were formed somehow, dna and rna would have to have somehow been formed separately, out of no where and from lifeless matter and then mixed with the protein. Impossible! You can't get living organisms from lifeless matter. You can't get something out of nothing.

No I assume you have also read on the theory and experimentations that have been done to prove the possibility of abiogenesis. However like I already said the conditions would be impossible to re-create. Darwin and others suggested that the earth would have been filled with phosphoric type compounds, light, electrical energy, heat among other elements that would have produced very simple structures that could (and perhaps did) slowly evolve over time. But I am not trying to convince you of abiogenisis. It's just one theory that seems no less plausible than super angry/loving god theories."

Fine then since you don't even subscribe to this theory I'll let it rest, but I'm happy you admit to its weakness. Lets move on.

[This is why atheists shouldn't make doctrinal claims. :) The bible states God simply always existed "from everlasting to everlasting" -Psalm 90:2. Therefore he did not come from nothing, lol. His "eternity" is part of his divine attribute that makes him by definition "God."]

If you are willing to accept that, good for you:). Many things in the Bible are undoubtedly fallacious, regardless of your unwillingness to accept that."

Thanks for your opinion, but it is no less convincing then your flawed logic of having life come from non-life. I'm interested in facts. Your argument that God must have come from none life as well is flawed because the scriptures we believe are infallible already answer this question by claiming he always existed. You'll have to prove the scriptures are not infallible to counter this, and your not doing a good job doing that when you quote verses out of context and without studying its words closely (example, the Psalms verses you quoted above).

"I am not making a doctrinal claim I merely stated a problem with your logic. If one says to exist one must have been created then it should follow that a creator must also be created. This is simple logic:). "

Well if you "believe" that God must have had a beginning from none life the same way living organisms must have a beginning from none life, your making a doctrinal claim, because a doctrine is a "belief, or teaching" -Webster's.

"Regarding material things, which is the central focus of atheism, you simply can't get life from non-life, or something from nothing. This is illogical, and someone what laughable, actually :)"

Refer to the previous argument, this way you won't say I ignored this lol!"

Referred. It remains illogical.

If you can believe God always was, why do you find it so hard to believe that quite possibly the Universe always was?" Because (and now I appeal to science) even scientists don't believe this. Scientists and astronomers have learned long ago that the universe must have had a beginning. The idea of the universe always existing directly contradicts the second law of Thermodynamics.

Edwin M. Cotto: "Your having difficulty getting around this. My central point is that the author mentioned it when it wouldn't be ...convenient to do ...so for a so called false story. I already acknowledge that women (well, men too you know) visited tombs." - Traditionally women visited tombs first hence it is more plausible to account for those women discovering it.

When I think I'm possibly not explaining myself correctly, I think back to where you said "I get your point." So I'll let this issue rest also. Your repeating again here what you said earlier, but repeating yourself won't debunk what I said.

"It can be when their putting their own lives at risk and when there's so many of them. an unbeliever doubting everything and usually hating the Jesus event (like Paul) would hardly put his life at risk if he really didn't actually see with his eyes the risen Christ. Its not logical to believe otherwise, and you do emphasis logic, don't you? ;)"

But people do not necessarily succumb to logic do they? Religions have taught me that:). Paul would put his life at risk for the devotion of delusional followers I am sure, I probably would, you probably would. Especially a man. Men like power, this in some way was a kind of power. People listened to him, he was the holder of "truth"."

No, its not logical to believe that Paul, an enemy of Christ, would put his life at riskif he did not realy see Christ risen. Your idea that he would have power does not work either, because he already had power! lol. He was a Pharisee; a leader and teacher of a popular religion (Jewish). He is not going to logically cease his power in a popular religion to follow a religion whose followers often encountered death if he really wasn't convinced he saw the risen Christ:

Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee.

Oh if only you'd take the time to study the contexts, you wouldn't have to make these silly claims.

"Speaking of objectivity, you claim that all belief are subjective. But you fail to see that your claim that all religious truths are subjective is based on an objective truth claim (that religious truths or beliefs are subjective). Therefore subjectivisim refutes itself.

Okay still doesn't change the fact that one loses objectivity when one wants to believe something. And of course being objective I am aware that it works both ways. I too can be said to use some amount of subjectivity in my arguments, even if to a lesser degree than you:)."

Wow If I keep getting you to admit to things like this we might actually get somewhere! lol.

Nicole: There are many things to address. However for now I want to address this one thing. God always existed according to the Bible. However as I stated before a belief in a God does not automatically mean a belief in Christianity. There are many... other religions that worship a deity. Thus I am not attacking Christian doctrine when I speak about the existence or non-existence of a deity. We are using simple logic.

All people who believe that the universe must be created believe that something cannot possibly come out of nothing. I am not limiting this to Christianity but include other religions and irreligious people who believe there is a God. Hence with that logic in mind a God himself must have been created. Simply saying he always was does not satisfy the first premise that something cannot come out of nothing.

There are many theories that have emerged over time. The omnipotent being creating the universe is one such theory that has been widely adapted by a number of religions. Again, no one can know for sure the true origins of the universe all of this is speculation.

A few men writing scriptures claiming divine inspiration means very little to anyone who knows what the human mind is capable of. You mention that Paul was already attached to the Jewish faith. It is entirely possible he had already grown fed-up with his faith and decided this Jesus thing seemed a much better thing to believe in, good for him. Nothing you have said about these men have made the evidence (which is still based on the words of a few) appear more reliable.

Also I'd like to add that the sentiment has changed over the course of the discussion. Where it was said that science proves Christianity you have now confirmed that Pseudo-Christian Science confirms Christianity. That is an entirely new direction that leaves very little to debate. It's pseudo-Christian science, thus its main purpose is to make scriptures appear more reasonable, which ironically it doesn't.

As expected all references I made would immediately be considered symbolic, this does not surprise me. It is always about context when it is not being quoted by a Christian lol!

"The author is implying that the earth will never be moved out of place (as in moved to another location of the universe, or perhaps destroyed completely)"

Admit it, when you wrote this you had a hard time convincing yourself you meant it lol! I cannot see how saying something does not move automatically means it does not move too much. For example if I said Ryan didn't drive today which of the following would be correct:

a) He did not go in his car and drive at all today.

b) He went in his car and drove around the block.

c) He went in his car and drove to the nearest convenient store and back.

d) He drove for 5 hours and came home.

Remember only one of these choices can be correct:).

We know that the earth not only rotates but also orbits the sun. There is no question that it cannot be depicted as stationary. I await your response to this eagerly;).

"But implied and hidden in this line of reasoning is actually a case for a young earth. Transition from a colder to a warmer climate only shows that things are decreasing (2nd law of thermodynamics), meaning the earth, along with the rest of the universe (which scientists also believe is decreasing) had a beginning,. What accounts for this? Christians believe a creator God does."

No it means the earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling. The earth is not young. Definitely not 6000 years old. Soon I am going to have to accuse you of scientific fraud lol!

I am going to re-scan again and see what else is left to address or you could highlight anything else I may have left out.

Nicole comes back with second reply:

Nicole: ‎"First, you answered out of context. I was speaking about the young earth idea, responding to the following comment you made:

'Less people believed the earth was round, but there were still people around who knew this.'"

I assume you mean th...e round earth idea. And yes like I said there are sufficient scriptures to show that there was a belief in both a flat earth and to a lesser extent round earth.

Twist the interpretation all you want, "the four corners of the earth" described in Revelation is indicative of a flat earth there are other scriptures that highlight this as well, some I have not mentioned. But this one cements my view that, yes, there are Biblical writers that thought the earth was flat.

Edwin M. Cotto: ‎"There are many things to address. However for now I want to address this one thing. God always existed according to the Bible. However as I stated before a belief in a God does not automatically mean a belief in Christianity.

I already ack...nowledged this difference before. Once a belief in God is established, the next step is finding which religion is true. I believe the historical risen Christ will convince the honest researcher that its Christianity, because if Christ really raised from the dead physically, he really was who he claimed to be. This is why we got into a discussion of proving the bible, which you still have not responded well to me reasons but politely ignore or by pass them with random, repeated comments. You dislike the idea of going by what people "wrote" (although I already pointed out how a writing can be a sufficient witness in any court of law) and I'm trying to show you through various ways why what they wrote is reliable. That you chose to ignore those reasons is your own decision all together. and your entitled to that.

"There are many... other religions that worship a deity. Thus I am not attacking Christian doctrine when I speak about the existence or non-existence of a deity. We are using simple logic."

Whether an atheist attacks Christianity directly or World religion as a whole does not concern me in the least. I'm ready to engage in any battle defending it until proven otherwise. The simple logic you claim you use includes:

1) Life comes from non-life
2) That every belief claiming to be objective is subjective, even the belief that every belief claiming to be objective is subjective.
3) That the earth/universe is increasing, despite the well established 2nd law of Thermodynamics which says everything is rather decreasing, implying everything had a beginning.

A fifth grader could look at these three things and see how illogical, irrational and (as he'd probably say) downright "silly" they are. Your world-view is inconsistent with logic as this small list shows, and is a pile of "theories" debated even within your own circle of atheists and evolutionists. By contrast, Christians have "one" idea of how everything was made and they are consistent on that belief. The confusion in your world-view, compared to the agreement in mine, would make any person honest with logic and honest with themselves lean more towards the less confusing side.

"All people who believe that the universe must be created believe that something cannot possibly come out of nothing. I am not limiting this to Christianity but include other religions and irreligious people who believe there is a God. Hence with that logic in mind a God himself must have been created. Simply saying he always was does not satisfy the first premise that something cannot come out of nothing."

But heres the issue. It all goes back to the bible and your having to prove it wrong, because its not me claiming it, its the bible claiming God always existed. Now the reason why I accept that as a fact is because the bible can not be proven false. It can not be shown as untrue in any way. It can not be shown that its accounts on the historical Jesus ans his resurrection did not take place. For you to successfully refute my response, which was that God always existed, you will have to show me that the bible is not infallible as I claim it is. One of the ways you can do this is by trying to, let's say, show how we can't trust the manuscripts of the ancient text. Or, showing contradictions. These I'm ready to debate you on to show you it really is consistent and the manuscripts were faithfully handed down and preserved for us. Otherwise, my response, that God had no beginning because he always existed, remains unrefuted.

"There are many theories that have emerged over time."

Yes, confusion in the evolutionary world is very prevalent.

"The omnipotent being creating the universe is one such theory that has been widely adapted by a number of religions. Again, no one can know for sure the true origins of the universe all of this is speculation."

I'd argue that there is more speculation and assumptions within the evolutionary world view, much of which also requires faith, more so then in Christianity. For example, evolutionists move from the observable to the theoretical in a way not warranted by the evidence, as in micro and macroevolution. They can obverse without doubt that minor changes occur within species (micro evolution), but they extrapolate from those observations the theory that such changes eventually add up to the formation of entirely new species (macro). While microevolution can be empirically verifiable, the extrapolation to macroevolution is only a theory that has never been observed. Its a matter of faith. In fact, most of the Evolutionary Theory(s) is a matter of faith. That's why is classified as just another "religion."

"A few men writing scriptures claiming divine inspiration means very little to anyone who knows what the human mind is capable of. You mention that Paul was already attached to the Jewish faith. It is entirely possible he had already grown fed-up with his faith and decided this Jesus thing seemed a much better thing to believe in, good for him."

Please, lets use some logic here Nicole. It is not logical that he would be fed up with a religion offering him as much power as he had, and even if this were possible, he would never have converted to a much lesser, less promising religion as Christianity was at that time in history. No one in their right mind would leave leadership, honor, fame, wealth, and followers to convert to a group of men and women stricken with poverty, sentenced to torture and death, and hated by the world, unless he were absolutely convinced with more then just belief or writings of others. This is even more convincing when you consider that hundreds of enemies of Christ did the same thing! Your claim is too unreasonable. THIS is simple logic.

"Nothing you have said about these men have made the evidence (which is still based on the words of a few) appear more reliable."

To you probably not, and that's fine if you choose to ignore the simple logic I'm bringing forward.

"Also I'd like to add that the sentiment has changed over the course of the discussion. Where it was said that science proves Christianity you have now confirmed that Pseudo-Christian Science confirms Christianity. That is an entirely new direction that leaves very little to debate. It's pseudo-Christian science, thus its main purpose is to make scriptures appear more reasonable, which ironically it doesn't."

We can debate either or.

"As expected all references I made would immediately be considered symbolic, this does not surprise me."

If the very word "visions" in the beginning of that text does not tell you that what will follow (the description of the vision) will be symbolic, I don't know what your definition of "visions" is then. Could be a new Evolutionary dictionary you hold that Im not aware of.

"It is always about context when it is not being quoted by a Christian lol!"

Yes, its always about context, because a text taken out of context is a pre-text, in any writing for that matter.

"The author is implying that the earth will never be moved out of place (as in moved to another location of the universe, or perhaps destroyed completely)"

Admit it, when you wrote this you had a hard time convincing yourself you meant it lol!"

Absolutely not. lol?

"I cannot see how saying something does not move automatically means it does not move too much.

That's not what I said at all, therefore what follows from here is irrelevant, because your starting your example below on a mistaken premise. I'll show you now why in my next comment reply why your example below will not work:

My comment was too long to fit in one comment box, so I finished my reply in another comment box:

Edwin M. Cotto: "For example if I said Ryan didn't drive today which of the following would be correct:

a) He did not go in his car and drive at all today.

b) He went in his car and drove around the block.
...
c) He went in his car and drove to the nearest convenient store and back.

d) He drove for 5 hours and came home.

Remember only one of these choices can be correct:).

We know that the earth not only rotates but also orbits the sun. There is no question that it cannot be depicted as stationary. I await your response to this eagerly;)."

Your example does not work because your comparing apples with oranges. The car is able to move from one location to the next, in any which way, in different distances short or long, as many times as it wants, whenever it want, therefore it must move regardless when you use the word "move" in that context. The earth only moves in one geological location and direction... around the sun, rotating. No more, no less. You can't, also, compare your car example with my windmill example. The windmill stays put on the roof top at that one location, but still "rotates" when the wind blows. My only point was that the Kind David meant that the earth will not be shaken, thrown down or removed from its place to, say, heaven for example. I went to the original Hebrew words to show you this. That's called "exegesis."

"But implied and hidden in this line of reasoning is actually a case for a young earth. Transition from a colder to a warmer climate only shows that things are decreasing (2nd law of thermodynamics), meaning the earth, along with the rest of the universe (which scientists also believe is decreasing) had a beginning,. What accounts for this? Christians believe a creator God does."

No it means the earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling. The earth is not young. Definitely not 6000 years old. Soon I am going to have to accuse you of scientific fraud lol!

It may go through cycles of heating and cooling, but all while its decreasing. Meaning the next time it goes through cooling, it wont be "as cool" as the last time. Same with heating, because of this 2nd law. However, scientists still believe its younger then originally claimed in the 1800's by Darwin and the like, and many of them don;t even believe it's far fetched to believe its 6000 years old. You should really consider the proofs for this in the link Ryan shared above: http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch06a.htm

Nicole: "By contrast, Christians have "one" idea of how everything was made and they are consistent on that belief." An idea that still lacks proof:).

Let us not forget there are still problems concerning a God.

1) He does not have true purpose (so... that we can worship him is a little superficial for a creature far superior to ourselves)
2) We cannot account for his origins
3) That he's omniscient means he would already know the result of anything he does, thus removing any possible motivation to create anything. (this is also tied to purpose)
4) He has yet to be seen.

With science we know that all things are not explained that is why it is a process. However science does not pretend truth where it is not conclusive. It posits theories that are put to the test by experimentation. A true scientist does not tell you this is right because I believe it to be true he/she presents an argument and allows it to be put to the test.

I'll address the rest shortly I am trying to multi-task.

Edwin M. Cotto: "I assume you mean th...e round earth idea. And yes like I said there are sufficient scriptures to show that there was a belief in both a flat earth and to a lesser extent round earth."

Well assumptions cast doubt on your reasoning's. Inste...ad, context should be considered first. Uh oh, I said that dreaded word "context" again! lol.

"Twist the interpretation all you want, "the four corners of the earth" described in Revelation is indicative of a flat earth there are other scriptures that highlight this as well, some I have not mentioned. But this one cements my view that, yes, there are Biblical writers that thought the earth was flat:)."

We return back to this scary word called "context." Read the context of that very verse which mentions "four corners:"

Rev 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the FOUR WINDS of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Here's how we know its symbolic, it also mentions "four winds" being "held." This is symbolic, because winds can not be held literally. Winds in the bible (when we let the bible interpret itself) symbolize destruction, ruin. The symbol means to show that God commissioned his angels to all over the world (north, south, east, west -four corners) to delay destruction until God's people are sealed on their foreheads (as shown in the following verses). I'm sure you will still call this "twisting" the only accusation you have left, but nevertheless I remained within the verse, its context and within the bible itself to explain it.

The whole book of Revelation is highly symbolic, and its purpose is symbolic actually. The very word "revelation" means "revealed." You shouldn't claim something literal from a symbolic book. That's just straight up not logical, lol. ;)

I'll be back tomorrow expecting to respond more of your accusations (hoping you reply to "everything" I said in return). Good night.

Nicole: "The whole book of Revelation is highly symbolic, and its purpose is symbolic actually." and yet you guys like to use it as a metaphor and quite literally at times.

I'll definitely have more time tomorrow to do this. Prepare yourself lol!

Edwin M. Cotto: Well, honestly there are literal events within it that it tries to portray. But the point is that the best way to know when exactly it is being symbolic and when literal is determined by the context, In the context of Revelation 7:1, where "four corners" is used, it is being symbolic. Nicole my favorite thing to debate it the bible, over evolution, history or religions in general. So I'm even more excited now actually. I'll be waiting (but please respond to my every point above as well). good night again!

Nicole: I will just wait.

I already see which point I want to tackle first:).

2010-07-14T20:45:00.004-04:00

THIS STUDY IS INCOMPLETE

1. If the Sabbath is “against us and contrary to us” as they claim Colossians 2:14 states, why does the Lord himself (in Isaiah 58:13-14) say we should consider it “a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable”?

Answer:

The author of these questions means that we ‘dispensationalists’ consider Colossians 2:15 an example of Scripture of how the 613 Commandments were fulfilled and we Gentiles are not under them.

The general idea is that both Jew and Gentile are under the Law of Moses. Of course in their mentality they mean the Ten Commandments. To prove their point this author uses Isaiah 58.

Unfortunately this doesn’t really prove their claim as easily as they think.

At one time the Sabbath as God directed the future Jewish nation was indeed honorable. Yet we see in Isaiah 1:13 we see Israel’s sins caused God to be sickened by their hypocrisy. Later in Isaiah 58:1-14 God directs the surviving Jewish nation to Worship him alone. As the gentiles were grafted into his fold we read in Colossians 2:1-23 various philosophers attempted to steer the infant Church into various other religions.

(In the study notes of the Bible I use it says: Colossians it says Christ is better than philosophy 2:1-10. Christ better than legalism 2:11-17, and of course Christ better than mysticism 2:18-2)

In other words the Sabbath is a sign between God and the Jews. It is not a sign for we Gentiles.

Unfortunately, the answer provided by our opponent is no answer at all. The question by Alan begs readers to harmonize the two apparently conflicting verses. This issue has not been resolved.

Why our opponent pointed his readers to Isaiah 1:13 we don't understand, since God's issue in this text, according to the context, is not with their rituals per say, but with their mentality during the celebration of those rituals. In other words, they were being hypocritical, and were not observing them in love, but rather for selfish gain and in sins "How is the faithful city become an harlot. It was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers." -verse 22.

This conclusion is established, not only by the context of the chapter, but by the context of the book itself. Would God hate the Sabbath in chapter one, but towards the end (Isaiah 58) speak of it as honorable? Since the bible teaches that God does not change, this theory is highly unlikely.

The Christian should seek to harmonize two seemingly conflicting verses. Paul does not contradict Isaiah. Instead, Paul is in his context speaking about the "hand-writing" of ordinances that was against us..." -Colossians 2:14. First, the Ten Commandments were not written by hand, but by the finger of God (Exodus 31:18). Yes Moses did afterwords write with his hand the law, all the law, in books, but finishing Paul's verse it reads "that was against us." The Ten Commandments were not against anyone (certainly the law to not kill is not against people), but the various laws foreshadowing Christ would be a burden and of no use if observed today; hence their "against us." among those various laws were included numerous feasts also called "sabbaths" and are listed in primarily in Leviticus 23. These sabbaths became against the people when the final lamb of God died on the cross, rendering them of no use. To observe them now, is to deny the final sacrifice as sufficient, leaving us without Christ. This, indeed, is against us. (see Deuteronomy 31:26 compared with Colossians 2:14).

Thus are those two verses harmonized. We answered our own question, but we had hoped our opponent would have done that first.

For further study, see The Sabbath a shadow? Which Sabbath?

2. The words of Jesus in Mark 12:29-31 (“thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength” and the second Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself “) have been so-called “the laws of Christ” and have supposedly usurped the Ten Commandments. However, these same words are found in Deuteronomy 6:4, 5 and Leviticus 19:18 so why did we need the Ten Commandments if we already had these so-called “laws of Christ” already spoken?

Answer:

Jesus was answering a Jewish Scribe about which laws of the 613 were the most important. This story is found in the following places.

Matthew 22:36-40

Mark 12:29-31

Luke 10:25-28

In regards to the following OT Scriptures we find the following Deuteronomy 6:1-25 we find that Moses is addressing Israel. In Leviticus 19:1-37 Moses was giving his people instructions on daily living. This of course has nothing to do with Christ or Christianity.

The point of the question was, Why would God through Christ introduce supposedly "new" laws in the NT to replace the Ten Commandments, when those new laws weren't so new after all, seeing they already existed before? This has not been answered. And when my opponent says something in the Old Testament has nothing to do with Christ, I disagree, and argue that everything in the Old Testament has something to with with Christ, for he, being God himself, is the author of it (2 Timothy 3:16).

The truth is, Christ was not introducing a "new law" since it already existed. That's the point the questions is trying to stress. This was, however, a new concept to them; something not fully understood by the people Jesus was dealing with at that time in history; hence his use of the word "new." To them, it really was "new" to love as Christ loves (he said to love "even as I have loved you" -John 13:34). No one ever showed love the way Jesus did, until Jesus did it. Jesus by referencing those two verses, probably familiar to the Jewish scribe, summarized the whole law. Paul shows how the Ten Commandments are summarized in "love" very clearly in Romans 13:9, when he says the Ten are "briefly comprehended" (greek: anakephalaiomai, meaning "sum up") as "love thy neighbor as thyself." Paul, as well as Christ's emphasis is on "love" which the Jewish scribe was at that moment in life operating without. Upon realizing it, however, he confessed to the truthfulness of Jesus' answer (Mark 12:32-33).

3. Sunday keepers always want hard facts from Sabbath keepers by asking us questions like “Why was the Sabbath not mentioned after Genesis 2:2-3 until Exodus 16?” and “Why was the Sabbath command not repeated in the New Testament?” but if you ask in return for a hard fact about where is the commandment for Sunday anywhere in the bible all you get is bewildered looks.

Answer:

This is not written as a question but is written as a Statement. Therefore using the Holy Bible to answer it is not possible.

Sunday was never ‘commanded’ by God, Christ or the disciples. However we can also argue from the dispensationalist standpoint that the law of Moses was never directed towards Gentiles or Christians unless we lived under their rule.

Links to the Sunday Change and the Christian Church:

Sunday

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm

Sunday The First Centuries

By Robert Sanders

http://www.truthorfables.com/Sunday_First_Centuries.htm

Sabbath Not A Law For Christians

By Robert K. Sanders

http://www.truthorfables.com/Sabbath_Not_A_Law.htm

This link below gives the read a interesting history on the days of the week.

http://www.indepthinfo.com/weekdays/

4. Exodus 20:2 reads “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” The dispensationalist often refers to the Ten Commandments as “bondage”. So are they going to have me believe God brought them out of bondage just to place them under more bondage? Huh?

Answer:

In response to this question it is necessary to mention that the author doesn’t define ‘dispensationalist’. Nor does he give specific information of the individual or ministry that makes the comment he listed.

Lets start by defining ‘Dispensationalist’.

“Question: “What is dispensationalism and is it Biblical?”

“Answer: Dispensationalism is a system of theology that has two primary distinctives. 1) A consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy. 2) A distinction between Israel and the church in God’s program.”

“Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation, which means giving each word the meaning it would commonly have in everyday usage. Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and this is in no way contrary to literal interpretation. Even symbols and figurative sayings have literal meanings behind them.”

“There are at least three reasons why this is the best way to view Scripture. First, philosophically, the purpose of language itself seems to require that we interpret it literally. Language was given by God for the purpose of being able to communicate with man. The second reason is biblical. Every prophecy about Jesus Christ in the Old Testament was fulfilled literally. Jesus’ birth, Jesus’ ministry, Jesus’ death, and Jesus’ resurrection all occurred exactly and literally as the Old Testament predicted. There is no non-literal fulfillment of these prophecies in the New Testament. This argues strongly for the literal method. If literal interpretation is not used in studying the Scriptures, there is no objective standard by which to understand the Bible. Each and every person would be able to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. Biblical interpretation would devolve into “what this passage says to me…” instead of “the Bible says…” Sadly, this is already the case in much of what is called biblical interpretation today.”

“Dispensational theology teaches that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the church. Dispensationalists believe that salvation has always been by faith—in God in the Old Testament and specifically in God the Son in the New Testament. Dispensationalists hold that the church has not replaced Israel in God’s program and the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the church. They believe that the promises God made to Israel (for land, many descendants, and blessings) in the Old Testament will be ultimately fulfilled in the 1000-year period spoken of in Revelation chapter 20. Dispensationalists believe that just as God is in this age focusing His attention on the church, He will again in the future focus His attention on Israel (Romans 9-11).”

http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html

When God gave Moses the 613 Commandments it was to forge a new people from all the others in existence at that time. His Commandments for the infant Jewish system were not a burden nor a bondage.

5. The children of Israel were commanded some 613 laws between God and Moses Doesn’t the very fact that they’re called the TEN Commandments tell anyone that they are a separate code of laws from the rest? Why say ten if they are “the same as the others”? See Deuteronomy 4:13, 14; 2 Kings 21:8; 2 Chronicles 33:8?

Answer:

The best response is to show that for our Jewish friends they donot separate the Ten Commandments from the rest of their laws.

Examples:

The 613 Commandments in Jewish Thought

http://www.torah.org/learning/livinglaw/

Parshas Yisro Ten Commandments: Ten of the Best!

http://www.torah.org/learning/livinglaw/5768/yisro.html

Parshas Yisro – The Ten Commandments

by Rabbi Dovid Green

http://www.torah.org/learning/dvartorah/5758/yisro.html

Aseret ha-Dibrot: The “Ten Commandments”

http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm

When we look at the Scriptures listed we find the following.

Deuteronomy 4:1-49 Gives us the story of Moses and his peoples journey into Israel. Interestingly Moses warns those who follow him. Ye shall not add unto the word which I commanded you neither shall ye diminish aught from it that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 4:2. If those in the SDA continue in the path they have chosen it is possible to get cursed because they have placed the whole of the law upon themselves.

2 Kings 21:8

When we read 2 Kings 21:1-26 it is about King Manasseh and the evil acts he did not Gentile Christians.

2 Chronicles 33:8

Again 2 Chronicles 33:1-25 Is another story of the old King of Israel Manassah and his evils. This again has nothing to do with Christianity or Gentile Christians following the old Jewish Laws.

6. Dispensationalist will tell you that the Ten Commandments were the old covenant but in the book of Hebrews (9:7) we find that the old covenant needed replacing for being faulty (the fault spoken of was found with the people and not the law vs. 8). Are dispensationalist prepared to argue that God wrote and spoke something faulty? (HINT: Don’t go there.)

Answer:

Exactly WHICH dispensationalist made these comments? The SDA author of these questions have not told us. In Hebrews 9:1-28 we can read that the author of that book Considered Christ far superior than the Old priest hood and the Old Covenant. See Hebrews 9:14-15.

What God gave Moses in Exodus 20:1-17 was meant not for all peoples. Those commandments were only for the Jewish or Israeli peoples. The Text is what a dispensationalist goes by when they read their Bibles. Hence the theory of two different covenants. One for the Jewish nation and the other for the gentile nations.

Examples of Dispensationalist teachings:

Old Testament Laws: Must We Observe the Law of Moses and the Sabbath Today?

http://www.gospelway.com/bible/old_law_today_1.php

The Sabbath the Law and the Gospel

by Rolaant L. McKenzie

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/slgtitle.html

7. “Christians” have ALWAYS worshipped on Sunday and NEVER on the Sabbath? Someone was taking a nap in religious history class! “

“http://www.lltproductions.com/sabbath_history.shtml”

Answer:

Any reply’s to this statement would not be found in the Holy Bible.

The above link is no longer functioning. The author of these questions and his allies who post these questions on their websites and blogs should have been more proactive in keeping their information updated.

Allow me to post the actual links:

“http://www.sabbathhistory.com/”

And:

“http://www.the7thday.org/index.shtml”

Both are HEAVILY BIASED in regards to Church history and promote the SDA ideals on Sabbath. The author of the above links sells a DVD series that uses or misuses various ‘experts’ to insist early Christians kept the SDA version of Saturday Sabbath.

Lets counter with websites for the author of these questions to review.

Worship in the Early Church

RICHARD C. LEONARD

http://www.laudemont.org/a-witec.htm

WORSHIP SERVICES IN THE EARLY CHURCH

http://www.lasthour.com/EARLY%20CHURCH%20WORSHIP.htm

The Sabbath

http://www.christian-history.org/sabbath.html

8. John 17:4 says: “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” Could Jesus make this statement if he still had to “teach” Sunday observance by rising on that day? Is he a liar? (Again, don’t go there.)

Answer:

As we can read in John 17:1-26 Jesus was praying for himself, and his future followers. No where does Jesus say anything on which day he is to resurrect on. Jesus did not teach Sunday observance nor did Jesus teach that gentiles were to keep Saturday Sabbath. This SDA author is making too many assumptions.

9. The gospel commission in Matthew contains this…”Teaching them all that I have commanded” and Jesus commanded the Ten Commandments (Matthew 5:19, 19:17-19. Did Jesus command Sunday?

Answer:

As we can read in Matthew 5:1-48 Jesus was teaching his fellow Jews about the Ten Commandments AND various others from the 613. As this SDA well knows Jesus told his listeners that he was to fulfill ALL the law Matthew 5:17.

By Matthew 19:1-30 We find Jesus teaching on a variety of issues.

These included Matthew 19:1-12 Marriage

Matthew 19:13-15 Children

Matthew 19:16-22 Jesus teaching a wealthy Jewish man about how to enter Gods Kingdom.

Matthew 19:23-30 Examples of how Salvation would come.

Jesus as a Jew knew nothing of Sunday worship. And still Jesus did not teach about gentiles keeping Sabbath.

Jesus commanded his fellow Jews to keep ALL the commandments not just the Ten.

10. The gospel writers penned their books decades (most scholars say 70 AD or later) after the cross but none of them felt compelled to tell us about a new day of worship? Strange indeed.

Answer:

This is another statement by this SDA author and cannot be answered solely from the Holy Bible.

As I pointed out in Question 7 in regards to a few Church history websites indicate that Saturday Sabbath was changed over time. The gospel writers knew no other day of worship nor did they command gentile believers to keep the Sabbath.

11. Again, Luke (23:56) writes about the”…Sabbath according to the commandment” but why say this decades later if the Sabbath is no longer a commandment?

Answer:

In Luke 23:45-56 We read about the death and burial of Christ. Jesus followers were of course Jewish and still had to follow the Commandments of Moses. This includes Sabbath.

As anyone can read there is still no proof of a Commandment by the Lord to keep Sabbath for the gentiles.

12. If the Ten Commandments are the old covenant then how do they explain away Exodus 19:3-8 which is a covenant made and agreed to a full three days before they (the law) are even given by God?

Answer:

In Exodus 18:19-27 Moses gave leadership positions to those whom he knew were capable after asking council from his Father in law.

As we read further in Exodus 19:1-25 Moses came to the leaders he appointed and gave them the Commandments. Later by verse 18:25 Moses gave them the whole law in Exodus 20:1-26, 21:-136, 22:1-31, 23:1-33 and finally 24:1-4

13. If there was no law before Mount Sinai, why does God say in Genesis 26:5 “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws”? In the book ok Genesis both moral (6th 4:8-15; 1st 35:2-4; 7th 39:7-9; 10th 25:29-34…and more) and ceremonial (4:4; 22:8-10, 31:54; 46:1) laws are mentioned.

Answer: Lets start by going back a bit in Genesis.

What are the specific Commandments God gave Abaraham?

Lets list them:

Genesis 15:1-6

In Genesis 15:12-18 Abram dreams and is told of the future of his children.

In Genesis 17:1-27 we find Abrahams covenant and Abraham following Gods instructions on circumcision.

Genesis 22:1-19

These are what Moses was referring to.

14. If there is no law before Sinai, doesn’t God have a lot of apologizing to do to Adam & Eve, Cain, the whole world (flood), Sodom and Gomorrah, and even SATAN HIMSELF (cast out of heaven. Why?)? Weren’t they sinners? What is sin? (1 John 3:4, see also Romans 4:15)

That is more of philosophical question

Answer:

Sin is defined as:

“Question: “What is the definition of sin?”

“Answer: Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18). Sin had its beginning with Lucifer, probably the most beautiful and powerful of the angels. Not content with his position, he desired to be higher than God, and that was his downfall, the beginning of sin (Isaiah 14:12-15). Renamed Satan, he brought sin to the human race in the Garden of Eden, where he tempted Adam and Eve with the same enticement, “you shall be like God.” Genesis 3 describes Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God and against His command. Since that time, sin has been passed down through all the generations of mankind and we, Adam’s descendants, have inherited sin from him. Romans 5:12 tells us that through Adam sin entered the world, and so death was passed on to all men because “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).”

“Through Adam, the inherent inclination to sin entered the human race, and human beings became sinners by nature. When Adam sinned, his inner nature was transformed by his sin of rebellion, bringing to him spiritual death and depravity which would be passed on to all who came after him. We are sinners not because we sin; rather, we sin because we are sinners. This passed-on depravity is known as inherited sin. Just as we inherit physical characteristics from our parents, we inherit our sinful natures from Adam. King David lamented this condition of fallen human nature in Psalm 51:5: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.””

“Another type of sin is known as imputed sin. Used in both financial and legal settings, the Greek word translated “imputed” means “to take something that belongs to someone and credit it to another’s account.” Before the Law of Moses was given, sin was not imputed to man, although men were still sinners because of inherited sin. After the Law was given, sins committed in violation of the Law were imputed (accounted) to them (Romans 5:13). Even before transgressions of the law were imputed to men, the ultimate penalty for sin (death) continued to reign (Romans 5:14). All humans, from Adam to Moses, were subject to death, not because of their sinful acts against the Mosaic Law (which they did not have), but because of their own inherited sinful nature. After Moses, humans were subject to death both because of inherited sin from Adam and imputed sin from violating the laws of God.”

“God used the principle of imputation to benefit mankind when He imputed the sin of believers to the account of Jesus Christ, who paid the penalty for that sin—death—on the cross. Imputing our sin to Jesus, God treated Him as if He were a sinner, though He was not, and had Him die for the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2). It is important to understand that sin was imputed to Him, but He did not inherit it from Adam. He bore the penalty for sin, but He never became a sinner. His pure and perfect nature was untouched by sin. He was treated as though He were guilty of all the sins ever committed by the human race, even though He committed none. In exchange, God imputed the righteousness of Christ to believers and credited our accounts with His righteousness, just as He had credited our sins to Christ’s account (2 Corinthians 5:21).”

“A third type of sin is personal sin, that which is committed every day by every human being. Because we have inherited a sin nature from Adam, we commit individual, personal sins, everything from seemingly innocent untruths to murder. Those who have not placed their faith in Jesus Christ must pay the penalty for these personal sins, as well as inherited and imputed sin. However, believers have been freed from the eternal penalty of sin—hell and spiritual death—but now we also have the power to resist sinning. Now we can choose whether or not to commit personal sins because we have the power to resist sin through the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, sanctifying and convicting us of our sins when we do commit them (Romans 8:9-11). Once we confess our personal sins to God and ask forgiveness for them, we are restored to perfect fellowship and communion with Him. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).”

“We are all three times condemned due to inherited sin, imputed sin, and personal sin. The only just penalty for this sin is death (Romans 6:23), not just physical death but eternal death (Revelation 20:11-15). Thankfully, inherited sin, imputed sin, and personal sin have all been crucified on the cross of Jesus, and now by faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior “we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Ephesians 1:7).”

“Recommended Resource: Basic Theology by Charles Ryrie.”

http://www.gotquestions.org/definition-sin.html

http://www.godisforus.com/information/worldview/sin/definition.htm

In quoting: 1 John 3:4 and Romans 4:15 they author of this question assumes that the Law of Moses still presides over we Christians. However in reading the text it is clear his philosophy is wrong. See 1 John 3:1-24, Romans 4:1-25…

15. Why do Sunday advocates insist Jesus broke the Sabbath to diminish it’s importance when Jesus himself states in John 15:10 “….even as I have kept my Father’s commandments.”? Is Jesus a bald-face liar? (once again, don’t go there)

Answer:

As we can read in John 15:10-13 Jesus kept his fathers commandments but again doesn’t issue commandments for his future church to keep the Ten or Sabbath. In fact Jesus asks his Jewish followers to Love one another John 15:17.

Jesus ‘broke’ the tradition of those religious Jews of his time by healing on the Sabbath . But did not break the Commandment God gave about the Sabbath. Jesus is not a liar but a Savior for both Jew and Gentile.

16. In the gospels & Acts the Sabbath and the synagogue are synonymous with each other 11 times and yet the “2 proof texts” given in the new testament say nothing of a place of worship, why’s that?

Answer:

The obvious problem with this question is that we don’t know which Scriptures the author is referring to. Because of the lack of evidence I cannot answer this question at this time.

17. With the practice of circumcision being very important to Jews, it is refuted over 40 times in the New Testament but not the Sabbath day meetings held all through the books of acts. We remember how rabidly the Pharisees attacked Jesus over the issue of the Sabbath. So why does Paul NOT ONCE chide them on the Sabbath issue and where is their anger over it in the New Testament writings?

Answer:

Paul answers the various Jewish sects in the book of Romans.

Well known Scriptures dealing directly with Paul’s fellow Jews are:

Romans 3:1-31

Romans 4:13-16

Romans 8:1-4

We can presume that the Sabbath had lost importance since the book of Romans was composed for both Jewish and Gentile followers of Christ.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/romans.cfm

18. If early Christians were already worshipping on Sundays then why didn’t the Jews raise a commotion about that like circumcision? Again, Paul never rebukes anyone for keeping the “old Jewish Sabbath”.

Answer:

As we can see in following Scriptures in Acts we see a variety of problems caused by the Jews.

Acts Chapters 11:1-30, 12:1-24, 13:1-52, 14:1-28,

By Acts 15:1-31 We find the following Disciples Peter, James make their suggestions to keep Gentile followers in the infant Christian church. Note these Disciples gave we Gentiles the following ‘burdens’…

Abstain from:

Food sacrificed to idols

blood

strangled animals for food

fornication

If the Ten Commandments or the rest of the 603 mattered for the Christian church then it should have been commanded by the Elders of the Church and these commandments carried into today…

19. Why don’t ANY New Testament writers denounce the Sabbath? Don’t they know there’s a “new day of worship”?

Answer:

That is the authors opinion. The disciples of Christ were Jews and remained so till their deaths. They knew of no other day of worship. And yet because of Paul’s writings in Romans gave the early and later church the ability to change dates seemingly with Gods approval.

(Examples: Acts 15, Romans 14)

20. If the Sabbath is Jewish, why does God (through Isaiah in the 56th chapter) encourage “the sons of the stranger”, meaning gentiles, to keep it? (See also Exodus 20:8-11 for the same “stranger” reference)

Answer:

See Isaiah 56:1-12

We find in Isaiah 56:1-3 the reference about the stranger living among Jews keeping the Sabbath. This is not a commandment for the gentile church to follow the philosophy of Christian Sabbath keepers.

In Exodus 20:8-11 We find the same remark. But notice…

“10But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020&version=KJV

The above scripture refers to those whom were living in Jewish households or as I interpret this verse those gentiles living under a Jewish Theocracy. Under those conditions are Gentiles to live under Jewish laws and keep the Jewish Sabbath.

21. If the Sabbath is Jewish only then why does Luke (the gentile doctor) refer to “nation of the Jews,” “the people of the Jews,” “the land of the Jews,” and the “synagogue of the Jews.” (Acts 10:22; 12:11; 10:39; 14:1) and never “sabbath of the Jews”?

Answer:

When we look up Sabbath under Strong’s Exhaustive concordance of the Bible we find the following references to the Sabbath in Acts.

Acts: 1:12, 13:14-27-42-44, 15:21, 16:13, 17:2, 18:4…

We find that the Sabbath was used by Jesus early followers to spread his message. The day itself was used as any other day to spread Jesus message to both Jews and Gentiles during the start of the Christian church. We can assume it would have gotten too repetitive to list every Sabbath as ‘Sabbath of the Jews’.

22. Since God is all powerful (Job 42:2) and all knowing (1 John 3:20), why didn’t God change the law and prevent sin so Christ wouldn’t have to die?

Answer:

That is a philosophical question.

Using the internet we find the following:

“Why was the cross necessary?”

“People often say, ‘Why couldn’t God just forgive us without Jesus having to die?’ To think in such a way is to fail to understand the holiness and justice of God. God never compromises on his holiness. His holiness must shun sin and his justice must punish it. However, the other side of God’s character is that he is a God of love and of mercy too. At the cross, we see all of these attributes of God being demonstrated to their full extent.”

“His holiness rejects sin - hence Jesus’ cry, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ as he took upon himself the sins of the world.”

“His justice passes judgement on that sin, which requires shed blood as payment. For God couldn’t just ignore our sin as though it never happened.”

“In his immense love God sends his only Son to pay the penalty for our sin.”

“In mercy God offers a free pardon and a restored relationship with him for thos who accept Jesus as their Saviour. So at the cross we see God’s ‘wrath and mercy meet’ as one hymn-writer put it.”

“If Jesus had not died on the cross then we would all be lost in our sin eternally, without hope. For we cannot put ourselves right with God by our own means any more than a bankrupt criminal can pay his own fine. We are utterly helpless and the cross is our only means of rescue.”

http://www.woodlandschurch.org.uk/whydidjesushavetodie.html

23. If the Sabbath no longer exists because no one is stoned for breaking it, what about some of the other commandments that the Lord prescribed a death penalty for like the third (Leviticus 24:16), fifth (Exodus 21:17), sixth (Numbers 35:16), seventh (Leviticus 20:10)? Will we throw these out, too?

Answer:

It is the opinion of the author of these questions that both Jew and Gentle are required to live under the Ten Commandments and the rest of the 603. This of course means the various punishments that would be used against breakers of the commandments.

These ideas do not come from Jesus teachings or instructions but the authors own warped ideology. This could imply that the author of these questions believes that the SDA church should also practice this type of punishments from the Jewish laws.

24. If the meaning of “fulfilled” in Matthew 5:17 means do away with the law, what about Matthew 3:15 that states Jesus must be baptized in order “for us to fulfil all righteousness”. The Greek word “plēroō” (play-ro’-o) is the same word in both texts translated “fulfill”. So are we “doing away with” righteousness and baptism?

Answer:

When we looked up the Greek word pleroo online we find the following.

Outline of Biblical Usage 1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full

a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally

1) I abound, I am liberally supplied

2) to render full, i.e. to complete

a) to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim

b) to consummate: a number

1) to make complete in every particular, to render perfect

2) to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)

c) to carry into effect, bring to realization, realize

1) of matters of duty: to perform, execute

2) of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish

3) to fulfil, i.e. to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4137&t=KJV&page=2

This means that the former prophecies were fulfilled but the traditions or ritual of Baptism are not since they were not part of the law of Moses.

When we list the Scriptures chronologically. We find in Matthew 3:13-17 that Jesus came to fulfill all righteousness. That of course doesn’t include the tradition and ritual of baptism from John. Later we find out what Jesus was to fulfill in Matthew 5:17. Baptism is a matter of tradition and ritual. Not a commandment in the sense of the Law of Moses.

Philosophically why would God do away with Righteousness? After all God is Holy and Righteous.

25. If Luke 16:16 tells us the “law and the prophets” were meant to be of no more value when John the Baptist came along, why is it read from in Acts 13:15, and declared as Paul’s rule of faith and practice in Acts 24:14?

Answer:

Looking at these Scriptures chronologically again we find the following.

Luke 16:13-17 dealt with Jesus speech to covetous Pharisees. Those Jewish leaders who put their lusts above God stand condemned before him.

Acts 13:13-43 we find that Paul was preaching to the Jews of Antioch. The law of Moses would not have meant much to the Gentile except for those who actively sought after the God of Israel.

Lastly in Acts 24:1-23 we find that Paul was under trial for his preaching against the Jews of his time. As a Jew he gave a defense of his beliefs using Jewish laws and statutes.

Paul never gave up his Jewishness no matter whom he was preaching to Jew or Gentile. Nor did Paul suggest that his gentile followers were to give up their ways and follow Moses laws. He only asked they follow Jesus.

26. If Psalm 118:22-24 is supposed to be a messianic prophecy predicting Sunday sacredness because of the resurrection of Christ then why does the New Testament never mention Sunday as a sacred day in connection with Christ’s resurrection?

Answer:

The author gives us no reference on who made such a statement.

What we do find in Psalm 118:1-29 it is directed to Israel. There is no reference to Sabbath nor Sunday as the day to be glad for.

27. It says in 1 Chronicles 17:27 that once the Lord blesses something it stays blessed “forever” so doesn’t that mean the Sabbath remains blessed today? Where’s the text showing God un-blessing the Sabbath.

Answer:

As far as I know there is no specific Scripture God un-blessing Sabbath.

28. If the Ten Commandments were abolished by Christ then why does Isaiah 42:21 (a messianic prophecy) state “….he will magnify the law and make it honorable”? Shouldn’t it say he’ll take them out of the way?

Answer:

When we read Isaiah 42:21 in the Hebrew Jewish Tanakh it reads as the following.

(Verse 21) “The Lord desires His servant vindication. That he might magnify and glorify his Teaching.”

In the KJV it read as: “The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness sake, he will magnify the law and make it honorable.”

As we can read Isaiah it is a series of prophecies for Israel. Since these written for Israel it makes sense that God would not remove the law from his people.

In Conclusion:

My first attempt at answering these questions was an abortion.

http://emmilglenn.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/a-review-of-some-answers-to-questions-for-sunday-keepers/

I will point out that any answers given by any critic of the SDA organization of these 28 questions will undoubtedly be looked upon with similar types of criticism and opinions by various SDA persons.

Each Christian who answers these questions will hold a specific doctrinal view. Glenn as a SDA member obviously has his SDA doctrine on his blog. As both Glen and Alan dislike dispensationalists they prefer to stick with SDA theology and doctrines.

I am at heart a dispensationalist due to 18 years worth of teaching in the Christian church. Using the dispensationalist system has helped me understand the Holy Bible better than other systems I have read about. Using a dispensationalist view of the Bible to decipher its text between Jew and Gentile and recognizing the Bibles various texts are meant for specific groups has helped me learn more about the ancient world and whether or not those previous Commandments and revelations matter in this ‘modern’ age.

As we have seen in these previous questions attempting to answer all of them solely from the Word is nearly impossible. Many of the questions / statements cannot be answered solely from a specific Scripture. I suppose there are some crafty individuals that can answer these 28 questions from the Bible but unfortunately for myself I am not one of them.

In regards to those questions that require specific answers I have used various Christian and Jewish website information and links in order to answer those questions. These answers like the questions asked are based off of individual interpretation of the Bible and the information provided from various denominations or theological standpoints.

In the process of answering these 28 questions I have undergone a series of re-writes, edits and reformulating my responses to suit the answers for each question. This has been very time consuming. And yet personally gratifying to learn more about the mentality of persons and organizations I obviously do not to agree with nor have any particular interest in emulating.

I would like to point out something in the end paragraphs of Alan’s first statement.

“Some critics are honest and truly don’t understand the message that we bring to the world but too many critics know exactly what they’re doing and twisting and contorting scripture to satisfy their own preconceived notions about what they want it to say. The ONLY way the bible can work is if we allow it to speak to us and not try to ram ideas into it. I simply ask these questions in response to everyone, sincere or not. Many of these are long standing and haven’t been addressed with biblically sound answers. I believe it’s because they cannot be refuted.”

Many critics of the SDA organization are critical because of the writings EG White wrote 100 years ago do not match with current Christian teachings such as dispensationalism. To my knowledge these critics whether former Adventists or others who doubt EG Whites claims donot ‘twist’ the Scriptures as Alan claims but uphold a similar doctrinal view as myself or others who donot share their interpretations and beliefs.

We Christians as I mentioned earlier all have our specific doctrinal views from our denominations. Baptists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Presbyterians all will not agree with each other or the SDA church / organization.

A final thought:

Mr. Lisenba has written a complex and difficult series of questions. But they are not irrefutable. Questions can be answered but the answers may not be liked by the questioner.

2010-03-13T13:45:00.015-05:00

This Essay is UNDER CONSTRUCTION
and is not complete!

A look into Ms. White's comments about
"Solitary Vice" (Masturbation)

In this study we will be analyzing the statements made by Ellen G. White regarding Masturbation and it's negative effects on the human body. We will study her comments in their proper context, and research today's medical studies to see if whether what she said had any truth in it whatsoever.

The information within this article will be taken from a few different sources, including Medical doctors from my workplace, official Medical websites, and other places.

Introduction

As a Clinical Medical Assistant I work with patients with various conditions and diseases. I work with Medical Doctors who specialize in all sorts of diseases in a few clinics, including the Medical Clinic, Asthma Clinic, Rheumatology, Podiatry, Cardiology and Endocrinology Clinic. Much of my information was obtain from interviewing a few of these doctors. I also work with other hospital technicians and Registered Nurses.

One of the doctors I interviewed provided some very helpful information and authorized websites that helped me understand more about the links between Masturbation and the various diseases mentioned by Ellen G. White. His name is Dr. Jesubathum, and it should be noted that at the time when I questioned him and other Physicians about this topic, I never mentioned neither Ellen G. White, the Seventh Day Adventist church, or anything that had to do with religion whatsoever. Neither are any of them connected in any way to the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I simply told them I am preparing an essay for a website on this topic, which is true, until after this article was posted online.

We will begin our study by first reading Ellen G. White's statements on Masturbation in context. But we caution readers that this article will contain both images and strong language about the male and female sexual organs. Its not intended for the young or weak minded individual.

Is Masturbation linked with Cancer?

There is evidence to suggest that a link does in fact exist. While translating for a doctor at Saint Micheal's Hospital in New Jersey, I learned something interesting about the virus called Human Papillomavirus (HPV). This is a STD that can be transmitted mainly through sexual contact, but it can also be transmitted through other means. A strain of the virus can survive for some time on surfaces, including the sink, the bathtub, the toilet seat, on doorhandles, or other like places. At the "Physician's Desktop Reference" website, Doctors suggest that...

"HPV can survive outside the body, and does not require bodily fluids for transmission. Therefore, it is possible to contract HPV from surfaces that carry the virus, such as locker room floors." -See PDRHealth.

If a person touches an infected surface (or maybe even an infected persons privet parts), and does not wash himself thoroughly, he risks spreading it to himself if he masturbates. This virus converts parts of the skin surfaces of his or her privet areas into warts, and causes changes in the skins cells.

There is another means by which HPV can be spread. Studies suggest it can spread through the semen. After testing the semen of a few selected people who were infected with HPV, the results of the NLM Gateway, which is a service of the U.S. National Institute for Health, were as follows:

"HPV was detected by nested PCR which was second rounds of PCR amplification with consensus primer pairs for HPV-6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 52 and 58. The HPV types were determined by restriction enzyme digestion. Of six patients with condyloma acuminatum that were positive for HPV 6, four (66.7%) had identical type of the HPV in their semen. Of two patients with condyloma acuminatum that were positive for HPV 11, one (50%) had identical type of the HPV in his semen." -See Detection of human papillomavirus DNA in semen by nested PCR

Since HPV can survive on surfaces out side of the human body, If an infected male masturbates over his sink, in his toilet, or in the shower while his HPV is active, and does not clean the surface where the semen landed, the virus will spread when another person touches that surface at the right time. Although the strains of the HPV virus that can cause other diseases (known as High Risk strains) are usually spread sexually, masturbation is in fact a sexual act, and this act can, through the semen, spread these dangerous strains.

Those dangerous strains of HPV are known to cause various cancers, such as cervix, vulva, vagina, penis and anus cancers. However the most common of these is cervix cancer. Interestingly enough, it can also develop into Lung, Head/Neck cancers, and can promote the growth of tumors:

"About a dozen HPV types (including types 16, 18, 31 and 45) are called "high-risk" types because they can lead to cervical cancer, as well as anal cancer, vulvar cancer, penile cancer and lung cancer Several types of HPV, particularly type 16, have been found to be associated with oropharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma, a form of head and neck cancer. HPV-induced cancers often have viral sequences integrated into the cellular DNA. Some of the HPV "early" genes, such as E6 and E7, are known to act as oncogenes that promote tumor growth and malignant transformation. Oral infection with HPV increased the risk of oropharyngeal cancer independent of tobacco and alcohol use." -See Source.

According to the CDC, both men and women are at risk of developing certian cancers via the HPV virus:

"HPV (the virus). Approximately 20 million Americans are currently infected with HPV. Another 6 million people become newly infected each year. HPV is so common that at least 50% of sexually active men and women get it at some point in their lives.

Genital warts. About 1% of sexually active adults in the U.S. have genital warts at any one time.

Cervical cancer. Each year, about 12,000 women get cervical cancer in the U.S.

Other cancers that can be caused by HPV are less common than cervical cancer. Each year in the U.S., there are about:

3,700 women who get vulvar cancer
1,000 women who get vaginal cancer
1,000 men who get penile cancer
2,700 women and 1,700 men who get anal cancer
2,300 women and 9,000 men who get head and neck cancers. [Note: although HPV is associated with some of head and neck cancers, most of these cancers are related to smoking and heavy drinking.]

Certain populations are at higher risk for some HPV-related health problems. This includes gay and bisexual men, and people with weak immune systems (including those who have HIV/AIDS)."

-See The Center for Disease Control and Prevention website.

Is Masturbation linked with other Diseases/Disorders?

The above information gave us a short list of some of the diseases HPV can cause in the human body. If a person addicted to Masturbation somehow contracts HPV, the following list of diseases can possibly occur:

-Cancer of the Cervix
-Vulvar Cancer
-Penile Cancer
-Anal Cancer
-Head and Neck Cancers

Cancers are not the only diseases HPV can cause. More then 15 strains (or Types) of HPV can cause a condition known as Epidermodysplasia verruciformis. This disease effects certain genes which are responsible for the distribution of zinc in the cell. Without zinc the human body will develop many other diseases which I will now list:

-infections
-hypogonadism
-weight loss
-emotional disturbance
-dermatitis
-alopecia
-impaired taste acuity
-night blindness
-poor appetite
-delayed wound healing
-elevated blood ammonia levels

-See Source.

Studies conducted by Dr.'s David Horrobin and Carl C. Pfeiffer also show that Zinc Deficiency can occur through over masturbation (see this Link). Semen "contains 100 times more zinc than is found in the blood." -Source. Therefore frequent ejaculation can cause a male to lose enough zinc that, if not replaced, can cause the various diseases and disorders mentioned above.

Contracting HPV through Masturbation can also lead to Warts. Many HPV Types can cause Warts, including:

-Common Warts
-Planter Warts
-Flat Warts

Theres also Genital Warts and Anal Warts.

-Source.

Your Thought Questions Answered

Question #1: Critic Dirk Anderson points out in Mrs. White's quote that she seems to be saying that it is "women" who are at higher risk of developing these diseases. He says:

"That quote would seem to put the final nail in the coffin of the zinc deficiency nonsense. If these health problems were indeed caused by zinc deficiency, then why does Mrs. White say women suffer from the same problems, and to an even greater degree?"

Zinc Deficiency through masturbation, however, is a male problem. So even if Zinc Deficiency does cause some of those diseases mentioned by Ellen White, those studies only show that it is the male who suffers, while ELlen White seems to be speaking mainly about women.

Answer: The condition known Epidermodysplasia Verruciformis (mentioned in this article above) can cause a problem with Zinc in both males and females, and is caused by at least 15 Types of the HPV virus which can be transmitted through Masturbation.

Cervical cancer (cancer being one of the diseases Ellen White mentioned), can also be caused by HPV and can only happen in women, or course.

Question #2:

2009-10-08T22:11:00.004-04:00

Frequently Asked Questions:

______________________________________

-Are you an ordained Pastor or Elder in the Seventh-day Adventist Church?

No, I'm not either. Although I'm not to fond of titles, I'll except being a Minister, as I also work in outreach with Our Higher Calling. I used to be a Sabbath School Teacher but I recently moved over to a spanish church so it might be some time until I get to be a teacher in the church again. However, I do not believe that the title of Pastor or Elder is what qualifies you to be a teacher of the word.

-Why don't you allow comments on this website?

Well, I do on the "The Cotton Blog" section of the site, but this section of the site is not up yet. The reason why I dont allow comments is because I've been attacked several times by people who are in disagreement with me. I can't trust that these same people, or others of like mind, won't post negative comments on my posts. So I decided it's best to direct people to email me their comments instead. That way I can avoid having my viewers see those negative comments on my site.

-What's the purpose of this website?

There are a couple of reasons why I began this website.

First: To teach. This is my favorite thing to do, and I find it a great blessing when I do it in written form as well as orally as I am thereby forced to do intense study and research.

Second: To defend. We are commanded to defend the truth (Jude 3). Since I began working for the Lord I've gotten in contact with many people relunctant to hearing what I have to say because they heard and read so much negativity against the Adventist church. This has motivated me to have a place where people can go to see a ready defense of the truth.

Third: To equip. There are many sincere Seventh-day Adventists who have been led astray by the deceptions of the enemy. I know because I was one of them. God has placed teachers in his Church as one of the gifts to help equip our people of bible truth that they may be ready always to give an answer.

Fourth: To advance the cause of the Three Angel's Messages of Revelation 14. The bible calls this the "everlasting gospel." It must be our sole mission to spread it throughout the world.

-Are you trying to convert the critics?

No, they have their minds made up, although I pray that some of the contents of this site shows them the errors they are promoting.

-Who is the website aimed towards?

To Seventh-day Adventists, and non-Adventists who are open minded and honestly searching for truth.

-Do you discuss Adventist issues on Adventist Forums?

I used to. But I realized I was not going anywhere with that. Most of the times it would turn into a debate that would include five or six other critics responding to me, and the pressure to respond to all of them or else they'd accuse you of not being able to answer was something I just did not want to deal with. So instead, I built this website.

-Do you contact the critics?

Sometimes we do. We contacted Steve Rudd to let him know that his 80 Sabbath Questions were answered. There response wasn't so nice.

We also contacted McGregor Ministries, another anti-sda website. A few months ago we send Dirk Anderson an email to let him know that we have a few articles about him and the contents of his website over here. He never responded.

-Do you engage in debates?

I try my best not to. The articles here are responses to allegations, not challenges to debate. The bible says:

Proverbs 25:8-12
(8) Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy neighbour hath put thee to shame.
(9) Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself; and discover not a secret to another:
(10) Lest he that heareth it put thee to shame, and thine infamy turn not away.
(11) A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.
(12) As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear.

I try to follow these rules. As an example, there is one article where I had a debate with a friend who is a former Adventist. This debate, however, was only one reply to his response to me. It was more of a discussion. It was made public because I though the points made would benefit my readers, and because he gave me permission. And it has, as I've gotten positive emails on this article. Also, I did not "go hastly to strive" as I was challenged by him first. Since I percieved him to be honestly seeking for truth, I engaged in this discussion.

-Wasn't Ellen White against debating?

She was, but in the sense of arguing. The word for "debate" in the bible (Romans 1:29 for example) means just that... "arguing, quarral, contention." This she opposed, but she never said we shouldn't engage in public or privet Christian discussions. In fact, she encouraged it, and gave good counsel on this. While speaking about "young" preachers, those inexperienced, she adviced that only in "some cases" should a proud boasters be meet in open debate:

"In some cases, it may be necessary to meet a proud boaster against the truth of God in open debate; but generally these discussions, either oral or written, result in more harm than good." -Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 213. (1872)

Young people tend to be more inclined to engage in combat, and could raise a spirit of competition rather then one seeking to convert a soul. Remember when they tried to stone the women? After Jesus told the audience that if they are without sin to cast the first stone, the first ones to drop the stones were the oldest ones. The younger ones were the last ones to leave the scene (John 8:9).

Here's some more, good counsel:

"There are occasions where their glaring misrepresentations will have to be met. When this is the case, it should be done promptly and briefly, and we should then pass on to our work. The plan of Christ's teaching should be ours. He was plain and simple, striking directly at the root of the matter, and the minds of all were met." -Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 37.

"Whenever it is necessary for the advancement of the cause of truth and the glory of God, that an opponent be met, how carefully, and with what humility should they [the advocates of truth] go into the conflict. With heartsearching, confession of sin, and earnest prayer, and often fasting for a time, they should entreat that God would especially help them, and give His saving, precious truth a glorious victory, that error might appear in its true deformity, and its advocates be completely discomfited." -Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 624, 626.

"It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith, we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny." -Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 708.

All kinds of debating that was merely for the purpose of arguing, of winning, and of the like, she strickly oppossed. But encouraged, when in defending the truth, that it should be done with "sound arguments" that will "silence our opponants" and "bear the closest and most searching scrutiny."

It should be remembered that Ellen White supported Uriah Smith's book "The Visions of Mrs. Ellen G. White" whose sole purpose was in defending both her writings and Adventist teachings.

-What motivates you to continue this work?

Comments from visiters these:

I am so glad that I found this site. this is what I looking for.I need this info. to learn and to be prepare for the last days.The good Lord may bless all.

Hi Edwin, fantastic work in defending the truth. God bless you. Also, thank you very much for claryfying my doubts! I'll continue to learn from you...

This site is really awsome!! i believe if more adventist visited this site... there would be more belief's and less doubts!.... Good Job Keep up the good work... keep preaching the truth... God bless bretheren.

Everytime I think I might not be doing something the Lord has called me to do, I get emails like these.

Pay a visit to BrokenAdventist.com. This gentlemen was encouraged after reading some of the contends of this and other websites to begin a work for the Lord. Here's a short extract from his website:

"Which leads me to this ministry. I found a lot of places that were working hard to spread God's Message to the people who haven't heard it yet. But I couldn't find a place where people like me a (broken Adventist) could go to get help/answers. I found Lots of websites talking about how bad the General Conference/SDA church Organization is and how we need to get out of her before God sends his judgement on her. And I found lots of websites bashing Ellen G. White's writings calling her a fake and a liar, but nowhere did I find a site that was trying to help God's lost sheep that was once in his flock but had been mislead from the sheep and now are alone in the darkness. I know what the darkness feels like and I hated every minute of it. I believe God has made this ministry's mission to help give people the other side of the story so that his sheep can see all angles to better make their decision. I hope this ministry will help stop Satan from ripping God's remnant church apart..." -Source.

Of course, we had nothing to do with this. Its is ALL God. He deserves all praise and glory. We only do here what we've been called to do.

2009-10-08T18:44:00.002-04:00

Before reading our article...

See this video footage of the
after-effects of the 1906 San Franscisco earthquake:

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________

Did Ellen White predict this? Find out:

An analysis of Dirk Andersons:
The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906

2009-10-08T12:17:00.004-04:00

BEFORE YOU READ THE RESPONSE:
watch the intro

________________________________________

proceed to:
A Response to T.D. Jakes' R.S.V.P.

________________________________________

2009-10-07T22:04:00.002-04:00

Edwin's BLOG...

... coming soon!

2009-10-06T20:14:00.002-04:00

Join our monthly News Alerts!

____________________________________

Email us and we will add you as soon as possible. As a member, be the first to:

-Know when an article has been added to the site!

We try to add a new article at least once a month.

-Know when an article has been updated on the site!

We are constantly updated our articles with new contents and new images.

-See any new videos we've created!

We have created a few videos dealing with prophecy, doctrine and criticism. But we will be creating many more. Be the first to watch any video we release.

-Learn if one of us is having a debate with a critic!

Sometimes our critics email us and and try to debunk what we say on this site. If the critic gives us permission, we'll probably forward some of our email exchanges to our subscribers.

-Receive our newsletters!

Every once and a while we send out a Newsletter about current prophetic events, current activities of our critics, sermons, teachings, and more.

-Learn of our activities!

We are also an evangelistic ministry (visit our ministry website: Our Higher Calling Ministry). When we travel, hold events, visits churches, et cetera, we'll let you know in case your in the area and would like to be involved.

If you'd like to subscribe, just send us an email with the words "subscribe" in the title field and we will add you right away!

Our email address is:
edwin(at)adventistdefenseleague.com
(replace the at with the @)

____________________________________

FORMALLY RELEASED NEWSLETTERS:

-[Sept., 2007] Why not believe?
-[Dec., 2007] Your sickness called "sin"
-[May, 2008] Operation Sunshine? Save Gas by taking day off!
-[Aug., 2008] The National Sunday Law: A real crisis!

Note: More formally released newsletters will be posted here soon.

2009-10-05T11:44:00.007-04:00

1 Samuel 28: The Witch of Endor

The story of the Saul and the witch of Endor, found in Samuel chapter 28, is one of the main stories of the bible in which our Catholic friends lean on to prove that people live on in a conscience state after death and before the resurrection. A couple of points are brought forth in defense of thier belief that Saul really spoke to the real Samuel, and not just some evil spirit as Adventists and other christians believe it to be. In this article we will explore what really took place in 1 Samuel 28, and will at the same time address those arguments brought forth against our position. We'll begin by...

Examining the context first.

After briefly talking about the fact that Achish desired to take David with him to battle in verses 1 and 2 (with the intent to further explain this later in chapter 29), the author of this book begins his explination of the story of the witch of Endor by first reassuring the reader that Samuel was by this time dead and that the battle between the Philistines is about to begin (verses 3-5). In verse 6, we read that God decided to never speak to Saul again because of this rebellion; not through dreams, through the Urim (a stone which God used to help the priests make decisions -see Exodus 28:30, Numbers 27:21) and not even "by the prophets." Then the story continues:

1 Samuel 28:7-15
(7) Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor.
(8) And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee.
(9) And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?
(10) And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.
(11) Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel.
(12) And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.
(13) And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.
(14) And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.
(15) And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.

It's importnt to note the immediate context. In verse 6 we read that God had promised never to speak to Saul through prophets again. The author felt it important to repeat this point before telling the actual story, that it may be in the mind of the reader as he finds out that it would be what seemed like Samuel the Prophet who appeared during the seance. Already, without getting any deeper then this, we have the author himself telling us beforehand not to forget this point. For the manisfestation therefore to actually be the true Samuel the Prophet, would be for God to go back on his word. In fact, God himself promised, through the prophet, that he would not go back on his word:

1 Samuel 15:26-29
(26) And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel.
(27) And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent.
(28) And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.
(29) And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Of course, the Strength of Israel is God himself (Psalm 18:2, 46:1, 68:35). From this point on we the readers must remember this crucial point to better understand what took place when Saul visited the witch of Endor.

As we continue reading, notice what takes place, perticularly verse 19:

1 Samuel 28:16-20
(16) Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the LORD is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?
(17) And the LORD hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the LORD hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David:
(18) Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the LORD, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the LORD done this thing unto thee this day.
(19) Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me: the LORD also shall deliver the host of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.
(20) Then Saul fell straightway all along on the earth, and was sore afraid, because of the words of Samuel: and there was no strength in him; for he had eaten no bread all the day, nor all the night.

Notice what the manifestation told Saul. In verse 19 he said that Saul and his sons would the very next day "be with me." Where did Samuel in this story actually come from? We read it earlier. Here it is:

1Samuel 28:13
(13) And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

We've been told that this was simply a vision, and that therefore the "ascending out of the earth" should not be taken literally. Okay. But then they take literally that it was really Samuel the Prophet!

We agree that this was a vision of some sort, but we only have the actual description of the story as given by the author to go by. Therefore when we read in verse 13 that Samuel came "up" (see also verse 11) from the earth, we learn that that's where Saul and his sons would go the next day; to the grave. Now our Catholic friends argue that this means just the grave, but that Saul's spirit would go to heaven which is where Samuel presumably is. But this awful interpretation does not take into account the broader context of the life of Saul, especially the events surrounding his death. Notice:

1 Samuel 31:3-4
(3) And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit him; and he was sore wounded of the archers.
(4) Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.

Saul committed suicide! Therefore, unless our opponants are ready to claim that people who commit suicide go straight to heaven (where they believe is where Samuel resides), then this argument fails miserably. Furthermore, we read in 1 Chronicles:

1 Chronicles 10:13
(13) So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it.

Note that he died "for his transgression." We dont read anywhere where saul repented of his sin of asking counsel of a familiar spirit just before he died. In fact even if he did it would not matter, because he still died committing suicide; he died in his sins!

Another strong argument is that all forms of spiritualism were strictly condemned during this time (and still is today, of course, see Deuteronomy 18:10-11, Leviticus 20:27). Since this is the case, would God then turn around and allow a witch to successfully force one of his prophets to appear during that which he had previously condemned? The point was that they couldn't really communicate with the dead, for "the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything" (Ecclesiastes 9:5), therefore those spiritists were lying deceivers. This belief would also contradict this truth, which was no doubt true in the time of Saul as it was in the time of Solomon, the author of Ecclesiastes.

Already, the story of the witch of Endor makes absolutely no sense if we take it to mean that it was literally Samuel who appeared to Saul. Not only would this interpretation contradict what the Lord had promised beforehand, and contradict that fact that the dead know nothing, but it would also go against the very message of the bible, that if we die in our sins without true repentance, we will die eternally.

Now that we've seen the context, and have compared all the accounts of the story as it is also found in 1 Chronicles 10, we will continue by...

Addressing some of the
counterarguments.

First, our opponants insist that this must be the true Samuel because when describing him, the witch said she saw an "old man... with a mantle." -verse 14. The argument is that there is a connection here with the real Samuel because Samuel was an old man, and because the Hebrew word translated mantle, which is the word miyle, is precisely what Samuel always wore:

1 Samuel 2:19
(19) Moreover his mother made him a little coat (Hb. miyle), and brought it to him from year to year, when she came up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice.

But if we read the previous verse, we'd learn that at this point Samuel was but a child (verse 18). Can we really say that Samuel wore the same miyle all his life, even though he died at an old age (see 1 Samuel 8:5)? It seems more reasonable to believe that this word miyle was simply a kind of dress which was most common amoung the people of that time. Yes, he continued to wear a miyle when he was a bit older (1 Samuel 15:27), but then again, a miyle was something most people used during that time anyway, as even Jonathon and Saul had one:

1 Samuel 18:4
(4) And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe (Hb. miyle) that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

1 Samuel 24:4
(4) And the men of David said unto him, Behold the day of which the LORD said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand, that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee. Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul's robe (Hb. miyle) privily.

This argument simply does not work. If the spirit which appeared to Saul was really Samuel, the author would have certiantly taken greater pains in helping the reader know for sure that it was him, instead of just mentioning the two things that was most common in those days.

When this argument fails, our opponants point to the author of 1 Samuel himself. They ask us that if this was simply a spirit, why would the author describe it as if it is Samuel speaking, i. e., "and Samuel said," "then said Samuel" etc?

Well first of all, as we already showed above, it's the author himself who, after explaining the story, tells us that Samuel was indeed dead and buried (verse 3), as if to say that the story you are about to read thereafter is of an evil spirit pretending to be him. Note also that the text reads "and all Israel had lamented him, and buried him in Ramah" implying that Saul himself, who was of course a part of Israel, was a witness to his burial. Therefore it should not be a surprise for us to read the author describing the spirit speaking as "Samuel said..." et cetera. Perhaps with this he is tryingto further prove that it was an evil spirit, since he most assuredly would have been aware that evil spirits can pretend to be people their not. Even Paul tells us that Satan himself can transform into an "angel of light (1 Corinthians 11:14) and that his ministers can transform themselves into "ministers of righteousness" (ibid, verse 15). The reader would not get the point of how deceptive this spirit was really trying to be if he would have simply said, "the spirit said..." etc.

On the other hand, even if the author would have used phrases like "the spirit said..." it still wouldn't have quieted our critics, because they believe that deceased people become spirits anyway. So what's the point in argueing from this angle? The fact of the matter is that however the author decided to describe the spirit speaking, he is expecting you to already know by now that Samuel is dead and that Saul would never again communicate with God through a prophet.

Finally, we're told that the being that appeared during this seance must have been truly Samuel because his prediction of the death of Saul in verse 19 came true. But this only enforces the fact of how truly deceptive an evil spirit can be. Remember, the spirit of God had left Saul, being replaced by an evil spirit (1 Samuel 16:14). It was only when David played his instruments in the presence of the king that the evil spirit would leave. But as soon as he would stop playing, it would return. Since the story of the life of Saul ends with David never again playing spiritual music in the presence of Saul (with Saul even trying to kill David afterwards numerous time), we see that the evil spirit has never really departed from him. Never repenting from his sins, but rather giving his back to God (1 Samuel 15:11) and resorting to trying to kill David the prophet of the Lord, evil spirits who watch our every move (1 Peter 5:8) knew beforehand that the Lord had completely abandoned him. All who do not have the Lord will surely die, and the spirits knew this. Therefore, the spirit that appeared to Saul at Endor was not really making a prediction. he was simply telling Saul what the spirit already knew to be true, that in going to battle, the Lord would not be with him, and that he would surely die.

With the facts laid in plain view, and the counterarguments refuted, we can now reach...

The conclusion.

Plain and simple, the spirit that appeared to Saul through the seance of the witch could not possibly be the true Samuel. Of course our Catholic friends would want this to be Samuel, because it would help justify their belief that people go straight to heaven or hell at death rather then resting in their graves until the ressurection. But unfortunately for them, it wasn't him. The reasons for this were already set forth in this article, but can be briefly summoned up as follows:

First: The author assures the reader, before they read the actual story, that Samuel is really and truly, "dead." The dead, according to the wise teacher, "know not anything."

Second: The author then tells us, before giving us the actual story, that God would never again speak to Saul through a prophet. These two things were meant to be in the mind of the reader before getting to the story, that when he gets there he would know that this was actually an evil spirit pretending to be Samuel.

Third: God had beforehand condemned necromancy (communication with the dead). For God to allow one of his prophets to be forced to appear during her satanic ritual would be to question why God condemned the practice in the first place, since what witches were doing was untrue.

Fourth: Most importantly, the spirit that appeared came from below and not from above (as would be true of a saved individual who would be living in heaven). After describing that the spirit ascended from the bottom, the spirit then tells Saul that he and his sons would the next day be with him. If he were a saved Prophet, we would assume that he lives in heaven. But Saul committed suicide. Could one who commits suicide, therefore, really go to heaven?

For our opponants to try and prove the immortality of the soul, therefore, they must go elsewhere in the scriptures (or outside the cannon of scriptures, which is unacceptable), and not to the story of Saul and the Witch of Endor.

Your Thought Questions Answered

Question 1: The author tells us that the witch referred to the being that appeared to her as "I saw gods (elohim)" but then the author refers to the being thereafter as Samuel. Is this not proof that this was really Samuel, since he never again refers to her as elohim?

Answer: First, the reason why the author describes it as an elohim in verse 13 is because that is how the witch described him when she was asked by Saul what she had seen. It was only until Saul designated it as Samuel that we read him referred to as Samuel from then on. It wouldn't make sense for her to continue referring to him as elohim when Saul very clearly asked to see one called Samuel.

Second, it should be remembered that the author is trying to let the reader know that this was an evil spirit pretending to be Samuel after informing us that God would not speak to him through prophets. One of the best ways to do this is to refer to him by this name. It could be said otherwise if he had referred it as just "the spirit said." This was covered in detail above.

Question 2: The spirit that appeared simply repeated the words of Samuel as recorded earlier in the book (1 Samuel 15:26-29). Doesn't this prove that this was Samuel himself?

Answer: Not really, because it could very well be a spirit pretending to be Samuel. How much more convincing could this spirit be, if he simply repeats what the real Samuel had said beforehand? Very convincing. This offers no proof that this was the real Samuel, for spirits are masters of deception and can very easily repeat the words of others to convince people that they are who they are pretending to be. Some scholars suggest that spirits can even mimic the voice of deceased loved ones, making it more convincing.

Question 3: The Witch offered hospitality towards Saul and his servants (1 Samuel 28:22-25). This is consistant with how Prophets are to be with people. They are to be gentle and hospitable towards all people, even their enemies. Doesn't this prove that the spirit was Samuel?

Answer: Well the one who was hospitable towards Saul in this story was the witch, and not the spirit that appeared during the seance. Perhaps if the spirit would have lingured around some more, and joined Saul and his servants for coffee and a meal, then perhaps you'd have a case with this one.

Question 4: One Catholic told me that when the spirit made the prediction of verse 19, he meant only the grave. He cited the LXX (Septuagint: an ancient Greek translation of the Old testament) telling me that here it reads: "and tomarrow you and your sons with you will fall." Is there any truth to this?

Answer: No, this is completely untrue. Here's the actual reading of verse 19 in the LXX:

1 Samuel 28:19 (Septuagint)
(19) And the Lord will deliver up Israel with you into the hands of the Philistines, and tomarrow you and your sons will be with me. And the camp of Israel the Lord will put into the hands of the Philistines.

Its almost identical to the literal Hebrew text! (see your King James Version and concordance). Notice it clearly reads the same way... "tomarrow you and your sons will be with me."

Too see this for yourself, visit this website: The Apostolic Bible Polyglot. There you will be able to download the complete Septuagint for free.

For further study, see:

-Ezekiel 28: The king of Tyrus? Or Satan?
-The Achilles Heel of the Eternal Torment Doctrine
-Luke 16: The Rich man and Lazarus

2009-10-04T15:32:00.015-04:00

Identifying the Antichrist
The Movie

created by the
Adventist Defense League

_____________________________________

Notice: The following is a visual, musical presentation of biblical prophetic events as described in the books of Daniel, Revelation and in the gospels of the New Testament. The movie is not intended to be a detailed description of those prophecies, but a brief overview of the identification marks found therein and the fulfillment of these marks. For a more detailed study, we recommend the article found below.

Identifying the ANTICHRIST part 1:

_____________________________________

For a detailed study on this subject, see:

-Identifying the Antichrist: Introduction
-Identifying the Antichrist Part 1
-Identifying the Antichrist Part 2
-Identifying the Antichrist Part 3

2009-09-26T20:38:00.031-04:00

An analysis of Dirk Andersons:
The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906

Adventists have long claimed that Ellen White predicted the earthquake that struck San Francisco in April 18, 1906. Our opponent Dirk Anderson wrote a paper in which he tries to refute this idea, telling us that she herself admitted to having never predicted the earthquake. In his paper, he quotes the following:

“Since the San Francisco earthquake, many rumors have been current regarding statements I have made. Some have reported that while in Los Angeles, I claimed that I had predicted the San Francisco earthquake and fire, and that Los Angeles would be the next city to suffer. This is not true. The morning after the earthquake, I said no more than that ‘the earthquakes will come; the floods will come;’ and that the Lord's message to us is that we shall "not establish ourselves in the wicked cities." –The Review and Herald, The Judgments of God in our cities, July 5, 1906.

Mr. Anderson quoted this from Life Sketches, page 411, but there it only appears as a quote. Originally she wrote this in the Review and Herald. We quoted it from there instead to get some context.

We won’t argue with Dirk Anderson on this point. She did admit to not having predicted the actual earthquake of San Francisco. But there are a couple of points we want to address which he made in his article.

First, she did, a few years prior, make a prediction that some catastrophic events would transpire in the city of San Francisco:

Sept. 1, 1902: Well-equipped tent meetings should be held in the large cities, such as San Francisco; for not long hence these cities will suffer under the judgments of God. San Francisco and Oakland are becoming as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Lord will visit them in wrath. {6BIO 87.3}

Again in 1903, about 8 months later, she wrote:

April 20, 1903: The message of warning should be sounded in the large, wicked cities, such as San Francisco. San Francisco and Oakland are becoming as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Lord will visit them. Not far hence they will suffer under His judgments.

It should be noted that in the quote our opponent provides above, she is not saying to have never predicted any kind of catastrophic event, but rather that she did not predict that perticular earthquake of San Francisco. She did, however, predict that something was going to happen in San Francisco, and lo and behold, something did happen:

“At the center of the city the earthquake took a heavy toll. Municipal and office buildings, as well as stores and hotels, were destroyed. Few buildings stood. Hundreds lost their lives in the collapse of several hotels. Frame buildings constituted most of the residential part of the city, and while the earthquake toppled chimneys and moved houses on their foundations from a few inches to a few feet, the buildings stood.

"Uncontrolled fires created greater overall damage than the earthquake. Block after block succumbed to the flames in the three days following the quake. Since no cooking fires were allowed in buildings not inspected for safety, most cooking in areas where homes stood was done with improvised stoves on the sidewalks or in the parks. Water was treasured as gold. The military pitched tents in the parks to help care for the homeless. Bread lines measured a mile long. In many cases families were separated; carriages carried signs and people wore placards stating, "I am looking for so and so."

"It was only two weeks later that Ellen White viewed the fifteen square miles of rubble and devastation and listened to tales of the bizarre happenings. How similar it was to the scenes of the night at Loma Linda!” –Ellen G. White Biographical Books,” The year of the earthquake” chapter 6, page 85-86.

Two days before the actual earthquake took place, Ellen White reported to have had a vision. Here’s what she said she saw:

“While at Loma Linda, California, April 16, 1906, there passed before me a most wonderful representation. During a vision of the night, I stood on an eminence, from which I could see houses shaken like a reed in the wind. Buildings, great and small, were falling to the ground. Pleasure resorts, theaters, hotels, and the homes of the wealthy were shaken and shattered. Many lives were blotted out of existence, and the air was filled with the shrieks of the injured and the terrified.

"The destroying angels of God were at work. One touch, and buildings, so thoroughly constructed that men regarded them as secure against every danger, quickly became heaps of rubbish. There was no assurance of safety in any place. I did not feel in any special peril, but the awfulness of the scenes that passed before me I cannot find words to describe. It seemed that the forbearance of God was exhausted and that the Judgment day had come.” -Testimonies for the Church volume 9, page 93.

Then after explaining what she saw in vision, she wrote:

“On April 18, two days after the scene of falling buildings had passed before me, I went to fill an appointment in the Carr Street Church, Los Angeles. As we neared the church we heard the newsboys crying: "San Francisco destroyed by an earthquake!" With a heavy heart I read the first hastily printed news of the terrible disaster.

"Two weeks later, on our homeward journey, we passed through San Francisco and, hiring a carriage, spent an hour and a half in viewing the destruction wrought in that great city. Buildings that were thought to be proof against disaster were lying in ruins. In some instances buildings were partially sunken in the ground. The city presented a most dreadful picture of the inefficiency of human ingenuity to frame fireproof and earthquake-proof structures.” –Testimonies for the Church volume 9, page 94.

There are two points we must bear in mind. First, in this vision she did not mention the city in which this disaster took place. The news of the earthquake in San Francisco was as much a surprise to her as it was to anyone else. So when she says she did not predict this earthquake of San Francisco, she was right. She never mentioned San Francisco! She simply reported that she saw building shaking, and people dieing. That’s it. When the earthquake took place two days later, she saw it as a fulfillment, or at least a partial fulfillment, of the vision she had received.

In the quotes of 1902 and 1903 which we quoted above, we note that she did not mention the word “earthquake.” She simply said that God’s judgments would be visited upon those cities. Hence we have the following conclusions:

1: She predicted that God’s judgments would be visited upon San Francisco and Oakland.
2: She never said it would be an earthquake.

3: Two days before the earthquake she has a vision of buildings falling, but never mentioned it would be the buildings of San Francisco.

In other words, perhaps she did not predict that perticular earthquake, but did predict that God’s judgments would come upon this city. And indeed it has, in the actual earthquake itself.

Then Dirk Anderson tries to make her look bad. He says that even if she was right in this prediction, she didn't try to warn the inhabitants of San Francisco of this coming earthquake:

“Unlike Biblical prophets, Mrs. White never made any attempt to go and warn the doomed city.”

(click image to enlarge)

Really? First of all, embedded in the very quote where she predicts that God’s judgments would come upon San Francisco, she says that the city should be warned of these coming judgments:

April 20, 1903: The message of warning should be sounded in the large, wicked cities, such as San Francisco. San Francisco and Oakland are becoming as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Lord will visit them. Not far hence they will suffer under His judgments.

Then he contends that this was not published:

“In fact, her manuscript was not even published until after the earthquake.”

But then again, she was not in charge of the publishing of all of her materials. Her job was to write, and she clearly “wrote” in 1903 that “the message of warning should be sounded in… San Francisco.” Just because this perticular quote was not at that moment published does not mean it did not make it into the hands of other people.

Nevertheless, only a few months prior to the above quote (and about the same time as the September 1, 1902 quote) Ellen White did warn to leave the large cities years before the earthquake, and yes, this was published. In Testimonies volume 7, in a section she entitled “Out of the cities,” she wrote:

"‘Out of the cities’ is my message. Our physicians ought to have been wide awake on this point long ago. I hope and pray and believe that they will now arouse to the importance of getting out into the country.

"The time is near when the large cities will be visited by the judgments of God. In a little while these cities will be terribly shaken. No matter how large or how strong their buildings, no matter how many safeguards against fire may have been provided, let God touch these buildings, and in a few minutes or a few hours they are in ruins.

"The ungodly cities of our world are to be swept away by the besom of destruction. In the calamities that are now befalling immense buildings and large portions of cities God is showing us what will come upon the whole earth. He has told us: "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: so likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it [the coming of the Son of man] is near, even at the doors." Matthew 24:32, 33.’” –Testimonies for the Church, volume 7, page 83.

These words were published in 1902, nearly four years before the earthquake. In the preface of this volume, we read:

“Volume 7 was published late in 1902, only about two years after the issuance of volume 6.” –ibid, page 4.

How then could Mr. Anderson say she did not warn the large cities about those coming destructions? In fact in this same volume only a few pages later, Ellen White even mentions San Francisco and Oakland as cities which should most receive the warning messages:

“There is work to be done in California, a work that has been strangely neglected. Let this work be delayed no longer. As doors open for the presentation of truth, let us be ready to enter. Some work has been done in the large city of San Francisco, but as we study the field we see plainly that only a beginning has been made. As soon as possible, well-organized efforts should be put forth in different sections of this city and also in Oakland. The wickedness of San Francisco is not realized. Our work in this city must broaden and deepen. God sees in it many souls to be saved.” –ibid, page 110.

Then Mr. Anderson argues that she did not “go and warn the doomed city.” Yet in 1903 Ellen White was 76 year old! She was also somewhat physically sick. There wasn’t much she could do at that age except write out her warnings and depend on other, more able people to help her spread the word. She said:

“If I were 25 years younger, I would certainly take up labor in the cities. But I must reach them with the pen.--Letter 164, 1906.

I think Mr. Anderson is being a bit hard on the lady.

As we continue to examine his document, Mr. Anderson, while acknowledging that she said she saw a vision of what seems like an earthquake in Loma Linda two days before, contends that:

“Two days later, on April 18, 1906, a devastating earthquake struck San Francisco. On the surface, this appears to have been a wonderful opportunity for Mrs. White to show off her prophetic foreknowledge. Unfortunately for Mrs. White, she did not write out her "vision" until weeks after the earthquake.” [emphasis is his]

First, the vision at Loma Linda did not mention San Francisco, and it took place on the night of the second day previous to the earthquake. Second, the reason why she did not write out the vision she had at Loma Linda until some time after the earthquake was explained by her in an article she wrote about leaving the cities. The day after her Loma Linda vision, she pondered on her vision while spending the day traveling:

“It was while we were still at Loma Linda, the second night after the dedication of the sanitarium, that there passed before me an awful scene of buildings shaken down and destroyed, with great loss of life. I have already described this scene, in the article, ‘The San Francisco Earthquake.’ Throughout the following day, I pondered the scenes that had passed before me, and the instruction that had been given. During the afternoon we journeyed to Glendale, near Los Angeles; and the following night I was again instructed regarding the holiness and binding claims of the ten commandments, and the supremacy of God above all earthly rulers.” –The Review and Herald, The Judgments of God on Our Cities, July 5, 1906.

Then the very next day was when the earthquake struck. So, she received the vision at night, went to bed, and spent the following day traveling to Glendale. We could say she had at least 12 hours or so before she went to bed again. Now consider that they did not have the types of fast moving vehicles we now have today. How much time do you really think she had to both write and publish her Loma Linda vision? Remember, her vision did not mention San Francisco, so she did not have a sense of urgency during this time; she was not "time-restrained." She admitted in this same article that:

“It has taken me many days to write out a portion of that which was revealed those two nights at Loma Linda and Glendale. I have not finished yet, as many other matters of urgent importance have come up for consideration.” –ibid.

Ellen White is not trying to “show off her prophetic knowledge,” but there’s no point in emphasizing her vision after the event took place, even though she did remind the people of her warnings to leave the cities.

Hence we have the following flow of events:

-First, in September 1st of 1902 she warns that the cities of San Francisco and Oakland will be visited with judgments from God.

-Second, a few months later in late 1902, she again warns that the large cities will be “shaken terribly.” This was published the same year. She mentions San Francisco and Oakland as cities which need to receive these warnings in the same context.

-Third, she again warns in April 20 of 1903 (8 months after the September 1, 1902 quote) that judgments will visit these two cities.

-Fourth, two days before the actual earthquake, April 16 1906, she receives a vision of “falling buildings” in large cities.

-Fifth, April 18 1906, the earthquake struck.

So where did our critic get the idea that Ellen White made no attempt to warn the cities about these coming calamities?

Finally Mr. Anderson says that Oakland was not “seriously damaged.” True, but nevertheless, it suffered considerable damaged:

(click image to enlarge)

“When the 1906 earthquake struck, Oakland suffered considerable damage, but it avoided the devastating fires that crippled San Francisco. Oakland’s residents responded quickly to the disaster and welcomed almost 200,000 San Franciscans who sought refuge.” –museumca.org

A few years later, another earthquake hit San Francisco… and Oakland:

“It (the earthquake) struck just after 5:00 pm local time and lasted approximately 15 seconds, with a magnitude of 7.1. The most severe damage was suffered by San Francisco and Oakland, but communities throughout the region, including Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Monterey, also were affected…. The earthquake significantly damaged the transportation system of the Bay Area. The collapse of the Cypress Street Viaduct (Nimitz Freeway) caused most of the earthquake-related deaths. The San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge was also damaged when a span of the top deck collapsed.” -Encyclopedia Britannica “San Francisco–Oakland earthquake of 1989”

It should be remembered that Ellen White did not give dates as to when those calamities would come upon those cities, nor that it would only happen once. She simply said that it would happen “not far hence.” So this earthquake could also be a part of the warnings she has spoken about before.

Unfortunately for Mr. Anderson, she did in fact try to warn those cities before the earthquake took place. The facts layed out in the quotes provided in this document clearly show that she both received visions of judgments to visit the large cities and tried to warn those cities ahead of time. All this before the earthquakes (plural, of course) actually took place.

___________________________________________

Cast your vote about this article! Choose from six options in our Poll "What do you think about Dirk Anderson's article about the 1906 San Francisco earthquake?" at the bottom right of this website and let us know what you think!

For further study, see:

-Ellen White: Cities and Earthquakes (off site)
-Other notable Bay area earthquakes (off site)
-See a REAL footage of the after-effects from 1906
-Ellen White alive when Jesus returns?
-Ellen White and Orion Nebula

2009-09-26T14:42:00.013-04:00

Mark 2:27: Was the Sabbath

made for Adam and Eve?

Our opponents often challenge us by saying that there is no command anywhere in the book of Genesis where the Sabbath was given to Adam and Eve. “The one who rested on the seventh day,” they say, “was God, and not man.” Then, when we bring up what Jesus said in Mark 2:27, that the Sabbath was made for man, we’re accused of not reading in context, and that the word “man” here does not mean “all of mankind.” So let’s begin by tackling each one of these, beginning with…

The context of Mark 2:27.

We quote:

Mark 2:23-28

(23) And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

(24) And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

(25) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

(26) How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

(27) And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

(28) Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

It’s clear that the Sabbath here is not the sabbath feasts, but the seventh day Sabbath of the fourth commandment. In the immediate context, the disciples begin picking corn on the Sabbath day, and the Pharisees are the first to accuse them of breaking it. How does Jesus defend their act? He reminds them of David and how he went into the temple and ate that which only the priests could eat. But why was David justified in this? Notice carefully:

Mark 2:25

(25) And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

It was because he was in “need.” Jesus is teaching that to do things on the Sabbath which are needed is permitted. Although preparation day had passed, the disciples were following Jesus as he walked and preached through the streets for days. This preaching was a work that needed to get done, and they needed energy to continue doing it. It was a “need” for them to eat. All such work was permitted on the Sabbath. The fourth commandment did not prohibit works of necessity; it rather prohibited secular work:

Exodus 20:8-10

(8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

(9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

The Hebrew word translated “work” in verse 10 literally means “employment, labor.” The act of picking corn to eat for to continue in the work of the Lord was hardly secular.

Although the Jews made the Sabbath to be such a burden, it was always meant to be the very opposite:

Isaiah 58:13-14

(13) If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

(14) Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

The Sabbath was to be a “delight” (literally a luxury) unto the people of God.

In Matthew’s gospel, Matthew recounts this story as well, but he adds an extra detail; something Jesus said which helps us understand his point a bit more:

Matthew 12:12

(12) How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

Notice the definition of the word “well” that Strong’s Greek Definitions gives us:

kalōs

Adverb from G2570; well (usually morally): - (in a) good (place), honestly, + recover, (full) well.

In other words, Jesus was saying that it was lawful (right, or permitted) to do that which is morally well (or good) upon the Sabbath day. Was saving the life of a man morally good? Yes. Was feeding yourself when in need morally good? Absolutely. Remember, our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost, and whoever defiles this body… “him shall God destroy” -1 Corinthians 3:17. They did not need to mistreat their bodies in this way when the corn was readily available for them to eat (it did not even need cooking).

To further drive this point, Jesus then makes the following remark:

Mark 2:27

(27) And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.

Indeed the Sabbath was made “for” (or in favor of) man, for it was made for his benefit, not the other way around. If it was that man was made for the Sabbath, then those Pharisees would have had a point. But the Sabbath is to be a delight, not a burden. We were not made to serve it; it was made to serve us. Since it was made “for” us, it is obviously lawful to do good things on the Sabbath, and things which are needed.

Now that we have examined the context, and learned that the Sabbath was made for us, we will now exegete closely verse 27 to find out…

What is meant by “man?”

Let’s break verse 27 apart. Note first that when it says “sabbath” it is speaking of the Sabbath of creation week. This is important because it directs his audience’s attention back to creation week. But because many argue that the first mention of the Sabbath is not in Genesis 1, but rather in the book of Exodus, we include in our examination the next two words… “was made.” These words are translated from one Greek word which literally means “to come, or cause into being.” When was the Sabbath made? Well, in Exodus it was not made, for look at this verse:

Exodus 16:29

(29) See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

Some would point to Mount Sinai as to when it was “made,” but this is impossible when before Mount Sinai we read that it was rather “given.” How can it be “made” after it was given?

In both Exodus 16 and Exodus 20 the Sabbath was not “made” but was instead “given.” When, then, was it made?

Genesis 2:1-3

(1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

(2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

(3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Remember that the Lord also created the “days” along with everything else. The seventh “day” was made in creation week, and it was here at this time when it was set aside as “blessed and sanctified.” In fact, the word “sanctified” in the Hebrew literally means:

qadash

A primitive root; to be (causatively make, pronounce or observe as) clean (ceremonially or morally): - appoint, bid, consecrate, dedicate, defile, hallow, (be, keep) holy (-er, place), keep, prepare, proclaim, purify, sanctify (-ied one, self), X wholly.

Here we learn that the seventh day was “made” (or make) or pronounced, or observed as clean. The word “clean” holds a figurative meaning of holiness throughout the scriptures. It was in creation week when the seventh day was set aside as holy. Upon this day, God “rested” (verses 2-3) or as the Hebrew word for “rested” means “to cause to, make to, keep Sabbath.” The Sabbath was “made” during creation week!

So Jesus, by saying that the Sabbath was “made” directs the listing people to creation week. Then he says that the Sabbath was made… “for man.” Well, since he is talking about creation week, who was the “man” alive during that time? That’s right, it was Adam and Eve! Jesus is saying that the Sabbath was made for mankind, because he is here speaking of our first parent.

Obviously, Adam and Eve, being our first parents, represent "mankind." When Adam and Eve were made, God called both of them by one name: Adam. Notice:

Genesis 5:1-2

(1) This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

(2) Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Notice, he called their name Adam. Now take a look at how Strong’s Hebrew Definition explains this word:

'adam

The same as H120; Adam, the name of the first man, also of a place in Palestine: - Adam.

It says that this Hebrew word is the same as another Hebrew word which is designated by Strong’s number H120 (sort of like how car is the same as vehicle). Let’s look that one up:

'adam

From H119; ruddy, that is, a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.): - X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

Of course the meaning of this word is far deeper, but embedded in its meaning is the word “mankind.” And although it also says “an individual,” remember that in the context of Genesis 5:2 he is speaking to more then one individual, both Adam and Eve. In other words, they, Adam and Eve, represent “mankind.”

This is further seen by Jesus’ use of the Greek word anthropos translated “man” in Mark 2:27. It literally means “man-faced” and, according to Thayer’s Greek Definitions, it is a word whose primery definition is, "a human being, whether male or female, generically, to include all human beings."

The Greek word anthropos is the root for "anthropology" which means "The study/science of human beings, humanity." see Merrian-Webster, Dictionary.com.

"Anthropology (pronounced /ænθrɵˈpɒlədʒi/, from the Greek ἄνθρωπος, anthrōpos, "human", and -λογία, -logia, "discourse", first use in English: 1593) is the study of human beings, everywhere and throughout time." -From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now some scholars teach that at times anthropos must only mean males (see 1 Corinthians 7:1 for example). But the context of Mark 2:27 says otherwise. If in Mark 2:27 it is only referring to males, then Jesus would have been saying that the Sabbath was made only for males! Of course this is untrue, as we then find God later on in history giving it to Israel in Exodus 16 and 20, which was composed of both male and females.

The fact of the matter is that the Sabbath was "made" for all of mankind at the time of creation, when both male and female was present. Include in this understanding our text in Genesis 5:2 and our explanation of the word “made” and we quickly realize that Jesus is in Mark 2:27 saying that it was for all of mankind for which the Sabbath was made.

But the question may be asked…

Why doesn’t Genesis say that Adam and Eve rested?

The answer to this question is very simple. In the context of the description of creation (Genesis 1, 2:1-3) the focus is on God, and not man. He is the main character. “God made… and God created… God said… God created… etc” Now the Sabbath commandment specifically says that the person is to first work six days, and then rest the seventh day (see Exodus 20:9-10). How can Adam keep the seventh day as a Sabbath (or, how can he rest) when he did not work the first six days? He was created on day six!

On the other hand, God worked the first six days. He created all things; he worked, therefore he rests. That’s why it does not have to say that Adam kept the first Sabbath of that first week, because the first Sabbath was for God to rest. The focus is on God.

Now, after God rested, he gave Adam work to be performed in the Garden:

Genesis 2:15

(15) And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress (literally work, till, enslave) it and to keep (literally to hedge it about) it.

That the days of creation week were 24 hour periods, and that therefore there was a weekly cycle, is made obvious by the context of Genesis 1 and 2 and has been proven elsewhere at this website (click here). First of all, if the week did not start all over after the first Sabbath, how could Adam have understood God when he gave him the following warning:

Genesis 2:17

(17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Here God mentions the word “day.” Adam could not have understood this, unless he had experienced more then one consecutive day, or better, a weekly cycle.

Furthermore, God made the “lights of heaven,” the Sun, Moon and Stars to be able to tell time:

Genesis 1:14

(14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Notice it says they were made to be able to read “days.” These heavenly elements did not cease to exist after God finished creating everything (as is evidenced today), therefore they continued to serve their purpose of helping to tell “days” (plural) even while Adam and Eve abode in the Garden.

The point is that Adam and Eve had to experience the weekly cycle, and since God had given them work to perform (remember, the Sabbath was made for him as proven already) they could therefore do as the commandment says, work six, and rest the seventh day. What do you suppose they did with the many Sabbaths which followed there after? They followed after the example of their creator and rested!

Hence we summarize with…

The conclusion.

-First, the context of Mark 2:27 is on the seventh day Sabbath of the fourth commandment.

-Second, Jesus directs us through his use of the word “made” to creation week, and thereby tells us that it was then made for “man.”

-Third, the only “man” at the time of creation week was Adam and Eve. Therefore it was made for Adam and Eve.

-Fourth, it’s obvious that since it was then given to the nation of Israel (Exodus 20:16, 20), and offered also to Gentiles (Isaiah 56), that God’s intent was for the Sabbath to be made for all of mankind. Adam and Eve represent all of mankind, as is seen in Genesis 5:1-2 and in the use of the word “anthropos.”

-Finally, although Genesis 2:1-3 says that it was God who rested, this was because the context is about God and his work, and not man who was created on day six. It is nevertheless true that Adam and Eve kept the Sabbath, the following Sabbath (and beyond) because Jesus still said that the Sabbath was made “for man…”

So next time you’re asked for proof as to where it says that Adam and Eve kept the Sabbath, direct your critic to Mark 2:27. Oh, and don’t let him confine your response to the book of Genesis alone, for…

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” -2 Timothy 3:16.

Your Thought Questions Answered

Question 1: It might be true that there was a consecutive flow of “days” after the first created week, but why does it have to be a cycle? Couldn’t it have simply been a flow of days without it returning to a “weekly” seven day cycle? As in, day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4, day 5, day 6, day 7, and then day 8, day 9, day 10, and so on?

Answer: Nope, because it still reads that it was made “for” man. It does not make sense for it to have been made “for” Adam and Eve and yet Adam and Eve did not experience it. There must have been a weekly cycle so that the seventh day Sabbath could come around again for them to experience it.

Question 2: But wasn’t the rest that they experienced a spiritual rest?

Answer: In a sense, they did experience a type of spiritual rest, for they were perfect and were in need of nothing. But this is not the same rest which Jesus gives us under the New Covenant, for he bids us rest from sin:

John 8:34-36

(34) Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

(35) And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

(36) If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Matthew 1:21

(21) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Adam and Eve could not, before sin, say that they have been freed from sin, when they did not as of yet even understand what sin was.

Also, the Hebrew word “yom” is used for each day of the first week to mean a 24 hour period. It does not mean an “eternal day” for the seventh day as much as it does not mean an “eternal day” for the first day yoms (days). Therefore, the seventh day was a 24 hour period. When Adam and Eve kept a Sabbath, they kept a 24 hour period (that it’s a 24 period, and not an eternal day, was also proven above). Therefore they experienced both an eternal spiritual rest, and also the seventh day Sabbath.

Question 3: How do explain verse 28, which says that Jesus is Lord over the Sabbath?

Answer: Simple. In context the accused was Jesus. How does he prove he has authority to defend himself the way he did in verses 25 and 26? And to teach true proper Sabbath keeping (Matthew 12:12)? And to claim that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath (verse 27)? By claiming to have authority to do so. He made this claim of authority by saying that he is “Lord even of (does not say over) the Sabbath” -verse 26.

For further study, see:

-The phrase “evening and morning” in Genesis 1

-The Sabbath in Genesis
-Who in the bible kept the Sabbath?
-Did Noah keep the Sabbath?

-Point by Point response to T.D. Jakes R.S.V.P

2009-09-11T22:15:00.002-04:00

Is Jesus Christ God the Father?

There are certain denominations which actually teach that Jesus is God the Father, and that there is no real difference between the two. I believe many call this “oneness,” which rejects the Godhead, replacing it with the idea that there are not three, or two… but simply one.

This too is dangerous. If Jesus is God the Father, and not separate (God the Son), then his argument in the following verse is voided out:

John 8:16
(16) And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

His argument is that he is not alone. But the “oneness” doctrine teaches that he is. Therefore Jesus does not have a case.

Notice the next two verses:

John 8:17-18
(17) It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
(18) I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

If Jesus is God the Father, then his defense is quickly dismissed, for in the law a case must be established “out of the mouth of two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15). For Jesus to have a case… to even make sense, they must be two separate entities. The confusion with our opponents lies in the next verse:

John 8:19
(19) Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

They say with this that, since if they had known him they would have also known the Father, that Jesus is the same as the Father. But does this rule out the logic Jesus himself used in the previous texts? Absolutely not! If the reader would have kept reading John gospel, they would have read:

John 10:30
(30) I and my Father are one.

They are one, not because they are not separate individuals, but because they are one in agreement, purpose and love, as shown in the previous sections of this study. They are “united.” That is why, when you know Jesus, you know the Father, because Jesus represents the father:

John 5:43
(43) I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

There is One God, united as three co-eternal persons, each representing each other, agreeing with each other, et cetera.

The individuality of the Father and the Son is brought forth ever so clear in the following verses, spoken by Jesus Christ himself:

John 17:20-21
(20) Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
(21) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Ellen White explained this in no better terms:

“The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one.” –The Ministry of Healing, page 422.

Furthermore, Jesus, we know, became a man “like unto his brethren” (Hebrews 2:17). Yet the Father is Spirit (John 4:22). No man has ever seen God at any time (1 John 4:12), yet Jesus, was seen (Acts 1:3).

No friends, Jesus was not praying to himself in John 17. He’s not crazy. He was praying to another person in the Godhead; to the Father. To claim otherwise would mean to go against the clear testimony of scripture, and cause Jesus to be both illogical and insane.

For our Adventist brethren… Ellen White is in agreement:

“The Scriptures clearly indicate the relation between God and Christ, and they bring to view as clearly the personality and individuality of each.” –The Ministry of Healing, page 421.

2009-09-11T22:10:00.002-04:00

Isn’t the Holy Spirit an “it”?

Because the bible sometimes refers to the Holy Spirit with the third person singular pronoun “it,” to them this means that the Holy Spirit is not a personal being as is God the Father and Jesus Christ. Here are some of the verses they will point to:

John 1:32
(32) And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

1 Peter 1:11
(11) Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Some of our Adventist brethren will also point to some of the writings of Sister White, like to the following quote:

"The Lord Jesus acts through the Holy Spirit; for it is His representative." -Messages to Young People, 55

Hence the claim that the Holy Spirit is merely an active force, or something to that effect.

Those who reason this way should consider a couple of points. First, the Dictionary tells us that the word “it” can also refer to living beings, even human beings:

Webster’s II Dictionary
it: pron. – Used to refer to non-human entity, an animal or human being of unknown sex, a group of persons, or an abstraction.

Have you ever said to a brand new mom, “… it’s so cute!”? Or have you ever said, “that group won the super-bowl, it’s the best of them all!”? Or how about… “tag! Your it!”?

As funny as these examples may be, even the dictionary uses some of these to explain this word:

The Newbury House Dictionary of American English
it: pron. Third person singular pronoun… 7: to be “it”: in children’s games, to be the one who chases or finds others: In tag, children take turn being “it.”

Now let’s give some bible examples of the word “it” being used to refer to living, active people. In the first definition above, we read, “Used to refer to… a group of people.” Notice this verse:

Jeremiah 5:15
(15) Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the LORD: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.

Isaiah 26:15
(15) Thou hast increased the nation, O LORD, thou hast increased the nation: thou art glorified: thou hadst removed it far unto all the ends of the earth.

Notice the following:

Luke 8:28-29
(28) When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
(29) (For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)

Here we have the case where Jesus met a man possessed by an evil spirit. Luke acknowledges that it is alive, active and intelligent, yet refers to him as an “it.” But notice the following two verses:

Luke 8:30-31
(30) And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
(31) And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.

Here we notice something important. The “it” is a Legion of many spirits, and not just one. As in the verses above, we here have yet another example of the word “it” referring to “a group of persons.”

So we gather that the word “it” can be used to refer to living, intelligent human beings, either of a group of people, kids, or infants.

Now we will show a bible example of “it” being used for a single individual:

Luke 9:38-39
(38) And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child.
(39) And, lo, a spirit taketh him, and he suddenly crieth out; and it teareth him that he foameth again, and bruising him hardly departeth from him.

The child of this man was possessed by “a” spirit, and, knowing that it is a real, living spirit, refers to it with this pronoun.

Now in Luke 8:28-29, we noticed that the spirit is referred to an “it,” yet in verse 30, Jesus applies to it the following pronoun… “And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? ...”

This same thing is done to the Holy Spirit. Although the bible uses the word “it” to refer to him, Jesus applied at least four pronouns when referring to him:

John 14:17
(17) Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Note: It was already proven that Jesus is not the promised comforter spoken of here. See the section called “Is the comforter Jesus himself?”

For our Adventist brethren, Ellen White also applies such pronouns to the Holy Spirit:

“The Holy Spirit, sent from heaven by the benevolence of infinite love, takes the things of God and reveals them to every soul that has an implicit faith in Christ. By His power the vital truths upon which the salvation of the soul depends are impressed upon the mind, and the way of life is made so plain that none need err therein.” –Christ’s Object Lessons, page 113.

And she is clear that the Holy Spirit is a personal, living being, and not just an It:

“We need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds.” -Manuscript 66, 1899. (From a talk to the students at the Avondale School.)

“The Holy Spirit is a person, for He beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God. When this witness is borne, it carries with it its own evidence. At such times we believe and are sure that we are the children of God.

The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God. "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." -Manuscript 20, 1906.” -Evangelism, page 616-617.

We can not base our beliefs merely on the word “it,” since it can be used in various ways. Just because an infant, a child, or a group of people can be referred to with the word “it,” does not mean they are not self-living, intelligent, personal beings. The same must be applied to the Holy Spirit, especially in the light of what has been revealed about him in the sections above. The Holy Spirit is a personal, eternal being. He is part of the heavenly Godhead, being called “God” himself in scripture, and is the very Melchizedek priest which met Abraham after the great slaughter of Genesis 14:17-20.

2009-09-10T21:54:00.004-04:00

(15) Matthew 28:19 says to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. But why, when we read of occations when the desciples baptised people, did they baptise only in the name of Jesus?

Happy Sabbath my brother,

Give thanks to God, and grace be unto you, and peace, for His mercy endureth forever.

Colossians 2:2,3
(3) Christ; in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.

The Word of God is the only help we have to understand anything. With that said, let us prayerfully turn to the Word of God. Notice as it is written in the book of Acts 2:38,39:

Acts 2:38-39
(38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

1. Jesus Christ - for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:28, Acts 10:43, Rom 3:25.
2. Holy Ghost - the bearer of "the gift". I Corinthians 12:4,8,9,10,11,28,29,30, Gal 5:22,23
3. Lord our God - the giver of "the gift". James 1:17, Heb. 6:4, I Co 7:7, Rom 6:23...

Being an obedient disciple of Christ Jesus, Peter baptized his fellow Israelite in the name of Jesus Christ for the remissions of their sins, and the name of the Holy Ghost who is the bearer of "the gift", and the name of the Father Lord our God who giveth "every good gift and every perfect gift."

Now if we continue our reading of the second chapter of Acts, verse 41, we will find the astounding result of this act:

Acts 2:41
(41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Verse 47: "... Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

The book of Acts is filled with accounts of the disciples being filled with the Holy Ghost. Now, do we dare believe that they are doing it wrong? Nay, instead they bear the fruits of the spirit. The disciples or us performing these Acts, if devoid of the Holy Ghost which is the promise of God through Jesus Christ will not or can not happen.

Now the word "trinity" is found nowhere in the Bible, but the concept is certiantly there, as seen in our The Trinity Doctrine article.

God bless you.

"To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen." Rom 16:27.

Your brother in Christ,
Che Siki Plang