How Israel Makes Immigration Dry Up Under Desert Sun

By Laurent Zecchini, Le Monde, June 17, 2013

SAHARONIM—Last summer, Israel passed an amendment to the 1954 Prevention of Infiltration Law, which allows refugees to be held for a minimum of three years without detention without a trial or charges being brought against them.

According to the law, refugees from “enemy states” can be held in indefinite detention, even if they have not been convicted of a crime. The law is applicable to minors and does not distinguish between asylum seekers, authorized immigrants and “infiltrators” who want to harm Israel’s security. The 1954 law was originally designed to prevent Arab “infiltrators” from crossing the border into Israel.

Israel admits that the law has a negative impact on the freedom of undocumented African immigrants, but it says it is for the good cause.

Israel says the amendment on the “prevention of infiltration” is consistent with “the values of the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” It is constitutional and, in a word: “reasonable.” The “reason,” is the fact that the country could not stand becoming a “center of attraction” for thousands of Africans—men, women and children—who arrive each month through the Sinai desert.

Asylum-seekers and undocumented immigrants arrested under the amendment to the Prevention of Infiltration Law are housed at the Saharonim detention facility, three kilometers from the Egyptian border, near Nitzana, in the scorching hot Negev desert.

The refugees are kept at Saharonim for an “unlimited period,” of a minimum of three years. The only way detainees can arrive at a trial is if they agree to go home to their native countries. After three years, their release can be “considered” by a judge. It is a law that humanitarian associations consider heinous, but it has its logic—this punitive treatment dissuades other candidates attracted by the Jewish state that they see as an economic Eldorado.

The Israeli law is a cold-hearted monster: it does not want to hear about “refugees,” and does not differentiate between Africans who come from countries where they risk persecution, like Eritrea or Sudan, and the other countries. Of course, the 2,400 detainees held at Saharonim can apply for asylum in Israel, but no such requests have been granted since the prison opened in July 2007.

In May, the state advised the Supreme Court to reject a petition submitted by different human rights organizations to repeal the amendment, which they say is unconstitutional according to both Israeli and international law. The state’s 97-page submission argued that incarceration was required in order to maintain state sovereignty and reduce the incentive for “infiltrators.”

And indeed, the Israeli government takes drastic steps to maintain its sovereignty. Saharonim is one among many others. There are only a few kilometers left until the brand new five meters high barbed wire fence that runs along the entire 240-kilometer Egyptian border is complete.

Israel’s plan is working: illegal immigration has almost completely ceased. The consequence is that thousands of African migrants are trapped in the Sinai desert, a lawless zone where Bedouin tribes put them in horrifying camps where reports are rampant of abuse and rape, sometimes for months on end, until they can pay up a ransom. About 250 people who have escaped the Sinai torture camps are now being held in Saharonim.

NGOs who denounce the treatment of asylum-seekers as criminals have not been entirely unsuccessful. On May 6, nine Eritreans and their 10 children—aged from 18 months old to seven years old—were freed after being held, for some, for about a year.

It was human rights NGO Hotline for Migrant Workers, who led this victorious fight against the Israeli justice system. The latter ended up by admitting that being minors could constitute “special humanitarian grounds” justifying their release from the Saharonim detention facility. In the center, there are about 15 children who are younger than 10 years of age and around 150 women. We do not know the number of the others—the 10 to 18 years old children still being detained.

You would think that now that the Egyptian border has been rendered unbreachable, there is no need for Saharonim to exist. This is not the case: Among the 55,000 undocumented Africans who live in Israel, hundreds have been arrested in the past few years, being considered as “infiltrators who endanger Israeli national security.” In April the Knesset adopted a law barring undocumented immigrants from sending funds abroad, which of course is sent home to their families.

In May, we learned that the Israeli police had collected about a thousand DNA samples from African immigrants who entered illegally Israel since the beginning of 2012. Just another measure to deter undocumented immigrants from crossing over into Israel. Saharonim is not going to be closing its doors any time soon.

Read More

House Passes Bill Banning Late-Term Abortions After 20 Weeks

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 6/18/13 6:45 PM

The House of Representatives today approved a that bans abortions from after 20-weeks of pregnancy up to the day of birth.

The vote for the bill broke down on mostly partisan lines with Republicans supporting the ban on late-term abortions and Democrats opposing it. The House approved the bill on a 228-196 vote with 7 Democrats voting for the bill and 6 Republicans voting against it. (See end for how members voted).

The bill, if it receives a vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate, is not expected to pass and pro-abortion President Barack Obama has issued a veto threat. But pro-life groups hope to use the measure as an election tool in 2014 in an attempt to wrest the Senate from abortion advocates.

Leading pro-life organizations issued statements praising the House for the vote.

“I would hope that stopping atrocities against little babies is something we can agree to put an end to,” Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota said during the debate. “We’re talking about babies who, if they were born and simply given a chance, they could survive outside the womb.”

Congresswoman Wagner of Missouri added: “As science and technology continue to advance, we are changing hearts and mind. It is not only the pain of the child we must consider, but also the pain of the mother. Everyone talks about the right to choose, but no one discusses the implications of that choice. I am for life at all stages. I am for the life of the baby, and I am also for the life of the mother. I will continue to work for a day when abortion is not only illegal, but absolutely unthinkable.”

Rep. Chris Smith, the head of the pro-life caucus in the House, spoke eloquently from the House floor.

“The brutality of severing the spines of defenseless babies—euphemistically called “snipping” by Gosnell—has finally peeled away the benign façade of the billion dollar abortion industry” he said.

“Like Gosnell, abortionists all over America decapitate, dismember and chemically poison babies to death each and every day. That’s what they do. Americans are connecting the dots and asking whether what Gosnell did is really any different than what other abortionists do. A D&E abortion—a common method after 14 weeks—is a gruesome, pain-filled act that literally rips and tears to pieces the body parts of a child,” he added. “The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a modest but necessary attempt to at least protect babies who are 20 weeks old—and pain-capable—from having to suffer and die from abortion.”

One leading expert in the field of fetal pain, Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand at the University of Tennessee, stated in his expert report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice, “It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children.”

“Surgeons entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on unborn children have seen those babies flinch, jerk and recoil from sharp objects and incisions. Ultrasound technology shows unborn babies at 20 weeks post-fertilization and earlier react physically to outside stimuli such as sound, light and touch,” Smith continued. “Surgeons routinely administer anesthesia to unborn children in the womb before performing lifesaving surgeries, and this has been associated with a decrease in the baby’s stress hormone levels during the medical procedure.”

A recent national poll by The Polling Company found that, after being informed that there is scientific evidence that unborn children are capable of feeling pain at least by 20 weeks, 64% would support a law banning abortion after 20 weeks, unless the mother’s life was in danger. Only 30% said they would oppose such a law.

During the hearing, former abortion practitioner Anthony Levatino told members of the committee the gruesome details of his former abortion practice and how he became pro-life following the tragic automobile accident of his child.

Another bombshell dropped during the hearing came from Dr. Maureen Condic, who is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She testified that the unborn child is capable of reacting to pain as early as 8-10 weeks. This is when most abortions in America take place.

The committee also saw graphic pictures of babies who were killed by Douglas Karpen, who is considered the second Kermit Gosnell.

The late-term abortion ban would allow abortion after 20 weeks post-fertilization if the mother’s life is endangered, or in cases of rape and incest reported prior to the abortion to appropriate authorities.

H.R. 1797 contains congressional findings of fact regarding the medical evidence that unborn children experience pain at least by 20 weeks “post-fertilization age,” or the start of the sixth month.

The bill relies on the science of fetal pain to establish a Constitutional reason for Congress to ban abortions late in pregnancy. The science behind the concept of fetal pain is fully established and Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into it. He first published reports in the 1980s to validate research showing evidence for it.

He has testified before Congress that an unborn child could feel pain at “eight-and-a-half weeks and possibly earlier” and that a baby before birth “under the right circumstances, is capable of crying.”

He and his colleagues Dr. Vincent J. Collins and Thomas J. Marzen were the top researchers to point to fetal pain decades ago. Collins, before his death, was Professor of Anesthesiology at Northwestern University and the University of Illinois and author of Principles of Anesthesiology, one of the leading medical texts on the control of pain.

“The functioning neurological structures necessary to suffer pain are developed early in a child’s development in the womb,” they wrote.

“Functioning neurological structures necessary for pain sensation are in place as early as 8 weeks, but certainly by 13 1/2 weeks of gestation. Sensory nerves, including nociceptors, reach the skin of the fetus before the 9th week of gestation. The first detectable brain activity occurs in the thalamus between the 8th and 10th weeks. The movement of electrical impulses through the neural fibers and spinal column takes place between 8 and 9 weeks gestation. By 13 1/2 weeks, the entire sensory nervous system functions as a whole in all parts of the body,” they continued.

With Zielinski and his colleagues the first to provide the scientific basis for the concept of fetal pain, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand of the University of Arkansas Medical Center has provided further research to substantiate their work.

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!








“The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies,” explains Steven Calvin, M.D., perinatologist, chair of the Program in Human Rights Medicine, University of Minnesota, where he teaches obstetrics.

Dr. Colleen A. Malloy, Assistant Professor, Division of Neonatology at Northwestern University in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in May 2012 said, “[w]hen we speak of infants at 22 weeks LMP [Note: this is 20 weeks post fertilization], for example, we no longer have to rely solely on inferences or ultrasound imagery, because such premature patients are kicking, moving, reacting, and developing right before our eyes in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.”

“In today’s medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth and development. Medical advancement and technology have enabled us to improve our ability to care for these infants…In fact, standard of care for neonatal intensive care units requires attention to and treatment of neonatal pain,” Dr. Malloy testified. She continued, “[t]hus, the difference between fetal and neonatal pain is simply the locale in which the pain occurs. The receiver’s experience of the pain is the same. I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment or cardiac injection.”

Final Vote Results for HR 1797 Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act


Yeas Nays PRES NV
Republican 222 6 5
Democratic 6 190 5
Independent
TOTALS 228 196 10

Read More

China's Great Uprooting: Moving 250 Million Into Cities

By Ian Johnson, New York Times, June 15, 2013

BEIJING—China is pushing ahead with a sweeping plan to move 250 million rural residents into newly constructed towns and cities over the next dozen years—a transformative event that could set off a new wave of growth or saddle the country with problems for generations to come.

The government, often by fiat, is replacing small rural homes with high-rises, paving over vast swaths of farmland and drastically altering the lives of rural dwellers. So large is the scale that the number of brand-new Chinese city dwellers will approach the total urban population of the United States—in a country already bursting with megacities.

This will decisively change the character of China, where the Communist Party insisted for decades that most peasants, even those working in cities, remain tied to their tiny plots of land to ensure political and economic stability. Now, the party has shifted priorities, mainly to find a new source of growth for a slowing economy that depends increasingly on a consuming class of city dwellers.

The shift is occurring so quickly, and the potential costs are so high, that some fear rural China is once again the site of radical social engineering. Over the past decades, the Communist Party has flip-flopped on peasants’ rights to use land: giving small plots to farm during 1950s land reform, collectivizing a few years later, restoring rights at the start of the reform era and now trying to obliterate small landholders.

Across China, bulldozers are leveling villages that date to long-ago dynasties. Towers now sprout skyward from dusty plains and verdant hillsides. New urban schools and hospitals offer modern services, but often at the expense of the torn-down temples and open-air theaters of the countryside.

“It’s a new world for us in the city,” said Tian Wei, 43, a former wheat farmer in the northern province of Hebei, who now works as a night watchman at a factory. “All my life I’ve worked with my hands in the fields; do I have the educational level to keep us with the city people?”

China has long been home to both some of the world’s tiniest villages and its most congested, polluted examples of urban sprawl. The ultimate goal of the government’s modernization plan is to fully integrate 70 percent of the country’s population, or roughly 900 million people, into city living by 2025. Currently, only half that number are.

The building frenzy is on display in places like Liaocheng, which grew up as an entrepôt for local wheat farmers in the North China Plain. It is now ringed by scores of 20-story towers housing now-landless farmers who have been thrust into city life. Many are giddy at their new lives—they received the apartments free, plus tens of thousands of dollars for their land—but others are uncertain about what they will do when the money runs out.

Aggressive state spending is planned on new roads, hospitals, schools, community centers—which could cost upward of $600 billion a year, according to economists’ estimates. In addition, vast sums will be needed to pay for the education, health care and pensions of the ex-farmers.

While the economic fortunes of many have improved in the mass move to cities, unemployment and other social woes have also followed the enormous dislocation. Some young people feel lucky to have jobs that pay survival wages of about $150 a month; others while away their days in pool halls and video-game arcades.

Top-down efforts to quickly transform entire societies have often come to grief, and urbanization has already proven one of the most wrenching changes in China’s 35 years of economic transition. Land disputes account for thousands of protests each year, including dozens of cases in recent years in which people have set themselves aflame rather than relocate.

The country’s new prime minister, Li Keqiang, indicated at his inaugural news conference in March that urbanization was one of his top priorities. He also cautioned, however, that it would require a series of accompanying legal changes “to overcome various problems in the course of urbanization.”

Some of these problems could include chronic urban unemployment if jobs are not available, and more protests from skeptical farmers unwilling to move. Instead of creating wealth, urbanization could result in a permanent underclass in big Chinese cities and the destruction of a rural culture and religion.

On the ground, the new wave of urbanization is well under way. Almost every province has large-scale programs to move farmers into housing towers, with the farmers’ plots then given to corporations or municipalities to manage. Efforts have been made to improve the attractiveness of urban life, but the farmers caught up in the programs typically have no choice but to leave their land.

The broad trend began decades ago. In the early 1980s, about 80 percent of Chinese lived in the countryside versus 47 percent today, plus an additional 17 percent that works in cities but is classified as rural. The idea is to speed up this process and achieve an urbanized China much faster than would occur organically.

The primary motivation for the urbanization push is to change China’s economic structure, with growth based on domestic demand for products instead of relying so much on export. In theory, new urbanites mean vast new opportunities for construction companies, public transportation, utilities and appliance makers, and a break from the cycle of farmers consuming only what they produce. “If half of China’s population starts consuming, growth is inevitable,” said Li Xiangyang, vice director of the Institute of World Economics and Politics, part of a government research institute. “Right now they are living in rural areas where they do not consume.”

Skeptics say the government’s headlong rush to urbanize is driven by a vision of modernity that has failed elsewhere. In Brazil and Mexico, urbanization was also seen as a way to bolster economic growth. But among the results were the expansion of slums and of a stubborn unemployed underclass, according to experts.

“There’s this feeling that we have to modernize, we have to urbanize and this is our national-development strategy,” said Gao Yu, China country director for the Landesa Rural Development Institute, based in Seattle. Referring to the disastrous Maoist campaign to industrialize overnight, he added, “It’s almost like another Great Leap Forward.”

The costs of this top-down approach can be steep. In one survey by Landesa in 2011, 43 percent of Chinese villagers said government officials had taken or tried to take their land. That is up from 29 percent in a 2008 survey.

“In a lot of cases in China, urbanization is the process of local government driving farmers into buildings while grabbing their land,” said Li Dun, a professor of public policy at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

Farmers are often unwilling to leave the land because of the lack of job opportunities in the new towns. Working in a factory is sometimes an option, but most jobs are far from the newly built towns. And even if farmers do get jobs in factories, most lose them when they hit age 45 or 50, since employers generally want younger, nimbler workers.

Some farmers who have given up their land say that when they come back home for good around this age, they have no farm to tend and thus no income. Most are still excluded from national pension plans, putting pressure on relatives to provide.

Read More

Hard Places

A compilation

Download Audio (7.6MB)

“Thou hast shewed thy people hard things.”1 I have always been glad that the psalmist said to God that some things were hard. There is no mistake about it; there are hard things in life. Some beautiful pink flowers were given to me this summer, and as I took them I said, “What are they?” And the answer came, “They are rock flowers; they grow and bloom only on rocks where you can see no sod.” Then I thought of God’s flowers growing in hard places; and I feel, somehow, that He may have a peculiar tenderness for His “rock flowers.”—Margaret Bottome

*

[Pain] is one of your Father’s ways of speaking to you; it is the evidence of His limitless love, by which He would draw you farther from evil and closer to Him, …[and] help you lean more trustingly on the Lord.—Walter A. Maier

*

One of my dearest and oldest friends, Jon, married a girl I grew up with. In the middle of the night two years later, Jon called me because he had just found emails that made it clear to him that his wife was cheating on him. Soon after, she left and never came back. Less than a year later, they were divorced.

Jon had every right, you could say, to let his life be defined by that day, by that year, by that woman, by that betrayal. But what he did instead was a marvelous thing to watch. He laid himself open and vulnerable to life and God and therapy and close friends, and began the breathtaking process of becoming more than what he had been in a thousand different ways. He is softer, in the best possible way, and when you talk to him, you know that he’s been down to the bottom and fought his way back up. He listens more closely and prays like he’s talking to a best friend. I knew him well for years before she left, and although I would never wish upon anyone the searing pain I saw written on his face during that season, what God did in his life through that event makes me believe in God’s goodness even more than I did before.

I know that it seemed like God was being cruel that year, that middle of the night when Jon called me. But he was not. What I know now is that his kindness burns through even the deepest betrayals and invites life from death every chance we let him. There are things that explode into our lives and we call them curses, and then one day, a year later or ten years later, we realize that they are actually something else. They are the very most precious kinds of blessings.—Shauna Niequest2

*

“Trials equals good.” Understanding and believing this simple equation can make your life richer, more meaningful, and happier. It makes all the difference in the world whether you fear problems and challenges, expecting the worst to happen, or if you face obstacles bravely and full of faith, anticipating the good that the Lord will bring out of them and the strength of spirit you will gain. Naturally we wonder why “bad” things happen to us. God always has a purpose [in what He allows to happen in our lives], although it is not always revealed immediately.

The Lord sometimes uses sickness, problems, and troubles to cause us to draw closer to Him and rely more on Him. Otherwise we would have a tendency to just rock along.

Sometimes things happen just to keep us humble; sometimes they happen to draw us closer to others; sometimes they happen to make us pray; sometimes they happen to teach us to be more careful and prayerful; sometimes they happen to test our faith. God allows troubles for all kinds of reasons, but ultimately they can all fulfill the same goal: to draw us closer to Him so that we can avail ourselves more of His power, and thus be filled with more of His love and joy.

“Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all.”3 The Lord allows these things as tests to strengthen your faith and to get an even greater victory out of seeming defeat.

But always remember that whatever God allows, He allows it in love. “All things work together for good to those who love the Lord.”4 God is not going to let anything happen to you, His child who loves Him, except what can work together for your good. Even though you may have many afflictions or difficulties, as the verse says above, He will deliver you out of them all, no matter how many or what!—David Brandt Berg5

*

I had a tiny box, a precious box
Of human love—my spikenard of great price;
I kept it close within my heart of hearts
And scarce would lift the lid lest it should
Waste its perfume on the air. One day a strange
Deep sorrow came with crushing weight, and fell
Upon my costly treasure, sweet and rare
And broke the box to atoms. All my heart
Rose in dismay and sorrow at this waste,
But as I mourned, behold, a miracle
Of grace Divine. My human love was changed
To Heaven’s own and poured in healing streams
On other broken hearts, while soft and clear
A voice above me whispered, “Child of Mine,
With comfort wherewith thou art comforted,
From this time forth, go comfort others,
And thou shalt know blest fellowship with Me,
Whose broken heart of love hath healed the world.”
—R. A. Torrey

*

No physician ever weighed out medicine to his patient with half so much care and exactness as God weighs out to us every trial. Not one grain too much does He ever permit to be placed on the scale.—Henry Ward Beecher

*

Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I obey your word.—Psalm 119:676

*

It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I might learn your statutes.—Psalm 119:717

Published on Anchor June 2013. Read by Jerry Paladino.
Music by Michael Dooley.


1 Psalm 60:3 KJV.

2 Cold Tangerines (Zondervan, 2007).

3 Psalm 34:19 NKJV.

4 Romans 8:28.

5 Obstacles Are for Overcoming (Aurora Production AG, 2010).

6 NIV.

7 ESV.

Read More

U.S. claims of chemical weapons against Syrian rebels meet caution at U.N.

By Colum Lynch, Washington Post, June 14, 2013

UNITED NATIONS—Obama administration claims that Syria has used chemical weapons against rebels encountered skepticism Friday at the United Nations, where the U.N. secretary general and the Russian ambassador said the evidence falls short of definitive proof.

Speaking to reporters at U.N. headquarters, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appeared to break ranks with Washington, warning against a rush to arm the Syrian rebels over assertions that government forces used chemical weapons.

“There is no military solution to this conflict, even if both the government and the opposition, and their supporters, think there can be,” he said. “The military path points directly towards the disintegration of the country.”

Ban said he appreciated the willingness of the United States, Britain, France and other governments to provide evidence to a U.N. team investigating the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria. But he cautioned that “any information on the alleged use of chemical weapons cannot be ensured without convincing evidence of the chain of custody.”

The secretary general said collecting the necessary proof would require the Syrian government to permit the U.N. chemical weapons team access to suspected sites inside the country. So far, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has refused the unlimited access sought by the U.N. team.

The Russian response was chillier. Speaking hours after the White House announcement Thursday, President Vladimir Putin said he had doubts that chemical weapons had been used.

On Friday, Russia’s U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, continued the theme. “The contacts we have with American experts did not convince our experts that, in fact, the information which was presented was convincing enough to come to a definitive conclusion that government forces used chemical weapons,” he said.

The responses from Ban and the Russians demonstrated the challenge the United States, Britain and France face in persuading the world that Syria has used chemical weapons. Analysts here suggest that the effort is more difficult because of the false claims about weapons of mass destruction used by the United States and Britain to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Read More

Astronomy and the Bible

Read More

Why I Believe a Literal 6-Day Creation Is Important

by Dennis Edwards:

Recently I had a letter from a friend explaining his questioning of accepting a literal 6 days of creation. In the following comments I try to give my reasoning for sticking to the literal 6 day interpretation.

My Friend writes, Many dedicated Christians differ in their views on how God created the world, and the exact interpretation of the 6 days, the age of the earth, etc. The question when Christians argue isn’t “Did God do it?”, but how He did it, and when He did it, or how long it took. 

(Dear Friend, I think it is those who have been intimidated by Big Science that feel it is necessary to agree with the millions of years and try to find a compromise in Scripture. People who want to sound intellectual or be accepted by other intellectuals find it hard to say they believe in a literal 6-day creation as it sounds so unscientific and as if they have “blind-faith” in the Bible. Perhaps they do not feel comfortable with the religious right which very strongly defends a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and do not want to be stereotyped as such. Obviously, that is something to avoid. We can understand the feelings of those who wish to not be included in that group. However, that should not affect our analysis of the question at hand.

I really enjoy listening to Dr. William Craig Lane, but when he says his expert on Jewish language says that “day” in Genesis 1 does not necessarily mean “a 24-hour day,” I believe he is mistaken. Weston Fields has written a critique of the Gap theory called Unformed and Unfilled which comes to the very opposite conclusion of Lane and his Jewish linguist. Also, the late James Barr, a renowned Hebrew scholar and professor, said in a personal letter dated the 23rd of April 1984, “So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) Creation took place in a series of 6 days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to the later stages in the biblical story; (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the Ark.”[1]

Ken Ham commenting on the above quote said “Please note that many, if not most of these world-class scholars do not believe in the Bible or Christianity anyway, so they are not interested in wrestling the Scriptures to somehow try to make their religion fit with evolution. Disbelieve it if you wish, but it is impossible to make out that Genesis is saying anything other than what it says. We can see now that those who say that the clear teaching of Genesis is not what it actually means are not doing so on the basis of literary or linguistic scholarship but because of partial surrender to the pressure of evolutionary/millions of years thinking. In actual fact, they are making man the starting point and his opinion the foundation -- not God and His Word.”[2]

Dr. Davis Young, a Christian geology professor at Calvin College and an old-earth advocate has said, “It cannot be denied in spite of frequent interpretations of Genesis 1 that departed from the rigidly literal, that the almost universal view of the Christian world until the 18th century was that the earth was only a few thousand years old. Not until the development of modern scientific investigation of the earth itself would this view be called into question within the Church.”[3] I have talked about the history of the idea of millions of years in a previous article which you may have already seen in The Naturalistic Assumptions of Evolution and Modern Science, and will attach with this article here if you have missed it.

Lane also seems to accept the millions of years. So although he does well on part of apologetics, which we can learn from and glean some techniques, I believe he hasn’t looked closely enough at the material available to understand the scientific arguments in favor of the 6-literal days. The real problem is the doctrine of millions of years (of earth time). Evolution is the child of millions of years. Once you accept millions of years because you think science has proven millions of years to be true, then you need to look for ways to put the Bible in line with what one believes science has found to be true. You are actually putting science above the Word of God. There is just no place in a plane reading of Genesis 1 for millions of years. People who accept the assumption that science has irrefutably proven “millions of years” succumb to looking for ways and reasons why Genesis 1 doesn’t really mean what it says. Satan’s ploy is still the same as in the Garden of Eden, “Did God say?” The millions of years is the problem.

In his book The Young Earth, geologist John Morris goes over some of the problems with the belief of millions of years and looks at the most recent scientific evidence especially analyzing the radioactive dating methods and the new RATE report, view parts 1 – 4 on the following link. If people would take enough time to really study the issue, I believe they will come to believe the 6-literal days of Creation as the arguments and evidence seem to be most comprehensive in its favor. Some may want to flee from the 6 literal days, as many very conservative Christians are in that camp, and at times they can come across very self-righteous and intolerant. However, we do not need to buy into their self-righteousness or intolerance or to any other agenda they may support. Many of the scientists who give the talks on YouTube who are 6-day Young-Earth Creationists do not sound self-righteous and are meek and humble Christian scientists and defenders of the faith.

My friend continues: Non-believers often start from the basis that God didn’t create the world. Christians who debate with other Christians on the subject are in a different arena altogether. I’ve seen that many sincere Christians are looking for ways to sync up those things which are considered scientific realities within the scientific community (including scientists who are Christian) and with Scripture. They believe that Scripture teaches that God created the world. They also believe that all science isn’t false or wrong. My understanding is that they believe both things are true, that God created the world from nothing and that the age of the world is much older than is portrayed in Scripture.

The old age of the universe is the very point that is an assumption and not a fact. Once you accept the millions of years of earth time passed here on earth, as fact, then you need to change your understanding of Genesis 1. Once you believe the millions of years of time has passed on earth, then a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is incompatible. Once people believe the millions of years of earth time, they have to adjust their reading of Genesis 1; because a plane reading of Genesis 1 leads only to a literal interpretation. The question therefore becomes did millions of years of time occur on earth? Is the science of millions of years of earth time correct? And on the other side, Is the Bible wrong? What is our initial assumption? Is our initial assumption that science can give us the truth? Or is it that the Bible really is a true revelation from God? If we believe the Bible is true, then maybe we should look and investigate the science and see if the science is somehow wrong or based on wrong assumptions.

When we are talking about the past, science cannot prove how things happened in the past. It can speculate and then test to see if their speculation is an agreement with the visible evidence in the present. Ultimately we will interpret the evidence in accordance with our belief system. Scientists view the evidence or data in the present and then extrapolate backwards and theorize about the past according to their initial assumptions in the present about the past. Scientists usually start with a belief and then do their science to confirm their belief system. Both creationists and evolutionists do their science in this way as there are no unbiased scientists. Each starts with initial assumptions which they believe are true and then do their science. The question becomes which bias is the best bias to be biased with? Since both theories are based on assumptions or belief systems we need to see which theory can more accurately predict future discoveries? Which theory more accurately is supported by the data or evidence we have in the present? Which theory has fewer contradictions or needs fewer supporting assumptions in places where the theory breaks down? And being Christians, which theory lines up with a simple understanding of what the Bible says?

Do we doubt whether Jesus walked on the water or was raised from the dead, even though science says is it impossible and never could happen? No, we don’t, because we have faith in God’s Word, and have experienced Him in our hearts and lives. But the world has accepted the millions of years of earth time as fact, because ‘science’ says so. We, therefore, find it hard to stand alone with God’s Word and Genesis 1, because ‘science’ seems to have proven that the universe is billions of years old, and it seems most people believe it. Since we do not have a very thorough understanding of the question or of the theological implications of our viewpoint or of the science available that supports a literal 6-day interpretation, we succumb and compromise our stance. We do not want to appear old-fashioned and ignorant or to have just “blind faith.” Therefore, we adjust our literal view and say we just don’t know, or it is not important, or it’s a side issue. But the theological implications are immense.

If we accept millions of years of life on earth before the Creation week, we end up with death before sin. Fundamental Christian doctrine says death is the result of Adam’s sin and therefore humanity needs a redeemer -- Jesus. By accepting evolution and millions of years of time on earth, we unintentionally destroy the reason for our Redeemer -- Adam’s disobedience in sin. Jesus’ sacrifice in the end becomes unnecessary and meaningless.

A very close friend of mine for many years and an active Christian had the following comment when I asked him his opinion of the importance of the 6-day literal interpretation of Genesis 1. He said, “If it wasn't 6 days, then you basically have to throw the whole thing out, as without Original Sin, Jesus' death is pretty insignificant; & to try to say that as Monkey-man evolved there came a time when God zapped a ‘human’ spirit into 2 of them, it's pretty ridiculous, as well as contrary to Mat.19:4 where Jesus said ‘Have you not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female’ -- which means that Jesus can't be trusted, as either He knew better & was lying, or He was deceived like the others, & hardly divine, in either case. It’s like cutting off a leg of a chair: the entire thing collapses, or you have to run all around making 100 readjustments to everything else. The truth is that it’s either 6 literal days, or the Bible goes in the garbage. Another point to consider is about Gen.1:12-13, in juxtaposition w/ v.16-19. So: God made vegetation, & then had it just sitting around in the darkness for an age or an eon or a season or period or epoch or whatever, & then He created the Sun. 24 hrs w/o sunlight for photosynthesis is fine, anything else means that the entire chapter/story/book is worthless, Moses is an invalid author.”

It seems to me, there is not really any other alternative, no middle ground. Even evolutionists have recognized the importance of the millions of years in destroying the basic Christian doctrine of Original Sin. However, Christian scientists have found satisfying scientific possibilities that are in accordance with the literal 6-day interpretation. Many evidences seem to indicate that the universe is not as old as old-earth scientists claim it is. Dr. Russell Humphreys is one of the scientists that goes over the different dating methods that seem to indicate that the universe is much younger than evolutionists would like us to believe. He shows that 90% of the dating methods used to measure the age of the earth and the universe indicate a much younger universe than secular scientists would have us believe. See Origins - Evidence for a Young World, pt.2 here. Here also has developed a creation model of beginnings in opposition to the secular "Big Bang" theory. He shows that since gravity affects time, and if our solar system is near to the universe's gravitational well or center, time would have passed more slowly on earth during the creation week, while as the universe expanded, the outer ends of the universe could have passed billions of years. You can watch the Origins program here called Starlight and Time.

My friend again: They are therefore looking into ways to show that both things are true. I personally don’t see those who believe in 6 literal days or those who believe in 6 different ages, as being better or worse Christians. 

Whether or not they are better or worse Christians has never been the question, nor do young-earth creationists doubt the salvation or sincerity of old-earth creationists. The old-earth creationists may even come across more compassionate and tolerant and less dogmatic. Yet, it seems to me that for some reason the old-earth philosophers or scientists have not looked deeply enough into the questions of origins and for some reason have accepted a compromised stance. It may be that they don’t like religion or don’t want to become a conservative Baptist. It may be pride or it may be they are Roman Catholic and are comfortable with evolution and millions of years, and don’t realize the theological inconsistencies. I believe if they continue in their search for truth, God will lead them into all truth as He has promised in His Word. Once they find that there do exist scientific answers that back the 6 literal day Creation they may be more willing to come over to the young-earth creationist view point and add a more compassionate face to the young-earth camp.

It might be because of the sometimes self-righteous or solemn religious attitude of their older religious Brethren, the young-earth Creationists, which cause some to remove themselves from those who sometimes come across as less tolerant and accepting of others. Or it may be some other reason that they have not yet been illuminated by God’s Word to the truth found in Scripture. But if one does not accept the assumption of millions of years of earth time, it is quite easy to accept the plane reading of the Scriptures, with no need for these other additional assumptions and theories. See the following clip by Dr. Terry Mortenson who gives a good history lesson of the millions of years and its affect on the Christian church here or here.

My friend: but rather as people who are seeking to really understand creation while being true to Scripture. As long as the belief is that God created all things from nothing and He created mankind, how He did it becomes a little less important. 

They are important because it is the authority of God’s Word we are doubting. This is what happened to Billy Graham’s friend Charles Templeton. He ended up an atheist. We end up saying that Scripture is wrong and God didn’t mean what He said. Many of the famous American seminaries like Yale, Harvard, and Princeton started as learning centers of Christianity. Once they accepted the scientific postulation of millions of years of earth time in the 1800’s and then some form of the Gap Theory, they ended up with greatly-compromised Christian studies, and look where they are today. Watch the following documentary here. It is a slippery slope that leads away from the truth of God’s Word. It leads to the belief that God made a mistake when He wrote Genesis. Jesus was mistaken when He said that about believing in Moses and his words and when He quoted from the Old Testament. We end up not being able to trust the authority of God’s Word. Instead we believe the changing opinions of man’s scientific theories; theories that are based on naturalistic assumptions and the belief that there is no supernatural and that God does not exist. We end up believing that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says.

I believe we can be patient and understanding and loving without losing the conviction that God’s Word is true and means what it says. We can water down the message to become more mainstream and acceptable to others and the world in general, but is that what God wants?

If you need more information about the assumptions of naturalistic science, Dave Schoch does a good job of exposing them in his book The Assumptions Behind the Theory of Evolution. Phillip E. Johnson (a rational apologist) also has done some good work on the assumptions behind the theory of evolution. His book Darwin on Trial was one of the foundation books of the Intelligent Design movement. Dr. Russell Humphreys has also done some programs explaining the for a young earth part one and part two.

My friend: What is most important is the belief that God did it, that He is the creator of all things. 

The Catholics say it doesn’t really matter out of fear of the scientific/intellectual community. Look at what has happened here in Spain and Portugal as a result. We see very little resistance to the millions of years/evolution and young people are walking away from their faith in droves. If we want to ultimately throw away the Bible and its authority, then it doesn’t really matter. But even a Catholic priest Father Victor P. Warkulwiz in England is fighting to bring the Catholic Church back to the 6 literal days of creation and young-earth belief which he believes is the traditional and correct interpretation. Watch here.

My friend: I agree with you when you said that Christians need a stronger foundation in their beliefs in order to be ready to give answers.

There are also 2 or 3 different ways to do apologetics. There is the Rational Apologetic which Dr. Wm Lane Craig and many of the Intelligent Design scientists use, Semi-Rational Apologetics and Presuppositional Apologetics. Weston Fields writing in the 1970’s explains it in the following way: “The Rational Apologetics is done by evidences which are not necessarily irrational to the natural mind (i.e., fulfilled prophecy, the internal coherence of the Bible, and the historical details of the resurrection), but frequently rational apologetics also try to defend such aspects of Christianity as its doctrine of supernatural creation and miracles. It is the conviction of rationalists that if only the proofs are presented, the unregenerate mind may be by these persuaded into accepting Christianity. The preoccupation with making Christianity reasonable is evident in many areas throughout Christian doctrine, but none are so susceptible to manipulation as the doctrine of creation and the facts of the Genesis Flood. For this reason, one’s system of apologetics becomes very transparent with respect to one’s views on these subjects."

Field continues,"Some Christian apologetics reject the global Flood Genesis so clearly present and conclude that as far as the cause of the Flood, “the only reasonable course” is to confess that “we just do not know.” Some apologetics seem to have been led to their conclusions by the belief that a global Flood does not do justice either to the Bible or to the many facts of geology and archaeology… One cannot but feel that such accommodation to modern science finds its roots in a belief that if the Bible is to be acceptable to modern man, it must be reasonable…..If the Holy Spirit depends upon a certain degree of apologetic proficiency in order to enable a person to believe, most Christians are automatically disqualified from evangelism."

"An underlining motivating belief of many involved in the Bible-science controversy seems to be that a view of certain biblical teachings (creation, the Flood, etc.) which is not immediately in line with current scientific theories is both an embarrassment to the Christian and a barrier to the propagation of the Gospel. There seems to be an assumption that if Christianity is to realize its full potential of impact on the scientific community, the message that no conflicts exists between the Bible and modern science must be heralded. Such an idea is more often implicit than explicit, but one cannot miss it. Unfortunately, the results of this assumption often leads either to a reduction of the facts of the creation and the Flood to the level of agnosticism (“we just do not know for sure”), or a wrestling of Scripture to make it harmonize with contemporary (though often out-dated) “science.” Under the guise of removing barriers to the Gospel, the truth is diluted or denied, and the Holy Spirit and His sovereignty disgraced. Biblical Creationism can never be a barrier to a sinner’s salvation; only a Christian’s refusal to propagate the Gospel message can be that, and that only temporarily. Those who believe that recent Creationism or Flood Geology are barrier to the Gospel either completely misunderstand the biblical statements about the dynamics of salvation, or they have rejected them, for they are relying on a system of apologetics which is totally autonomous-man-centered, not sovereign-God-centered.”

 Fields goes on to explain the Presuppositional Apologetics: “It is important to recognize that the sovereignty of the self-contained God is the key to every field, in that only the God of Scripture makes all things possible and explicable and is thus the basic premise not only of theology but of philosophy, science and indeed all knowledge. One either presupposes man’s autonomy or God’s sovereignty. One either presupposes that the natural man’s reason can rightly judge religious truth, or that special revelation from God is needed….In seeking to fulfill the Great Commission to propagate the message of salvation through Christ to the lost world, some Christians have abandoned their God-given offensive weapons in favor of proving the existence of God and the infallibility of the Bible by means of logic, philosophy, archaeology, and science. Such arguments, however, assume that (1) man is autonomous and can either reject or accept God and His Word at will, and (2) that God needs such common ground to accomplish the salvation of the sinner.”[4] -- I had wanted to type more but it is quite a big section which generally argues that the presuppositional approach is the more biblically-correct manner of doing apologetics. The book may be worth your while to invest in. Obviously, we can and do use both types of arguments in our witnessing and we can learn from each type of apologetics.

Ken Ham has also written a book The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years where he argues (1) that “compromising Genesis has led to a generational loss of an acceptance of the absolutes of the Word of God, leading to an exodus of young people from the church, (2) that Genesis remains critically important in presenting the Gospel, (3) that how your handling of the biblical account of creation impacts your understanding of all of Scripture and your worldview.”[5] His book may also help to further understand the presuppositional argument and the theological importance of Genesis 1. Brain Young has also written a book called Doubts About Creation? Not After This!, Creation Instruction Publishing, 2008, which may be interesting.

My friend: I appreciate the links to YouTube videos, the articles you have sent and the books you named. 

I have also read the following books besides the In Six Days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in Creation by John F. Ashton Ph.D. which I mentioned in the former communication: a book on fossils by Dr. Carl Werner, Evolution: The Grand Experiment, New Leaf Press, 2007 or here. Dr. Werner shows that the animal fossils do not make evolutionary sense and support recent creation instead. 

Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, by Marvin L. Lubenow, Baker Books, 2004. Lubenow shows how the human fossil bones support creation rather than evolution. 

Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, by Phillip E. Johnson, Inter Varsity Press, 1997 or on YouTube here. Phillip’s writings were what helped spark the initiating of the present Intelligent Design movement. 

Big God vs. Big Science: a rebuttal to the theory that the earth is billions of years old, by Bill Sardi, Here and Now Books, 2001. 

Noah to Abram: the turbulent years by Erich A. von Fange, Ph.D., 1994. 

Creation Panorama, by Carl E. Baugh, 1992, Bible Belt Publishing. 

Scientific Creationism, by Henry Morris, Master Books, 1974/2006. 

Dragons or Dinosaurs? Creation or Evolution? By Darek Isaacs, Bridge Logos, 2010 or watch here. Isaacs shows how dragons and dinosaurs were really the same animal. 

Flood Legends: Global Clues of a Common Event, by Charles Martin, Master Books, 2009. A review of the hundreds of flood legends from around the world and how they relate to the Genesis account.

Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., CMI, 1999/2008. Refuting Evolution 2, by Jonathan Sarfati, CMI 2002. Dr. Sarfati is also a former National chess champion of New Zealand and has played chess blindfolded against 10 different opponents simultaneously. 

Frozen in Time: Woolly Mammoths, the Ice Age, and the Biblical Keys to their Secrets, by Michael Oard, Master books, 2004 or watch here. Michael explains where the ice-age fits in within a biblical interpretation of history. He is a meteorologist among other specialties. 

The Long War Against God: the History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict, by Dr. Henry Morris, Master Books, 1989/2000. A good history lesson on the war we are in. 

The Ultimate Proof of Creation, by Dr. Jason Lisle, Master Books, 2009 or watch here. Lisle goes over some of the fallacies found in evolutionist’s arguments and how to recognize them and presents an ultimate logical proof for creation. 

Eternity in their Hearts, by Don Richardson or on YouTube here. Richardson explains how God reveals Himself to every tribal group in some way. 

There are also documentaries: by Werner Gitt on the problem of information within the DNA molecular called The Origin of Life in the Light of Information: Is Evolution Scientifically Logical? or watch  here. Gitt shows that the information in DNA is proof of God’s existence. He is also a 6 day young earth creationist. 

Ben Stein’s film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed can be seen  here. Stein exposes the persecution which creation scientists receive at the hand of their evolutionary superiors throughout America relating it to the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany.

Unlocking the Mystery of Life: the scientific case for Intelligent Design, Illustra Media can be seen at youtube. Following Dr. Michael Behe’s ideas as expressed in his bestselling book Darwin’s Black Box the documentary looks at the DNA molecule’s complexity. 

Icons of Evolution: the growing scientific controversy over Darwin, by Cold Water Media. 

The Privileged Planet, by Illustra Media can be seen  here. The documentary goes over the Cosmological Anthropic Principle or fine-tuning of the universe based on the book by the same name by Guillermo Rodriguez. 

Mount St. Helens: modern evidence for the world-wide Flood found here with Geologist Dr. Steve Austin shows how the explosion of Mount St. Helens in 1980 gives a confirmation that the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly by receding flood waters. 

Spike Psarris also does a nice job of describing some of the anomalies found in our solar system which evolutionary ideas cannot explain in Astronomy: what you aren’t being told about  found here. 

Bruce Malone has written a good book which can be used for witnessing called Search for the Truth and has sold over 40,000 copies found here. Or watch him here talking on youtube discussing some of the points I have shared above. 

Dr. Barry Gates does a good job of explaining the connection of aliens to evolution in his bestselling book The Alien Intrusion seen here speaking on youtube. 

Dr. Wilder-Smith talking about Creation and Time using the Flatlander example to help us understand times importance can be watched here. He has many other good lectures explaining science in a very interesting fashion. 

Mike Riddle also does a good job explaining the Big Bang in relation to Genesis 1 watched here. Plus numerous other documentaries too numeral to present here.

My friend: I am sure that they will be helpful to me in my studies. I will be keeping you and all you do to give others the message of His love in my prayers. 

Thanks, we certainly need it in these trying times. Please pray for our financial solutions.

Footnotes:

[1] Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change: Genesis 1:1-2:4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms- Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1997, pg. 50-51.
[2] Ken Ham, The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years, Master Books,1987, pg. 95
[3] Young, Christianity, p.25. as quoted by Brian Young in Doubts About Creation!, CIP, 2008, pg. 44.
[4] Weston Fields, Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory, Master Books. 1976,pg. 182-189
[5] Ken Ham, The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years, Master Books,1987, pg. back cover.

Read More

Resting in the Lord Maximizes Your Witness

By M. Fontaine

Download Audio (7.3MB)

“Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for Him.”1

Resting in the Lord is putting your weight down on Jesus and spending time in deep communion and fellowship with Him so that He can infuse you with strength, renew your vision, and love you long and tenderly. It’s carrying a spirit of peace and faith, putting Jesus first, learning to see in the spirit, surrendering your will to Jesus. Resting in the Lord is one of our lifesavers, or sanity savers, in busy times.

Resting in the Lord is pleasant because it involves thinking about Jesus, spending time with Him, and reveling in the wonders of the spirit realm. In that sense, it’s not hard or taxing, although it does take faith to slow down and stop our other activities in order to do it. It takes faith to work in the spirit. But as we do, we will reap wonderful benefits.

We need more and more of Jesus in order to be effective witnesses and soul winners. If you try to plow through your outreach and witnessing and teaching in your own strength, you’ll wear out. Being a professional missionary is taxing, and there is always way more to do than you can possibly get done. The way to survive and avoid stressing out and burning out is to learn to rest in the Lord, to learn to work in the spirit, to learn how to effectively cast your burdens on Jesus and let Him carry the load.2

Our work for the Lord needs to be a work of His Spirit—Him working through us. It can’t be an arm-of-the-flesh approach. It has to be each of us leaning hard on Him, committing our work to Him, resting in Him, and looking to Him.3

Our lives are busy, and they’re probably not going to get any less busy, so we need to have the calm and peace and strength that come from resting in the Lord and taking time for meditation. The more at peace we are, the more faith we manifest to others, and the more they will want what we have. So many people in the world long for peace. Being full of faith and calm and trust is a part of our witness, and it’s part of what will draw others to Jesus.

Aside from the physical and spiritual benefits that we personally reap, and the renewed anointing that we receive for witnessing and winning, we can receive the power to do the difficult, because we’re letting His Spirit work through us. We can better know how to care for those we’re ministering to because we have spent quiet time alone with Jesus, meditating on Him, connecting to His Word, and He is able to minister to our spirit and speak to us.

Another benefit of resting in the Lord and meditation is that we give the Lord an opportunity to prepare our hearts for those that we will meet that day. He might even give us a feeling, or a picture, or a word that could turn out to be key. We’ll also be attuned more acutely to the Lord’s checks throughout the day, as a result of time spent resting in Him and meditating, and can be more sensitive to out-of-the-ordinary or unexpected witnessing opportunities or open doors.

When we’re resting in the Lord, our spirits and minds are more filled with the Lord’s Spirit, and we’re able to pass this on to those we’re ministering to. Even if it’s not always something physical or tangible that we give to others, they will be able to sense the Lord’s Spirit in us more readily. As we slow our spirits down in order to spend time resting in the Lord, meditating on Him, and getting into the spirit, He can show us what our priorities are, and we’ll have increased faith to act on them.

Resting in the Lord and meditating brings a whole lot more peace and calm to our spirits. It gives us more strength and more joy in our labors and in our witnessing and winning. It will be a testimony to those whom we come in contact with.


Words from Jesus

As you meditate and reflect on Me and My Word, you will become more of a reflection of Me. You will become more of a mirror of Me as you turn your face up to the light. When the needs press hard upon you, reflect Me on to whatever situation arises. When obstacles arise, reflect My answers. When hearts are awaiting My truth, reflect Me. Resting in Me will help you reflect more of My Spirit, and My Spirit is the ultimate in overcoming obstacles, in answering problems, in touching hearts, and performing miracles.

*

I will allow crisis moments so that your quietude, your reliance on Me, will be a testimony to others. When everything seems to be falling apart around you and yet you keep your cool, this will help draw others to you. It will spark interest; it will cause people to want what you have. Even in the petty daily cares of life, the peace that you exude will cause others to take note. The simple, everyday-business tasks you have to do can lead to a witness if you are filled with Me, resting in Me, and reflecting My Spirit.

*

When you take the time to meditate and give Me time to work in your heart and spirit, I am able to reveal to you things that you wouldn’t have known otherwise. These will be as jewels of great worth—such as insight into the lives of those to whom you are ministering.

*

Resting in Me is like a charge-up for your spirit.

*

Resting in Me can give you the steady hand of faith and keen eye of vision so that you will more likely spot the target when it comes into view, avoid distractions, and hit the mark of My will.

*

Have you ever tried to push a stalled car? It’s pretty hard work. Have you ever tried to push it uphill? That’s incredibly difficult. But I can turn on the power and get that car moving so that you don’t have to push. I’ve got the keys. I’ve got the juice to power your venture. If you push so hard in your own strength, it’s just like pushing a dead car, and it’s going to wear you out and exhaust you. You’ll be in for a long and grueling uphill fight with a heavy car. Resting in Me is like asking Me for the keys so that you can turn the ignition and zoom off into the sunset under My power.

Original published August 2008. Updated and republished June 2013.
Read by Irene Quiti Vera.


1 Psalm 37:7 NKJ.

2 1 Peter 5:7.

3 See John 15:5 and Zechariah 4:6.

Read More

The Gnostic Gospels: Are they the real history of Jesus?

http://y-jesus.com/more/ggh-gnostic-gospels

Are There Secret Writings About Jesus?

In 1945 a discovery was made in Upper Egypt, near the town of Nag Hammadi. Fifty-two copies of ancient writings, called the Gnostic gospels were found in 13 leather-bound papyrus codices (handwritten books). They were written in Coptic and belonged to a library in a monastery.

A few Gnostic scholars have gone so far as to assert that these recently discovered writings are the authentic history of Jesus instead of the New Testament. But does their faith in these documents square with the historical evidence? Let’s take a deeper look to see if we can separate truth from fiction.

Secret “Knowers”

The Gnostic gospels are attributed to a group known as (big surprise here) the Gnostics. Their name comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning “knowledge.” These people thought they had secret, special knowledge hidden from ordinary people.

As Christianity spread, the Gnostics mixed some doctrines and elements of Christian­ity into their beliefs, morphing Gnosticism into a counterfeit Christianity. Perhaps they did it to keep recruitment numbers up and make Jesus a poster child for their cause. However, for their system of thought to fit with Christianity, Jesus needed to be rein­vented, stripped of both his humanity and his absolute deity.

In The Oxford History of Christianity John McManners wrote of the Gnostics’ mixture of Christian and mythical beliefs.

Gnosticism was (and still is) a theoso­phy with many ingredients. Occult­ism and oriental mysticism became fused with astrology, magic. … They collected sayings of Jesus shaped to fit their own interpretation (as in the Gospel of Thomas), and offered their adherents an alternative or rival form of Christianity.[1]

Early Critics

A mild strain of Gnostic philosophy was already growing in the first century just decades after the death of Jesus. The apostles, in their teaching and writings, went to great lengths to condemn these beliefs as being opposed to the truth of Jesus, to whom they were eyewitnesses.

Check out, for example, what the apostle John wrote near the end of the first century:

Who is the great liar? The one who says that Jesus is not the Christ. Such people are antichrists, for they have denied the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22, NIV).

Following the apostles’ teaching, the early church leaders unanimously condemned the Gnostics as a cult. Church father Irenaeus, writing 140 years before the Council of Nicaea, confirmed that the Gnostics were condemned by the church as heretics. He also rejected their “gospels.” But, referring to the four New Testament Gospels, he said, “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are.” [2]

Christian theologian Origen wrote this in the early third century, more than a hun­dred years before Nicaea:

I know a certain gospel which is called “The Gospel according to Thomas” and a “Gospel according to Matthias,” and many others have we read—lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine they possess some knowledge if they are acquainted with these.

Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the church has recognized, which is that only four gospels should be accepted.[3]

Mystery Authors

When it comes to the Gnostic gospels, just about every book carries the name of a New Testament character: the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, and so on. But were they even written by their purported authors? Let’s take a look.

The Gnostic gospels are dated about 110 to 300 years after Christ, and no cred­ible scholar believes any of them could have been written by their namesakes. In James M. Robinson’s comprehensive The Nag Hammadi Library, we learn that the Gnostic gospels were written by “largely unrelated and anonymous authors.”[4]

New Testament scholar Norman Geisler writes, “The Gnostic writings were not written by the apostles, but by men in the second century (and later) pretending to use apostolic authority to advance their own teachings. Today we call this fraud and forgery.”[5]

Mystery Versus History

The Gnostic gospels are not historical ac­counts of Jesus’ life but instead are largely esoteric sayings, shrouded in mystery, leaving out historical details such as names, places, and events. This is in strik­ing contrast to the New Testament Gospels, which contain innumerable historical facts about Jesus’ life, ministry, and words.

Who would you be more likely to believe—someone who says, “Hey, I’ve got some secret facts that were mysteriously revealed to me,” or someone who says, “I’ve searched all the evidence and history and here it is for you to make up your mind on”? Keeping that question in mind, consider the following two statements, the first from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (c. 110-150 A.D.) and the second from the New Testament’s Gospel of Luke (c. 55-70 A.D.).

· These are the hidden sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Judas Thomas the Twin recorded.[6]

· Many people have written accounts about the events that took place among us. They used as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of his promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you were taught. (Luke 1:1-4, NLT)

Do you find the open and aboveboard approach of Luke appealing? And do you find the fact that it was written closer to the original events to be in favor of its reliability? If so, that’s what the early church thought as well.

And most scholars concur with the early church’s view that the New Testament is the authentic history of Jesus. New Testament scholar Raymond Brown has said of the Gnostic gospels, “We learn not a single verifiable new fact about the historical Jesus’ ministry, and only a few new sayings that might possibly have been his.”[7]

Thus, even though the Gnostic writings have impressed some scholars, their late dating and questionable authorship can’t compare with the New Testament. Such contrast between the New Testament and the Gnostic writings is devastating to those pushing conspiracy theories. New Testament historian F. F. Bruce wrote, “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.”[8]

Endnotes – The Gnostic Gospels

1. John McManners, ed., The Oxford History of Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 28.

2. Darrell L. Bock, Breaking the Da Vinci Code (Nashville: Nelson, 2004), 114.

3. Bock, 119-120.

4. Ibid.,13.

5. Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 156.

6. Quoted in Robinson, 126.

7. Quoted in Lutzer, 32.

8. Quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict(San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life, 1999, 37.)

Permission to reproduce this article: Publisher grants permission to reproduce this material without written approval, but only in its entirety and only for non-profit use. No part of this material may be altered or used out of context without publisher’s written permission. Printed copies of this article and Y-Origins and Y-Jesus magazine may be ordered at: http://jesusonlineministries.com/resources/products/

© 2012 JesusOnline Ministries. This article is a supplement to Y-Jesus magazine by Bright Media Foundation & B&L Publications: Larry Chapman, Chief Editor.

Read More

Heavy Pressure Led to Decision by Obama on Syrian Arms

By Peter Baker, NY Times, June 14, 2013

WASHINGTON—For two years, President Obama has resisted being drawn deeper into the civil war in Syria. It was a miserable problem, he told aides, and not one he thought he could solve. At most, it could be managed. And besides, he wanted to be remembered for getting out of Middle East wars, not embarking on new ones.

So when Mr. Obama agreed this week for the first time to send small arms and ammunition to Syrian rebel forces, he had to be almost dragged into the decision at a time when critics, some advisers and even Bill Clinton were pressing for more action. Coming so late into the conflict, Mr. Obama expressed no confidence it would change the outcome, but privately expressed hope it might buy time to bring about a negotiated settlement.

Few international problems have bedeviled Mr. Obama as much as Syria and few have so challenged his desire to reduce the American footprint in the world in order to focus energies instead on what he calls “nation building here at home.” As much as he wants to avoid getting entangled in what he regards as another quagmire, he finds himself confronted by a conflict that is spilling over into the region and testing American resolve.

“It was a matter of time—the White House may not have wanted intervention but intervention itself was chasing the administration,” said Emile Hokayem, a Middle East-based analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “The White House underestimated the potency of this struggle and its profound implications for the region and its own interests, and then found itself lacking space, strategic clarity and momentum to do anything meaningful.”

While an aide said Mr. Obama’s decision was made even before Mr. Clinton’s comments this week endorsing more robust intervention, the president ended up satisfying neither side in the Syrian debate. For those who have pressed the White House to do more, the belated agreement to send small arms after nearly 93,000 deaths seems too little, too late. For those who warn that Syria could become another Iraq or Libya, the latest move comes across as another step down a slippery slope toward a messy outcome.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, said he was “baffled” by Mr. Obama’s decision to become more deeply involved. “What exactly is our objective?” he asked. “It’s not clear to me that every nondemocratic government in the world has to be removed by force.”

The Syria war is a struggle for power, not democracy, he said. “Is that something we should be engaged in?”

Mr. Obama came around to the idea of arming the rebels, at least modestly, only months after rejecting it. In part, that was because of confirmation by intelligence agencies that Mr. Assad’s forces had used sarin gas against his people. If Mr. Obama did not respond in some fashion, it would have been taken as a question of credibility since he had previously said such a development would change his calculus.

But the move also reflects nervousness in the White House about the increased involvement of Iran and its proxy group, Hezbollah, in the fight on Mr. Assad’s behalf. With the Syrian opposition on the defensive, a victory by Mr. Assad would be a victory for Iran as well. By providing limited arms, Mr. Obama hopes to bolster the rebels enough to even the odds and give the Syrian leadership incentive to broker a resolution.

Read More