Two Rows by the Sea

Terrorists from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) recently beheaded 21 expatriate Egyptian Christians who were working in Libya. The viral video showed the row of terrorists in black and the innocent Christians in orange (designed to draw attention to the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay).

While the world reacted in horror, Egyptian Christians saw an opportunity – An opportunity to share Jesus. Within days they put together this simple, but powerful brochure (this is the English version).

It was a basic pamphlet. Four questions, five Bible passages, and this simple text:

"Two rows of men walked the shore
of the sea,

On a day when the world’s tears
would run free,

One a row of assassins, who
thought they did right,

The other of innocents, true sons
of the light,

One holding knives in hands held
high,

The other with hands empty,
defenseless and tied,

One row of slits to conceal glaring
dead eyes,

The other with living eyes raised
to the skies,

One row stood steady, pall-bearers
of death,

The other knelt ready, welcoming
heaven’s breath,

One row spewed wretched,
contemptible threats,

The other spread God-given peace
and rest.

A Question... 
Who fears the other?

The row in orange, watching
paradise open?

Or the row in black, with minds
evil and broken?"

  So I ask “Who are the true victims?”

Tough Questions about Faith and Darwinian Evolution

Here's a great video produced by Living Waters ministry that asks tough questions about Darwinian Evolution to university professors and students. It's a bit long at 38 minutes but I HIGHLY recommend grabbing a cup of coffee, sitting back, and thinking through the questions asked and the answers given.

Atheist Church

If you’re an atheist what do you do on Sunday mornings? Sleep in? Relax? Picnic? How about go to church? While “atheist” and “church” may seem to go together about as well as oil and water, two atheist stand-up comics in London are trying to change that.

On the way to a stand-up comedy performance, Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans began talking to each other about their mutual enjoyment of ritual, music, church architecture and lack of belief in God. They knew they both wanted to do “something in a church, but without the God bit.”

After reading a significant number or articles and interviews I’d like to take the next few moments to look at what Jones and Evans have created and ask a few questions and make a few observations.

The Sunday Assembly

Sanderson, who plays the role of pastor of the church (and ironically looks a bit like Jesus probably would have with his long hair and beard), is a stand-up comic and former salesman. He doesn’t view himself as a charismatic preacher rather “I just get very excited about things and want to share that with people.” (But isn’t that exactly what a charismatic pastor would say about themselves?) Nevertheless, Sanderson claims the death of his mother greatly influenced his own spiritual journey. (On a side note, I think he is more right about this than he realizes. I’ll have much more to say about this topic in a future post.)

In January 2013 Jones and Evans opened the doors to The Sunday Assembly. They were expecting 20 people and 200 showed up. Soon they had 300, then standing room only, then overflow, then streaming via the web, and now, less than two months later, there is talk of expanding into neighboring countries.

The audience, which is mostly young, white and middle class, crams together in an old church building where they listen to sermons (which range from science lectures to reading from Alice in Wonderland), pray (it’s formally called “silent time”), have fellowship, share food, sing songs, and collect an offering. Furthermore, they are currently seeking the UK equivalent of 501c3 status (non-profit, charitable organization) so that they can become better organized.

As I read more and more about the structure and format, I realized that other than absolutely no mention of God, it would be hard for a visitor to differentiate The Sunday Assembly from a normal church in terms of flow of the service.

While Jones and Evans claim that they don’t put down other religions at their services, it’s hard to support those claims with sermon titles such as “Everyone will die and there is no afterlife” and song titles like Stevie Wonder’s “Superstition” or “Don’t look back in anger.” In fact, to be honest, while watching the videos about the church and reading the sermon and song titles I got the feeling that they are more hurt and angry and are trying to channel those emotions into something that makes sense to them, more than they are trying to truly be church.

3 Questions

Giving serious thought to some of the claims made by Jones and Evans I have come up with a few questions and observations that merit further discussion. The official purpose statement of The Sunday Assembly is “Live Better, Help Often, Wonder More.” My question is How and Why? What does it mean to live better? Better than what? Aren’t you already living better than the 200,000 men, women and children that die every week in India due to malnutrition and treatable diseases? You live in a very wealthy and expensive first world country with access to some of the best health care and sanitary conditions in human history. What is it you want better? An even better question than that is Why? Why should I help often? What is the purpose of that? Why is that a good thing to do? Both of these questions are very important, because outside of an objective moral standard set by God, you cannot say that helping others is good or that dying in poverty is bad. You can say “I would personally choose to help someone” or “I would prefer not to be in poverty” but you cannot say “It is good for you to help someone.” Goodness, outside of God, cannot and does not exist. God, by definition, is the only being capable of setting that standard. (Volumes of books have been written about this subject so I cannot, in the space of a paragraph, give a full explanation of my argument here.)

Jones and Evans claim that they “celebrate life.” My question is “How can you celebrate something that happened entirely by random chance?” Or even better, “Why should you?” And “Why is life a worthier cause to celebrate than death?”  If there was no intentionality or causal factor to our existence, what is worthy of celebration? That you lasted one more day before the lights went out in a world full of tragedy, violence and pain where children are abused and humans trafficked the same way you buy milk or bread at the store? If there is no God, than those things are equally as virtuous as honesty, kindness and love. Even serial killer Jeffery Dahmer saw the consequences of an atheistic worldview.

My last question deals more with the structure and content of The Sunday Assembly. If fellowship is truly your goal, then why not come together at a community center and share a meal together. Why make your event virtually identical to the antithesis of what you believe in? Many atheists I’ve talked to told me they used to believe in God, but didn’t like what they saw in the church. Whether that be hypocrisy, distrust of well known clergy, churches always asking for money or a number of other issues. I’ve experienced some of those things as well in my own story. The Sunday Assembly however, collects an offering, has a celebrity as their pastor, soon will be a legally recognized organization and meets in a church building, but few seem to have a problem with that. Furthermore, why is getting up on Sunday morning and going to a building that historically represents what you are completely opposed to, to listen to depressing sermons that speak of no afterlife and no hope to sing songs openly mocking others, a worthy endeavor? If you’re truly seeking community, is that where you find it?

3 Wake up Calls for Christians

 In my research about what The Sunday Assembly truly is and isn’t, I realized there are several implications for the church today.

First, one of the articles states “A gathering of nonbelievers in an old deconsecrated church in North London has apparently discovered that once you’re free of all that drab God mumbo jumbo, church can be a blast.” Why is the assumption that church is a drag? Why is it not enjoyable now? Followers of Jesus know the only cure for the most deadly disease in the history of civilization (sin has a 100% mortality rate), shouldn’t sharing that with others be cause for joy and celebration. When did our houses of worship turn to drab and boring? Why are they perceived that way? How can we change it back?

Second, Evans says “The idea is about keeping a center of community for those who are losing their religious faith.” I find it very interesting that she says “losing” and not “lost.” These are disenfranchised people. Rather than embracing them we’ve (the church) ended up pushing them away. At another point in one of the articles it states “Many attendees wouldn’t actively identify themselves as atheists, yet have decided to abandon their Christian faith.” Reading firsthand accounts from those that enthusiastically attend The Sunday Assembly, I wonder if their problem is really with God or, more likely, with the church? Is it any wonder that while The Sunday Assembly has over 300 people attending their service, the St. Paul’s church next door has only 30?

Third, perhaps The Sunday Assembly attendee Gintare Karalyte says it best when she says “I think people need that sense of connectedness because everyone is so singular right now, and to be part of something, and to feel like you are part of something that’s what people are craving in the world.” I couldn’t agree with her more. People are longing to be part of something. Even a cursory reading of Acts 2:42-47 or Hebrews 10:24-25 shows that a huge part of the purpose of the church is fellowship. A place where people belong, are welcomed and loved.

I sincerely hope that those attending the atheist church will soon see it for what it truly is; empty, depressing, and providing all the wrong answers because if there is truly is no God, than science lectures, Alice in Wonderland, and songs by Queen is as good as it will ever get until the lights go out for good.

All quotes were taking from the following articles:

The List

NY Daily News

MSN

Click here to see a video interview with Jones and Evans

Scroll down to the bottom of this BBC article to watch avideo about the church. 

Just One Question....

I guarantee that watching this will be the most meaningful, thought provoking and impacting 33 minutes you'll spend all week......

Oprah Winfrey and the One World Church

I came across this video today that does a great job of explaining exactly what Oprah Winfrey believes about God via her own words and the words of her spiritual leader.

Considering how many millions of followers she has, it is worth taking five minutes to develop a good understanding of her spiritual beliefs so you will know the truth next time her name comes up at the water cooler.

The Religion of Oprah Winfrey from ericbarger on GodTube.

Men Who've Had Abortions

When one thinks about abortion and its victims, the first thought that comes to mind is, of course, the killing of an innocent human being. After that perhaps thought is given to the millions of women who have spent every day since having their abortion, regretting the decision they made (See Here). But what about the father? Are men affected by the decision of a woman to have an abortion? Here is a look at that very question.


The following was written by Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It appeared on his blog on January 8, 2008.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new voice is emerging in the abortion debate, and this voice is a powerful witness to the tragedy of killing the unborn. This voice is the voice of the fathers of abortion.

"We had abortions. . . . I've had abortions," says Mark B. Morrow, a Christian counselor and participant in arranging four abortions. Morrow was speaking to a gathering of men who have become antiabortion activists through reflection on their own experiences and their own lost children.

Stephanie Simon of The Los Angeles Times provides a report on this new movement in "Changing Abortion's Pronoun," published in the January 7, 2008 edition of the paper. Here is her introduction to the story:

Jason Baier talks often to the little boy he calls Jamie. He imagines this boy -- his son -- with blond hair and green eyes, chubby cheeks, a sweet smile. But he'll never know for sure. His fiancee's sister told him about the abortion after it was over. Baier remembers that he cried. The next weeks and months go black. He knows he drank far too much. He and his fiancee fought until they broke up. "I hated the world," he said. Baier, 36, still longs for the child who might have been, with an intensity that bewilders him: "How can I miss something I never even held?"

That question haunts many men, as Simon's report makes clear. These men are raising their voices against abortion and the Culture of Death, and they call themselves "post-abortive men." As Simon explains, "Abortion is usually portrayed as a woman's issue: her body, her choice, her relief or her regret. This new movement -- both political and deeply personal in nature -- contends that the pronoun is all wrong."

The concept of "post-abortion syndrome" has gained currency in recent years as women who have experienced abortions speak of their trauma and pain. As the paper's report acknowledges, these reports of post-abortion pain and deep distress were cited in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision allowing the government to ban partial-birth abortions.

The focus on the voices of men is new, but it reveals again that abortion takes a toll on all concerned, including those who are the fathers of aborted babies. The stories vary with the individuals involved. Some of these "post-abortive men" demanded and facilitated the abortion, others never knew of the pregnancy until it was too late.

More from Mark Morrow:

Morrow, the counselor, described his regret as sneaking up on him in midlife -- more than a decade after he impregnated three girlfriends (one of them twice) in quick succession in the late 1980s. All four pregnancies ended in abortion. Years later, when his wife told him she was pregnant, "I suddenly realized that I had four dead children," said Morrow, 47, who lives near Erie, Pa. "I hadn't given it a thought. Now it all came crashing down on me -- look what you've done." A few months ago, Morrow reached out to the ex-girlfriend who aborted twice. They met and prayed together, seeking peace. After they parted, she spilled her anger in a letter: "That long day we sat in that God-forsaken clinic, I hoped every moment that you would stand up and say, 'We can't do this'. . . but you didn't."

"Look what you've done." Those words come with a haunting sense of reality, guilt, and grief. These voices are also causing concern among abortion rights advocates. As Simon reports:

Abortion rights supporters watch this latest mobilization warily: If anecdotes from grieving women can move the Supreme Court, what will testimony about men's pain accomplish? "They can potentially shift the entire debate," said Marjorie Signer of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, an interfaith group that supports abortion rights.

We can only respond with the hope that she is right. While the primary focus of the pro-life movement should be on the unborn baby who deserves to be born, a focus on the effects of abortion on both the women and the men involved holds the potential of reaching more minds and hearts.

A new voice is being heard in the abortion debate -- and it's about time.

Dangerous Christianity?

On the September 12, 2006 edition of The View, actress Rosie O'Donnell stated:

"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America."

I've often thought about this quote. What exactly does she mean by "radical Christianity?" Why would she say that? Simply for shock value? Or does she truly believe it?

I thought about it again this morning. I was doing some research and thumbing through Josh McDowell's classic apologetic Evidence that Demands a Verdict. In reference to the late D. James Kennedy and Jerry Necombe's book What if Jesus had never been born?, McDowell pens the following:

They [Kennedy and Necombe] begin with the assumption that the church, the body of Christ, is Jesus’ primary legacy to the world. Then they examine what has happened in history that displays the influence of the church. Here are a few highlights they site:

• Hospitals, which essentially began during the middle ages
• Universities, which also began during the middle ages. In addition, most of the world’s greatest universities were started by Christians for Christian purposes
• Literacy and education of the masses
• Representative government, particularly as it has been seen in the American experiment
• The separation of political powers
• Civil liberties
• The abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and in modern times
• Modern science
• The discovery of the new world by Columbus
• Benevolence and charity; the good Samaritan ethic
• Higher standards of justice
• The elevation of the common man
• The high regard for human life
• The civilizing of many barbarian and primitive cultures
• The codifying and setting to writing of many of the worlds languages
• The greater development of art an music. The inspiration for the greatest works of art.
• The countless changed lives transformed from liabilities into assets to society because of the gospel
• The eternal salvation of countless souls

Have there been abuses by the church? Unfortunately yes, no one is denying that. But to say radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam, well, I'll let you be the judge of that.

The Tomb of Jesus?

Okay I realize the alleged discovery of the tomb of Jesus has been around for a few weeks and I haven't posted anything about it yet.

I came across a poll that said 97% of all people think that James Cameron's documentary is a fraud so I didn't think it was worth addressing. But after more thought I realized not everyone may see it the same way as I do and someone may come across a person from that remaining 3%.

Several well respected scholars and websites have already covered this topic extensively so I'm not going to reinvent what's been done. The following are the places I think do an excellent job while maintaining readability:

Associates for Biblical Research (By far the most thorough analysis, written by a friend of mine)

CARM (Always one of my favorite sites)

Stand To Reason (A review of the documentary from STR)

Bible Places Blog (This site has lots of links but you may need to do a little digging)

I also address the issue of the tomb of Jesus HERE, HERE, and HERE

The Saddest Thing I Ever Heard…

In a recent online interview with America Online utilizing Instant Messenger, actress Eva Mendes was asked about her character in the upcoming movie “Ghost Rider.” During the interview we see a moment of brutal honesty about the reality of her world. The following from Eva (writing under the user ID RoxieLovesBlaze and complete with typos) just broke my heart:

MoviefoneKevin: that's cool. did you check out the comic books at all?

RoxieLovesBlaze: yes! comic book roxie looks different than i do, and i just hope that die hard fans embrace me in this role. also, i love the idea of selling ur soul to the devil since i work in hollywood and i sell my soul a little every day.........

At first I thought this was just another victim of the Hollywood lifestyle. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized Jesus came in contact with people just like Eva two thousand years ago.

Jesus addressed the crowd in Mark 8:36-37 and asked “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? What will a man give in exchange for his soul?”

It appears that Eva has answered “a career in the limelight.”

Such a fleeting, temporal endeavor in exchange for the most precious of all gifts. My heart breaks when I think of the day when Eva comes face to face with the reality of Luke 12:20 where Jesus says:

"But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?'

The Guardian

Due to the busyness of my schedule I don’t often get a chance to go to the movies and when I do, I usually go to one that doesn’t require much heavy thinking, as a way to “escape” if you will. This blog is not a source for movie reviews, however it does focus on contemporary apologetics and after watching this movie, it got me thinking about something that I wanted to share with you.

I went and saw “The Guardian” a few days ago. The Guardian (staring Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher) is a movie about the United States Coast Guard rescue swimmers. Although the film takes some creative license, these men and women have arguable the most difficult job in the world. When you are far out to sea in the middle of a dangerous storm and your boat is sinking, these men and women risk their own lives, as their motto so clearly states, “So Others May Live.”

So others may live. What a noble concept; sacrificially ending one’s own existence so that someone else can extend theirs. It sounds nice but is it accurate?

Perhaps being accurate isn't the right question. Perhaps a better question would be to ask “Is believing in the nobility of laying down one’s life so that another can live, consistent with a person’s worldview?”

Let me try to unpack that a bit:

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I believe that human beings are valuable because they are made in the image of God (See Genesis 1:26). Sacrificing one’s own existence for another is noble and virtuous. John 15:13 says “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

However not everyone can say that. There are many different worldviews and religions that teach many different things. Depending on your specific worldview/religious beliefs will determine whether you truly believe saving another’s life at great personal risk is noble, foolish, or moot.

Consider the following:

Evolution/Naturalism – An evolutionist (or naturalist) believes that mankind exists as the result of pure accident. That protons, neutrons and atoms just happened to combine the right way to create life and over billions of years humans are the latest in a series of life forms. But if you believe in evolution you can’t ascribe worth to a human any more than you can a rock. Neither has more value than the other. Jumping from a helicopter into 20 foot seas to save a person is no more noble than trying to save a piece of granite.

Furthermore, risking your life to save another is contradictory to the “survival of the fittest” philosophy embraced by Charles Darwin. Darwin stated that mankind’s chief end is to survive in order to pass down your genes to the next generation. Those most fit to survive will pass on their genes and those least fit will die off, thereby continuing the evolutionary process. But by risking your life to save someone else, you not only risk removing yourself from the gene pool, but enabling one “less fit” to continue to pass their genes on. Rather than being a righteous action, the rescue swimmer is simply demonstrating his/her own “less fit” status for passing on genes than that of the victim. Saving another’s life at risk to your own is a complete contradiction of Darwin’s philosophy. (To further develop this concept read my post on “What is a Right?” by Clicking Here).

Hinduism – A Hindu would have a hard time finding the nobility in sacrificing your life because the victim essentially had it coming to them. Hindu’s would argue that the victim’s potential drowning must have been bad karma from his/her previous life. They would say that hopefully in the next life the victim would do better in breaking free from the cycle of reincarnation.

Buddhism – A Buddhist would find no nobility or justification in self-sacrifice because there really isn’t a problem at all. The victim isn’t really drowning and you’re not really there to save them because you, the victim, and the raging seas around you don’t really exist in the first place. You just appear to be a person at a specific point in the cycle towards reaching enlightenment. It's simply an illusion.

Atheism – An atheist would have to find the rescue swimmer foolish to sacrifice his/her life. Since atheists don’t believe in God they can’t justify or attribute any value to human beings, and since they don’t believe in an afterlife, there would be no “reward” in heaven (or paradise etc.) for the foolish actions of the rescue swimmer. Nothing to look forward to but complete nothingness as your body rots away.

When I look at these different worldviews in this situation I find myself struggling with what I know to be true in reality. That deep down in my heart, saving another's life is a good thing. While sitting in that theatre I don’t know how many Buddhists, Hindu’s, Atheists, or Naturalists there were, but I presume there had to be some. However I couldn’t find a single person in that theatre that seemed to be feeling anything less than genuine admiration for the rescue swimmers of the US Coast Guard. Nobody mumbled about “foolish acts for no good reason.” Nobody yelled out that “Nothing that film depicts really existed so what’s the big deal?” Nobody sighed outloud “He must have deserved to drown due to Karma. I’m sure he’ll do better in the next life.”

Not one single person. In actuality it was quite the opposite. I personally believe that’s because deep down in all of our hearts we know that sacrificing our life for another is among the most noble, generous, loving things we can do.

We can make up all kinds of excuses about where we came from, whether we have a second shot at life, or whether we even exist at all, but when it comes time to put our beliefs to the test, all these beliefs will fail, most without even realizing it, because God didn’t create us that way.

God loves mankind so much that he sacrificed his Son for us, and being made in his image and following his example, it is the supreme act of love to do it for another and for that reason alone, do we find self-sacrifice for the benefit of others to be among the most noblest of all deeds.

What Does A True Christian Look Like?

"...And even in the painful aftermath of the shootings, the Amish continued their witness to the love of Christ, reaching out to Roberts’s family, attending Roberts’s funeral, comforting his wife and children, and providing for them through a fund established for Roberts’s victims and their families. One victim’s family even invited the Roberts to their daughter’s funeral. In the most dramatic way, they forgave Roberts."
-- BreakPoint Commentary - 10-11-06 - Charles Colson

By now almost all of us have heard about the recent tradgedy in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania where 5 young Amish girls were executed by a gunman (Charles Roberts) in their schoolhouse. But while many of us try to sort through our own feelings there has been little coverage, or at least little understanding, of how and why the Amish are handling it the way they are.

Quite simply, the Amish are taking the words of Jesus literally.

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."
-- Matthew 5:43-44

Perhaps Katie Weaver, an Amish woman that traveled from Michigan to support those in Pennsylvania, said it best, "We can tell people about Christ and actually show you in our walk that we forgive, not just say it."

But how can someone forgive another when something so bad has happened? That's a great question. Is it a clear understanding that our own sin is just as bad in God's eyes? Is it being able to tap into some sort of supernatural strength from God? Is it both of these or even more? I wish I had a clear cut answer. Until I do I take comfort in knowing that not even Jesus' 12 closest friends figured it out right away.

[Jesus speaking] "And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him." And the apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!"
-- Luke 17:4-5


Read the entire BreakPoint commentary

Has Billy Graham Become an Inclusivist?

I know I have a hard time imagining that as well but after having read a featured article in the August 14th edition of Newsweek magazine I was definitely surprised to learn of the evolution of some of his beliefs.

The article was written by the managing editor of Newsweek, Jon Meacham. If that name rings a bell it may be because I wrote a critique a few years ago of his article about the birth of Christ. [To read those critiques Click Here and Click Here].

Here are some of the “highlights” (or lowlights) of Meachams interview with the most well-known evangelist of all time:

[In reference to the Bible] …"I'm not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord," Graham says. "This is a little difference in my thinking through the years." He has, then, moved from seeing every word of Scripture as literally accurate to believing that parts of the Bible are figurative…

I’d be interested to know how he reconciles that with Second Timothy 3:16 which states “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” [emphasis mine].

[At one point in the article Meacham inserts a section from an interview with Franklin Graham, Billy’s son.] In perhaps his most celebrated remark, Franklin has referred to Islam as "a very evil and wicked religion," and declines to back down. "After 9/11, there were a lot of things being said about how the God of Islam and the God of the Christian faith were one and the same, but that's simply not true ... ," Franklin told NEWSWEEK. "The God that I worship does not require me to kill other people. The God that I worship tells me I am to love my enemy, to give him food when he's hungry and water when he's thirsty."…. Asked about his son's use of the phrase "evil and wicked" in reference to Islam, Graham says: "I would not say Islam is wicked and evil ... I have a lot of friends who are Islamic. There are many wonderful people among them. I have a great love for them. I have spoken at Islamic meetings, in Nigeria and in different parts of the world."

Refusing to condemn the worship of a false God? I could be way wrong, but it seems to me anything that worships and praises a false God would be, by definition, evil and wicked (remember the first commandment?). I guess I just can’t see how God would look at that sort of behavior and be pleased with it.

Finally, here is the biggest ouch moment for me. Billy Graham, the man who has preached of Salvation through Jesus alone, all over the entire world for the past 60 years goes on to say:

A unifying theme of Graham's new thinking is humility. He is sure and certain of his faith in Jesus as the way to salvation. When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: "Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won't ... I don't want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have." Such an ecumenical spirit may upset some Christian hard-liners, but in Graham's view, only God knows who is going to be saved: "As an evangelist for more than six decades, Mr. Graham has faithfully proclaimed the Bible's Gospel message that Jesus is the only way to Heaven," says Graham spokesman A. Larry Ross. "However, salvation is the work of Almighty God, and only he knows what is in each human heart."

Wow! I know, not what I was expecting to hear either. Don’t get me wrong, I completely agree that only God knows the heart, God loves everyone, and that God alone is the gatekeeper of heaven’s doors. But I also believe John 14:6 that says “Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. It seems clear to me that belief in Jesus for the forgiveness of one’s sins is a foundational requirement. I can’t understand where he see’s a loophole for those religions that deny Christ. Then again, the article is written by a strong opponent of historical Christianity and it’s quite possible that Billy’s words have been twisted against him to support Meacham’s personal agenda.

If you’d like to read the article, in its entirety for yourself, go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14204483/. I'd be very interested to read any of your comments whether you agree or disagree with me.

What About the Gospel of Thomas?

Ever since 1999 when the movie Stigmata came out, there has been much controversy over a book known as The Gospel of Thomas. In the movie the Catholic church was portrayed as trying to hide this book by labeling it a heresy because if people found out about its existence chaos would break out. In turn, many people I’ve met have automatically assumed this book is legitimate and accept it as such. So what’s the deal? Does the Gospel of Thomas belong in Bible? If no, than why not? Let’s take a look.

I find it ironic that most, if not all of the people I talk to that defend this book have never read it for themselves. I firmly believe that anyone who actually takes the time to read it will most assuredly come to the conclusion that it has absolutely no business being placed in the Bible. In the interest of fairness, I have provided a link for you to check it out for yourself. To read the actual Gospel of Thomas Click Here. The Gospel is only 114 verses long and can be read in about 10 minutes. I’ll go ahead and wait here until you’re done.

While some are reading the text for themselves, I’ll go ahead and give some background information for those who elected not to. The Gospel of Thomas doesn’t read like a real Biblical Gospel. That is, instead of reading in story-like fashion, it is a collection of Jesus’ alleged sayings. They are then presented independently much like the book of Proverbs. The book is very confusing. It has an eastern philosophical sound to it along with heavy Gnostic concepts. If you don’t know what a Gnostic concept is I’d encourage you to stop here and read my last post (What is Gnosticism? posted on December 16, 2004)

The Gospel of Thomas was found in 1945 at a dig known as Nag Hammadi. The text was found in a collection with other known Gnostic documents. The author of the book is unknown and no Scholar I know of thinks Thomas the disciple actually wrote it. It is important to note that because the book doesn’t list any historical events (such as in a narrative) we cannot independently verify its validity. That is, we cannot prove that the sayings are legitimately from Jesus.

Although we only have fragments of the Gospel of Thomas dating to 200 AD, most Scholars think the book was written between 100 and 150 AD. Seems like quite the coincidence that this time frame occurred during the high point of Gnosticism. The document found at Nag Hammadi is the ONLY complete document we have of the book and it was written in Coptic. This is significant for two reasons. First, the original was most likely written in Greek and secondly, the Nag Hammadi document dates to about 350 AD. So, quickly recapping, we have only one complete document, written 200 hundred years after the original was written, in a language other than the original language, and we have no way to independently verify the historical accuracy of Jesus’ sayings. So far this isn’t looking good for those who advocate the legitimacy of the book but let’s continue on to look at what the text actually says.

True to Gnostic belief in “special knowledge”, the Gospel of Thomas takes several stories found in the Bible and twists them to either add or change components within. For example, in Matthew 22:21 Jesus says “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” However, according to the Gospel of Thomas in verse 100 it reads “They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, "The Roman emperor's people demand taxes from us." He said to them, "Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine.” See how the author of the book completely misses the point Jesus is trying to make, and adds “special knowledge” to extend Jesus’ statement.

The author of the Gospel of Thomas apparently has quite a bit of this special knowledge. In 1st Corinthians 2:9 the Apostle Paul writes “but just as it is written, "Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, And which have not entered the heart of man, All that God has prepared for those who love Him." Now compare this with the Gospel of Thomas verse 17 “Jesus said, "I will give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human heart." These two passages seem much too similar to be a mere coincidence. So who actually said it? The Apostle Paul, from which we have much evidence, or Jesus as quoted from the Gospel of Thomas from which we have virtually no evidence?

The following is a compilation of just a few of my favorite quotes from the Gospel of Thomas. I have cited their verse references for you to check it out for yourself. Some of these are amusing and others are just downright confusing. Regardless of which, it is important to remember that Jesus always taught in parables, and never in soundbites.

7 Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

14 Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits…

105 Jesus said, "Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore."

112 Jesus said, "Damn the flesh that depends on the soul. Damn the soul that depends on the flesh."

86 Jesus said, "[Foxes have] their dens and birds have their nests, but human beings have no place to lay down and rest."

And my personal favorite…….

114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

As we have seen the Gospel of Thomas is a very different book from any book found in the Bible. As addressed in previous posts the books of the Bible were very carefully put together after passing stringent criteria. The Gospel of Thomas meets none of those criteria. In an effort to grab power, Gnostics put their own spin on Jesus words and recorded them in this text. As stated before, we have only one complete document dating from 200 years after the original was written and it is in a foreign language. As if that weren’t bad enough, we have no way to verify its claims. In conclusion I hope you can clearly see that one can argue that either the New Testament or the Gospel of Thomas or neither of the two accurately depicts the person of Jesus, but one cannot argue that both the New Testament AND the Gospel of Thomas together accurately portray him

What is Gnosticism?

Gnosticism is a heretical (a teaching contrary to Biblical doctrine) belief system that has been around for quite some time and is still causing problems today. We are surrounded by Gnostic teachings and beliefs on a regular basis (i.e. The Gospel of Thomas) so I think it is important to take a quick look at what Gnosticism is and where you will see it today.

Gnosticism, which comes from the Greek word gnosis, (which means “knowledge,”) became very popular during the second century AD. Gnosticism wasn’t always known by this name. It was originally known as the “Colossian Heresy.” In fact, the Apostle Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians with the sole intent to combat the influence Gnosticism was having on Christians.

At first glance, one could say that Gnosticism appears to be where oriental mysticism meets Greek philosophy. However a more in depth look reveals that instead of being a set of beliefs, Gnosticism tends to be more of a framework for how one view’s the world. Gnosticism in its most basic form attempts to answer two basic questions: “How can evil be explained for God is supreme?” and “What is the relationship between God and matter?” Gnostics believe that they have a special secret knowledge that is hidden from most believers. They believe that the spirit is good, but all flesh, as well as the entire physical world, is evil. They believe that a mutual dualism exists between God and evil. Gnostics are dualists. A dualist is someone who believes that both God and the material world exist, but yet God doesn’t ever intervene or interact with the natural world.

In regards to Jesus Christ, Gnostics deny Christ as both God and Savior. Naturally this indicates that they deny the atonement. They believe Christ only appeared to be a human but yet he wasn’t. This view has some serious ramifications. First and foremost, if they don’t believe in Christ as their savior, how can they get to heaven? Gnostics believe that knowledge of one’s true self and of the character of the universe is the way to salvation. They believe that salvation is achieved when at death the person passes through barriers and is reintegrated with God. Being reintegrated with God tends to have a pantheistic flavor to it. (Pantheism is a belief that God is everything). This utter rejection of Christ will lead to eternal separation from God. (See John 14:6)

Gnosticism is still common today. It is big with new agers as well as those in mind science cults, such as Christian Science. (For example, Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, writes “Jesus is the human man and Christ is the divine idea. Jesus is not the Christ but the highest human corporeal concept.”) Can you see the elements of Gnosticism we discussed above as being present in Mary Baker Eddy’s statement?

Some people have even formed a Gnostic Church. I don’t know much about this church other than on one hand they use church saints, the church calendar, and the Bible, yet on the other hand they use Gnostic Scriptures (i.e. the Gospel of Thomas), Catechisms, and readings. You can check out the Gnostic Church’s website at http://gnosis.org/.

In my next posting, I will be dealing with perhaps the most popular Gnostic doctrine out right now, The Gospel of Thomas.

A Response to Jon Meacham's Newsweek Article (Part 2 of 2)

Okay, let's have a quick recap then get right into it. So far we've determined that Jon Meacham's article lacks any objectivity and makes several assertions without offering any support for them. The next issue I would like to address is Meacham’s selection of expert Scholars. Meacham knew that he would have to use experts to verify his point. However, instead of selecting from a wide range of Scholars, he conveniently stacks the deck with the most liberal Scholars around. Let’s take a closer look at his selections.

Meacham first quotes Robert Miller, a member of the Jesus Seminar and a professor of religion at Juniata College located in whoknowswhere. Meacham states “The Jesus Seminar, a group of Scholars devoted to recovering the Jesus of history, is a battalion in this long-running culture war.” Now if you know anything about the Jesus Seminar, this quote alone would prove how inaccurate the report is. These self-appointed scholars are virtually a laughing stock among Scholars of textual criticism. I’ll save an analysis of them for another time but basically they went through everything Jesus said in the Bible and voted as to whether or not they thought he really did say it by throwing colored beads onto a table. Pretty advanced stuff eh? These guys are an embarrassment to a truly intellectual investigation of historical Christianity.

Meacham then quotes Raymond E. Brown. Now opinions of Brown vary depending on whom you ask. But basically he is a deceased Catholic Priest who caused quite a ruckus when he openly began advocating that “Scripture very well may contain errors in areas not essential to salvation.” Of course there are some logical problems with this which he couldn’t answer such as: “How can it have errors in non-essential areas but not essential ones?” and “How would you be able to tell?” Without meaning to disrespect Brown, it is fair to say that he is looking at the issue through biased lenses.

Meacham then quotes Elaine Pagels. Pagels has written several books promoting texts that have long been deemed heretical by mainstream Christianity (i.e. The Gospel of Thomas). Pagels herself stated “I’m advocating, on some level, the inclusion of [religious texts] that were considered blasphemous. I suggest that there are ways of embracing a far wider spectrum of religious diversity within Christianity and quite beyond Christianity.” Inclusion of texts that are considered blasphemous? Oh here is a Scholar who I'm sure would be able to offer us a neutral opinion. Unbelieveable.

The final Scholar that Meacham quotes is the Reverend H.B. London. London is a Vice President at Focus on the Family. London is the lone conservative among these liberal wolves. Instead of allowing him to provide an opposing view, Meacham decides to twist London’s words around to make conservative Christians look foolish. He quotes London as saying “…our faith is somewhat childlike.” Now I wasn’t there for the interview, but I have a feeling London was alluding to the fact that just as a child genuinely trusts and loves their parents, so too must we trust and love God’s word. However, that is not how the quote comes across in Meacham’s passage. Instead we are made too look like foolish children believing in something as obviously false as Santa Clause.

I hope you can see that of the four Scholars interviewed, two of them are to the very far left of the spectrum, one of them is just to the left of the middle, and the lone right-wing is made to look like a fool. Folks, as I’ve mentioned in previous posts, anyone can make the Bible say anything they want if they take it out of context. This is exactly what Meacham has done here; he has intentionally selected Scholars that will agree with his views without adequately representing any opposing viewpoints.

The last part of the article I want to address is an issue that has been circulating for quite some time. Hopefully this is the last time it will need to be addressed. This issue is in regards to Isaiah 7:14. This verse states “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.” The issue is whether or not the prophet Isaiah is actually stating that the Messiah will be born of a virgin. As is his style, Meacham decides to quote Ray Brown as truth and offers no opposing viewpoint. Brown is part of a very small group of people that argue the word “virgin” is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew. He believes the word is better translated as “young girl” which would effectively make the prophecy meaningless.

Okay, time for a quick Hebrew lesson. The Hebrew word used for virgin is “almah” The word almah is translated in the Septuagint (the Greek version of what we know as the Old Testament. This document was very popular and well known in Jesus’ day) as “virgin.” Wouldn’t it seem logical that if the word was translated wrong, someone, maybe even Jesus or Mary, would see to it that it was corrected? Also considering how old the document is, isn’t it reasonable to assume they translated it correctly? Secondly, many other places in Scripture that use the word almah clearly imply the woman is a virgin. The word never once refers to a married woman, a child, or a mature woman. It is absolutely reasonable to translate this word as “virgin.” Lastly, if the virgin birth wasn’t true, wouldn’t it seem logical that Jesus’ half brothers, James and Jude, would have either used their position of influence to correct the error, or refuted it in the books of the Bible they wrote? After all, they were with him long before his public ministry began; they would know better than anyone. Yet, oddly enough, they did nothing of the sort. As I’ve previously stated, this controversy has been around for a while but there is absolutely no truth to the claim.

I’d like to thank you for staying with me through this response to Meacham's article. I know it has been lengthy but I hope you learned a thing or two. This article is just one more example of someone who absolutely refuses believe the Bible and will develop any kind of argument to oppose it regardless of its accuracy. Just because we don’t know how something could have happened doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. A miracle, by its definition, is rare and without explanation. Doesn’t it seem logical that not being able to explain the virgin birth is consistent with this? 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” Notice that it doesn’t refer to just the parts we understand. I’ve looked at the evidence from both sides. I believe that if God could create the universe, a virgin birth shouldn’t be too tough. After thoroughly comparing this article to the Biblical account, I think it takes more faith to believe the article than in the real story.

If you’d like more information as to the historical evidence of the Bible, life of Jesus or His resurrection, I suggest you buy “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. This is an excellent entry level book written in a clear, understandable way.

A Response to Jon Meacham's Newsweek Article (Part 1 of 2)

It doesn’t happen very often so when it does take note. I am officially speechless. I just finished reading Jon Meacham’s cover story for the December 13th issue of Newsweek magazine entitled Religion: The Birth of Jesus. Now I’m no stranger to the arguments proposed by the secular media in their attempts to discount those that believe in the story of Jesus’ birth as essentially nothing more than a bunch of un-educated backwards fools. However, in an apparently desperate attempt to sell magazines, Newsweek has hit an all time low. It appears as if the General Editor of the magazine is gone for the holidays because even a 5th grader should be able to see some of the gross problems and biased views portrayed. I present the link to the article here for two reasons. First, for those in other countries who may not be familiar with or have access to Newsweek and, second, in the interest of fairness, I will do what Meacham didn’t do; that is provide access to BOTH sides of the story. If you’d like to check out the article you can Click HERE. Beware for it is long (about 7 pages), poorly written, inaccurate, biased and overall just plain garbage.

Due to the length of this article, there is no way I could comment on every inaccurate argument Meacham makes (there are just way to many of them). I will however do my best to focus on the 4 MAJOR issues as I see them. Having studied the science of textual criticism (of which Meacham is doing in this article) at the Master’s level, I feel at least somewhat qualified to critique it. Due to length I will address the first two issues in this post, and the remaining two in my follow-up post. These posts will be lengthy but I think the material is important and hope you’ll stick with me all the way through.

I’d like to start my critique of this article by focusing on the lack of objective guidelines utilized by Meacham. Last I heard, journalism was supposed to be a reporting of the facts in a neutral fashion. Meacham has tossed those rules aside. Starting with the premise that the Biblical story is too preposterous to believe, he goes out of his way to attempt to disprove it. In other words, he writes his article under the pretext that it never happened. Where is the neutrality in that? If you want to present both sides of the story than by all means go for it. But to only present one side and present it as truth is intellectually dishonest and unprofessional. What’s even more interesting is that he starts off his article as if the topic is as hotly contested as the Bush/Kerry campaigns. Yet just a few paragraphs into it he writes that Newsweek’s own poll “… found 79% of Americans believe in the virgin birth and 67% believe the entire Christmas story is accurate.” 79% huh? Sure sounds like a hotly contested topic to me.

I found it interesting that Meacham never directly cites a verse reference. Whenever he quotes a passage from the Bible, he never says where that verse can be found. Instead, he speaks in generalities such as “…according to the book of Matthew it says…” I want to know WHERE it says this. This way I can actually check it out for myself and make sure your statement and interpretation are correct. Scholars adhere to this form of citation (ever written a research paper and had to cite your sources?) Why couldn’t Meacham? Perhaps it is because he knowingly takes several verses completely out of context? Regardless of his reason, it is poor form and unacceptable from a professional journalist.

My first problem is that Meacham makes absolutely no attempts to hide his bias towards the subject. Here is a very small sample of a few of his comments:

“modern grounded people make leaps of faith…” [to accept the original story]

“…they [the Gospel stories] are not necessarily to be taken as accurate in the sense we might take an Associated Press wire report…” Oh yeah, because those can never be wrong. Remember the whole Dan Rather scandal?

“There is, of course, no way to know whether Luke’s story of the heavenly host announcing Jesus’ arrival to the shepherds really happened; one has to believe in angels, and explain away the fact that the Gospels fail to note any communal or individual recollection of this spectacular birth…”

This last one is my favorite becasuse he completely discounts Luke 1:3-4 where Luke, the author, states “it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” Now remember, Luke wasn’t just some nomad wondering around. He was a physician and a historian. He was highly educated. Meacham essentially is saying “even though the person who recorded the story was pretty smart and carefully investigated each and every claim, because I don’t want to believe it, I will simply discredit him and say there was no way to know.” If we follow Meacham’s logic, then I guess every historical event prior to the invention of television must not have really happened since we probably can’t trust the person who recorded it for us. We should also release every prisoner ever convicted from a report filed by a police officer. Everyday the police interview eyewitnesses to crimes and then record the events in a report. According to Meacham's logic, there really is no way we can know if these events recorded by officers really happened or not. Can you see the absurdity in Meacham’s reasoning?

My second issue is that Meacham makes several assertions in his article. This is fine except for one small problem, he conveniently forgets to offer even a smidgen of proof for his claim. For example:

“If we dissect the stories with care we can see that the Nativity saga is neither fully fanciful nor fully factual but a layered narrative of early tradition and enduring theology…” – He not only doesn’t explain what he means by his terms used (i.e. what part isn’t factual, what parts are tradition, etc.) but, he just leaves it as is and moves on to the next topic.

“they [the Gospel writers] wanted to tell the story of Jesus’ birth but apparently had very little to work with” – What is this claim based on? Personal experience? He wasn’t there. 2 Peter 1:16 states “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.” Apparently Peter, who was indeed an eyewitness to Christ’s ministry and most assuredly had ample opportunity to talk with Mary about the details surrounding Christ’s birth, feels confident enough in explaining the truth in the story.

In regards to the Magi searching out Jesus, he argues “there is no historical evidence of such a visit”. What is it he’s looking for exactly? They didn’t have blog journals back then. Those in Jerusalem couldn’t just turn on their satellite dish powered plasma TV’s and watch CNN’s report. Using his logic, since there is technically no historical evidence I went into the backyard and played with my dog today, I guess it didn’t happen.

And finally, perhaps my favorite quote: “neither Mary nor Joseph appears to have been a direct source” How in the world could you he possibly know this. If you had to choose between dozens of eyewitnesses to an event, and one person living 2000 years after the fact, who do you think would know better? During Jesus’ execution he entrusted John with caring for Mary. It seems reasonable that at the very least, Mary could easily have refuted the virgin birth story and cleared the whole issue up if it was false.

To Be Continued...........

A Profound Insight

Once again I know this isn’t my usual type of posting, but this topic has really been on my heart lately and I wanted to share it with you.

A while back Billy Graham's daughter, Anne Graham, was interviewed on The Early Show. Jane Clayson asked her "...If God is good, how could God let this happen?" This question was in reference to the attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. Anne gave quite an insightful response. She said:

"I say God is also angry when he sees something like this. I would say also for several years now Americans in a sense have shaken their fist at God and said, God, we want you out of our schools, our government, our business, we want you out of our marketplace. And God, who is a gentleman, has just quietly backed out of our national and political life, our public life. Removing his hand of blessing and protection. We need to turn to God first of all and say, God, we're sorry we have treated you this way and we invite you now to come into our national life. We put our trust in you. We have our trust in God on our coins, we need to practice it."

I think Anne provides a good insight as to why we as a nation have arrived where we are at. We seem to have come to a place where we don't want God involved in anything we do except in times of crisis. During those times we tend to either turn back toward God, or curse Him for allowing the tragedy to happen. It seems like a double standard to me.

I remember a few weeks after the Columbine High School shootings of 1999 there was a letter written to the editor of the local paper. I was so struck by its simple truth that I cut it out and kept it. This is what it said:

Dear God,
Why didn’t you protect the little children at Columbine High School?
Sincerely,
Concerned Student

God’s Reply:
Dear Concerned Student,
I’m sorry but I am no longer allowed in schools.
Sincerely,
God

For some reason, people seem to think that because God didn’t intervene than he either doesn’t exist, he wasn’t able to intervene, or he doesn’t love us enough to intervene. All three of these statements have responses that are worthy of their own post, and perhaps someday I will address them individually when time allows (or someone requests it). However, they are false conclusions nonetheless. God loves you so much that he sent his child to die for you. It’s easy to tell your friend or your spouse that you’d die for them, but how about sacrificing your child for the benefit of someone you never even met? What about sacrificing your child for someone that hated you? Could you do that? My guess is that although we’d like to nobly answer that we would, in reality we never could. But God did. He not only talked the talk, he walked the walk by being nailed to a cross. Just because we don’t understand why he choose to act a certain way, doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist or wasn’t able to act. To come to that conclusion asserts that we have access to the same decision making criteria that God did. We knew all the factors and how each intricate part would play out. In other words, coming to that conclusion asserts that we are equal with God. The events of 9/11 and Columbine were horrible and hate filled. However, the ultimate act of love was previously demonstrated 2000 years ago. Everything else is just an undeserved blessing from God.

A Recent Discovery

I know this is a bit different from my normal types of posting but I just had to share this information with you. When Christians are asked to “prove” that the Bible was written when it claim's it was or to verify that it hasn’t been changed through the years, one usually refers to the Dead Sea Scrolls; up until recently that is. The Dead Sea Scrolls were single largest piece of evidence we had that proved the Bible had not only been written when it said it was, but that it had not been changed over the centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls are recognized to be from 125 B.C. Well move over Dead Sea Scrolls because you’ve got a new big brother.

In 1979 Dr. Gabriel Barkay discovered two small silver scrolls inside a burial cave in the Old City of Jerusalem. Dr. Barkay documented the evidence but the technology was not available to make it clearly understood what it was he had found. Over the past 25 years, technology has vastly improved. These two small silver scrolls have now been tested by numerous independent, non-biased sources (such as NASA’s JPL and University of Southern California) and found to contain the writing of the book of Numbers 6:24-26 (these verses contain a blessing administered by Priests). In addition, these scrolls are found to date to 2600 years ago which makes them 400 years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls. This discovery helps substantiate the fact that the Pentateuch (which is a Hebrew word that refers to the first five books of the Bible [Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy]) existed before King Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the Temple. (Even though the finding is from the book of Numbers only, most Scholars accept the Pentateuch as an entire collection). Although I won’t go into detail here, this has important implications for supporting Biblical accuracy when it comes to creating a historical timeline.

Once again, the Bible can be found to be accurate. Findings such as these validate the claim that the Bible has NOT been changed through the centuries as many will claim. Christians can rest assured that if we can trust the Bible with the small details (such as the wording of a prayer) we can know for certain that when it speaks of monumental events, such as the fact Jesus was God and that he was raised from the dead, it speaks with precision accuracy.

On a side note, I do find it interesting that these findings (which were published in Sept. 2004) haven’t received much attention in the news. Perhaps it was due to non-stop coverage of the election. Regardless of which I have included two resources here for you to get more information on this discovery. Please note that these are not obscure Christian journals but are the liberal CNN and NY Times. Click HERE for the shorter CNN article and Click HERE for the much more detailed NY Times article.