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.

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.

Is There One God Or Does Everyone Have Their Own God?

This question was sent to me to me not to long ago Answering this questions depends on how one looks at the question. There are many people that believe in their own God. Some people call this god “money,” others call their god “pleasure.” A god can be anything that you feel is the most important thing in your life. (Which is why the first of the ten commandments prohibits this type of behavior). Unfortunately, none of these gods last past death. As far as gods up in Heaven go, there is only one God. We can know this because God has told us in many different places in the Bible. For example, Isaiah 44:6 says "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." God has shown us that there aren’t many gods like the Hindus or ancient Greeks believed but just the one true God.

Can You Give Your Soul to the Devil?

I have thought about this question quite a bit over the past few years, especially since I began prison ministry. I must have been asked this question a hundred times and each time it produces an interesting discussion. I think that in order to prevent confusion we must clarify what we are asking.

The people who regularly ask me this question are not referring to a life of rejection of God and Jesus Christ and therefore, by default, choosing an eternity in hell. (This is what Jesus was referring to in Matthew 16:26). Rather they are talking about whether or not they can physically (or rather, metaphysically for you philosophy giants out there) transfer ownership of their soul to the devil. Imagine if you are buying a used car. That car isn’t yours until the owner hands you the pink slip. Essentially they are asking if they can transfer the pink slip of their soul to the devil.

Often times when prisoners ask me this question it is because they have made some sort of pact with the devil (more often than not while under the influence of drugs). Now that they have sobered up and thought a lot about their decision, they regret it.

Few things give me more joy than to be able to see the look on their faces when I tell them they can’t give their soul to the devil because their soul doesn’t belong to them in the first place, it belongs to God. Therefore they can’t give away something that they don’t have ownership or possession of. It is one of Satan’s great pleasures to lie to us and convince us that we can give our soul to him and then he sits back and watches the depression, sorrow and helplessness it brings. The look of relief on a prisoner’s face who hears this good news is indescribable.

Now don’t get me wrong, as I already stated, a person can willfully choose to reject God and therefore is securing an eternity away from God, however, a person cannot transfer ownership, or the title deed, for the rest of their natural life, to his soul. In other words, if you are still alive, and I presume you are since you are reading this, you aren't "too far gone" or "it's already too late." Taking it further, one could ask: If one could give away his soul to the devil, than how could he come to the place where he is sorry for his sins? In other words, if his soul is gone, he has no ability to realize he is a sinner and needs Jesus in his life for forgiveness. Those qualities and abilities are found in the soul and out of Satan’s hatred for Christ it doesn’t seem likely he would want you focusing on his enemy, Jesus Christ.

God created our souls and they belong to him. We simply choose where they go after death based on our acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ. Below is an excerpt from a journal I kept about my experiences in prison ministry. As you read it, try to imagine yourself in Samuel’s shoes, sitting behind bars with nothing to do all day but think about your life, what you’ve done where you've been and where your're going.

After walking the upper row we walked down the stairs where one of the inmates chained to the TV tables was calling for us. I didn’t realize it at the time, but in hindsight I really feel that this was a “divine appointment” from God. We walked up to him and he identified himself as “Samuel.” Samuel seemed very coherent and I wondered why he was on floor 7 (the mental ward) but I decided not to ask. Samuel wanted to know whether or not it was too late for him to go to heaven because one night while doing drugs he’d given away 90% of his soul to Satan in exchange for protection of his daughter. Samuel fully understood who Christ was and why he died for him and told us that he’d accepted him into his life multiple times. We talked with Samuel for a while and I explained to him that his soul wasn’t his to give away; he could only choose to accept or deny Christ, but that was it. Samuel seemed to understand this and it seemed that a huge load had been lifted off of his shoulders. We prayed with Samuel and told him we would meet with him next week. I really felt encouraged that God is doing a work in Samuel’s life and this was the highlight of my day.

Now since Samuel had accepted Christ into his life previously we could go into a discussion about eternal security, but that isn't my point. My point is that Samuel was at a place where he knew what he did was wrong and that he wanted Christ's forgiveness. If you have given away your soul, you can't come to that place.

One final point to note is that God loves us. He sent his son to die for us. He knows we are sinners and that we do stupid stuff all the time. The character of God is that he will give us every opportunity to come to him but he will never force it. He won't withhold his love for us based on a "technicality" that we gave our soul to the devil. God is not a petty legalist rather he is a God that loves us. John 3:16 states "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Did you notice it didn't mention anything about "except for those who have given away their souls?" Isn't it wonderful that we have a God of love.

Wasn’t Christmas Originally Celebrated as a Pagan Holiday?

I thought that in the spirit of the season I would address a question that seems to come up every year. That is, did Christmas originate as a Pagan holiday? The surprising answer is that although it coincided with pagan festivals that were occurring at around the same time, Christmas itself did not originate from a pagan holiday. (In fact, the word “Christmas” comes from two other words meaning “Christ” and “Maesse” or “mass” which means “The Mass of the Christ.” It is so named because it is in reference to when the Catholic priest re-offers the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross). In order to more fully understand this, we must take a quick look at history.

There are stories of many cultures with celebrations ushering in the winter season. In the Roman Empire, Saturn (the god of sowing) was worshipped in a celebration called “Saturnalia.” This celebration marked the winter solstice and its date varied every year (but it usually occurred between December 17th and 23rd). Now the exact reasoning varies depending on what research you’ve done. Some sources say the church wanted to get rid of the Pagan worship but was having difficulty. Other sources say the Christians wanted to move their celebration of the Lord’s birth (which was already being celebrated in the springtime) to this time to provide a contrast for the Pagan worship. That is it would provide an alternative for Pagan worship as well as help protect Christians that were being wooed into these celebrations. (Similar to what many missionaries do today). Either way, what is agreed upon is that the Roman church wanted to adopt the holiday, they turned it into a celebration of the Lord’s birth, originally called it the “Feast of the Nativity” and it has been a part of western culture ever since.

Many people claim that the celebration is misleading because nobody knows the exact day Jesus was born. I don’t know about it being misleading, but they are absolutely correct about Jesus’ actual birthday. While some Scholars estimate it could have been in April or October or September, no one knows for sure. And that is okay. It’s no different than throwing a belated birthday party for someone whom was out of town. It’s the meaning of the celebration that provides its value, not its accuracy on a calendar. (Considering that our calendar is off by 4 years anyway [i.e. Jesus was actually born in 4 BC] it shouldn’t really matter).

In regards to whether or not Christians should celebrate Christmas I really don’t want to go into because I don’t see it as being an issue important enough to possibly upset someone. Different people have different opinions on the issue and that’s fine. I will say this though; it is the worshipping of Jesus that makes the day holy and not the potential pagan origins that makes the day evil. I see nothing wrong with re-inventing cultural practices with a spiritual meaning; after all God did it. I bet you didn’t know that long before God instituted circumcision as a ritual among the Jews it was being practiced by the Egyptians. To the Egyptians it was a cultural practice. When God gave it to the Jews he gave it to them with spiritual implications. In addition to that, God gave the Jews many different festivals and celebrations throughout the year as opportunities to worship and remember what God did for them.

Whether or not a Christian should celebrate Christmas is a personal choice. For reasons mentioned above, I personally have no problems celebrating Christmas as I focus on the birth of my Savior and not anything else anyone associates with it. If you don’t believe in celebrating Christmas that is definitely your choice, however I have found a well written article that may impact your decision. Click HERE to read it.

How do we Know Jesus Wasn’t Just A “Nut Ball” Walking Around Claiming to be God’s Son?

I believe one should definitely investigate the claims made by anyone who wants people to give their lives over to him. This question has made many rounds through the ranks of professional psychologists many times. One of the many things they have consistently noted is that Jesus simply doesn’t fit the profile of someone who is mentally disturbed. Think about what symptoms you may know a mentally disturbed person to have and then compare them to who Jesus was. Contrary to mentally disturbed person, Jesus never displayed inappropriate emotions. Jesus was able to hold a rational conversation and he didn’t jump to faulty conclusions. He didn’t dress odd or have a weird diet. He had no difficulty in relating to others. In fact he was able to relate to all different kinds of people from all walks of life. When you compare who Jesus was to someone you know to be mentally disturbed, you’ll see that behaviorally, the two have nothing in common.

A second test you could use to see whether or not Jesus was insane or not, would be to investigate his actual claims. For example, let’s say I told you I was the President of the United States. Now if I was insane, I would surely believe that I was the President. However, you probably wouldn’t take my word at face value. You’d probably look to see if I lived in the White House. You’d ask where my Secret Service agents were, and probably watch the news to see if that was me giving speeches. It probably wouldn’t take you very long to realize I wasn’t the President. It is no different with Jesus. If Jesus simply claimed to be God, as some cult leaders do today, that wouldn’t mean very much. However, Jesus backed up his claims. He performed miracles never before and never since seen. He commanded the forces of nature and He even raised himself from the dead! If this wasn’t enough you could evaluate the things that he taught. People from all religions and all cultures agree that Jesus was one of, if not the single greatest moral teacher to have ever walked the face of the earth. Does it make sense that the greatest moral teacher of all time would be insane? I would argue no

Who Made God?

This is a very good question. It is also a very philosophical one and therefore has a philosophical answer. You may need to re-read this two or three times before it makes sense but I will do my best to make it understandable. The very definition of who God is, is explained as “the uncreated creator of the universe.” Therefore God, by definition, is uncreated. The question of who made Him becomes illogical. It’s kind of like asking “Who is that bachelor married to?” The very thing you are describing is impossible. Another way to look at it is like this: God invented time and an inventor cannot be held captive to his invention. Our concept of time moving forward (the future) and moving backward (the past) is the frame of reference we use to mark certain events. Yet God invented this frame of reference. Because God invented it he can’t be forced to be in it. If God isn’t forced to be in time, than he doesn’t need to have a beginning point because a beginning point would be bound in time. Are you confused yet? If so, try re-reading it slowly.

I Heard The Bible Was Not Even Invented Until 400 Years After Jesus Lived?

Usually when I hear this statement, a few clarifying questions show that the person making the claim is just passing on information they’ve heard and have never really investigated it for themselves. Fortunately, I have studied and researched it and I’ll go ahead and set the record straight.

Let’s start with the Old Testament (OT). The most common argument I’ve heard is that books were added to the Old Testament until 100AD with some books being debated until 200 AD. I'm sorry but this just isn't true. The Talmud (teachings) was being compiled during this time, but those are different than the original Hebrew texts. Although Scholars disagree on an exact date, we can say for certain that the Hebrew Bible was completed by around 250 B.C.. This was the time the Septuagint was created FROM the Hebrew Bible TO a Greek translation. (The Septuagint is the Hebrew Bible [Old Testament] written in Greek for Jews living outside of Israel that didn’t speak Hebrew anymore). By necessity a Hebrew Bible had to be present to have a translation made. The Septuagint was very familiar by people of Jesus' day and quoted by many New Testament (NT) authors.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have provided an amazing insight into the age of the OT manuscripts. Vast manuscripts were found including every single book of the Old Testament (except for Esther). These scrolls when compared with the Masoritic texts (dated at 900 AD) show them to be virtually identical. The Dead Sea texts are dated at 125 BC so we can say for certainty that even if we disregarded all the other evidence we have, Isaiah was in its complete form by 125 BC at the ABSOLUTE LATEST. As if this weren't compelling enough, Josephus, a Jewish Historian (who was not a Christian) wrote of the closing of the canon (by name, identical to our current books) as occurring in 4th century BC. It seems ridiculous for us 2000 years later to disregard a secular Scholar living during the time in question.

Now let’s look at the New Testament. First, the complete canonization (canonization means declaring the books of the Bible to be the Holy Word of God) of the Bible (both OT and NT) occurred in 393 AD at the Synod of Hippo. Up until this point, people had little problem determining authentic Scriptures (the Word of God). However, soon various counterfeit "Scriptures" were going around and combined with the edict of Diocletian (303 AD) which required destruction of Christian sacred books, it became apparently clear we needed an "official canon." It should be important to note that the church "determined" the canon much the same way a jury will "determine" a verdict, or a student "determines" an answer, but the church did not have any authority over the canonical works. That is, a book didn't become Holy just because the church said it was. The church used the following criteria to establish the extent of the NT canon:

1. Was the authorship by an apostle or close friend of an apostle?
2. Was the author a Christian leader from the church's first generation?
3. Is it supported by historical traditions as to the writings' authorship and authority?
4. Was it accepted and used by churches throughout the known world?
5. Is it in consonance (complete agreement) with known NT writings and the church's "rule of faith"?

It should be noted that only criteria # 1 was, by itself, sufficient to merit inclusion in the canon. These criteria were combined with the teachings of the apostles to "test the Scriptures." Also, remember that during this time people were being executed over their faith, therefore they didn't just haphazardly decide to include some books but not others. They knew full well they could be killed over these books so they had extra incentive to make sure they were legitimate. Finally, we know that between 13 and 22 of the NT books (that is all but 5 of them) are for sure Scripture based off of other statements in the Bible. (i.e. 1 Tim 5:18, 2 Pet. 3:16, etc.).

Hopefully now you have a little bit more understanding as to how our Bible came to be. As we have seen, the canonization was just a process to make the Scriptures that were already being widely used, including by Jesus Himself, as the complete and true word of God. I believe that it is now apparent that contrary to popular belief, in the case of the Bible there is no correlation between date of canonization and the truthfulness of the words.

Aren’t all Religions Pretty Much the Same?

America is a very pluralistic society (Pluralistic means that “multiple religions are practiced and each one should be viewed as true and valid). Therefore it’s not uncommon to hear statements like “all religions are the same” and “there is truth in every religion.” Over the next few moments we are going to take a brief look at some of the major religions and see how they compare with each other in the three most basic and fundamental components a religion can have; Existence of God, Salvation (how to get to heaven), and Who was Jesus. After this brief look you will see that the major religions are not only, not the same, but in most cases are complete and total opposites.

The first area we will compare is whether or not a personal God exists. Buddhists deny the existence of a personal God. Hindu’s believe in millions of Gods with the two main ones being Vishnu and Siva. Muslims believe in one God but he is non-interacting with humans and very impersonal. Christians and Jews believe in one God that created humans in his own image, loves them, and longs to have a relationship with them. Here we can see that 4 of the worlds 5 largest religions have very different views about whether God exists, how many of them there are, and how God interacts with the world.

The second area we will compare is that of Salvation; that is, how to get to heaven. Buddhists believe “salvation” is by reaching “Enlightenment” through self-effort. (It should be noted that Buddhists don’t believe in a “heaven” per se, it is more like they are breaking the cycle of reincarnation to achieve a state of peace). The Hindu equivalent of heaven is called “Moksha” (It is a "uniting with the Brahman"). One achieves this state by doing good works through the cycle of reincarnation. Once one has achieved the ways of activity, devotion and knowledge, they break the reincarnation cycle and go to Moksha. Muslims believe they go through life with a good angel on their right shoulder and a bad angel on their left shoulder. Each angel records the good and bad deeds the Muslim has done throughout his lifetime. When the Muslim dies he stands before Allah (God) and hopes his good list outweighs his bad list. Even if the good list is longer, Allah still doesn’t have to let him into paradise (heaven). Allowance into paradise is completely at Allah’s will and there is nothing a Muslim can do to secure salvation. (The only exception is to die as a martyr fighting for Islam [which explains why there are so many suicide bombers]). Christians believe they are sinners separated by God because of their sin. Jesus Christ came to pay that price for our sins by dying on the cross and rising again on the third day. Christians believe that if you believe in Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins you can KNOW FOR SURE that you will be in heaven when you die. There are many reasons for believing this but 1 John 5:11-13 is one of the strongest verses because it uses the word “know.”

Okay are you still with me? We’re almost done. The third area we’re going to look at is who is Jesus Christ? Buddhists believe that Jesus was a good teacher. But for the most part they don’t feel that he did anything particularly special and therefore don’t pay any special attention to him. Hindu’s believe that Jesus was just one of many incarnations or “sons of God” Yet they believe he wasn’t a unique son of God. He was no more divine than you or me and he certainly didn’t pay for anybody’s sins. Muslims recognize Jesus as one of, if not the, greatest of all the prophets. However they don’t believe Jesus was God, he didn’t die on the cross, and he didn’t pay for anyone’s sins. Judaism has a very strong stance on Jesus. The Israeli Supreme Court has issued a decree that says “anyone who believes in Jesus as the Messiah is no longer a Jew.” Jews have many different beliefs on who Jesus was but usually it boils down to he was either a great teacher or an imposter Messiah. Christianity has a different view about Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God (that is he was 100% God and 100% man). Christians believe that Jesus was sinless, he died to take away the sins of the world and offer salvation to anyone that wanted it, and he rose again from the dead on the third day.

Whew! That took a little while but I think it was very important. As you can see, the religions of the world are very, very different. We didn’t look at some obscure teachings hidden deep in the sacred texts of these religions, we looked at the basic fundamental belief structure of these religions. I hope you now understand that all religions can’t all be the same. God either exists or he doesn’t. If he exists he is either personal with his creation or he is not. Reincarnation either exists or it doesn’t. Salvation is either guaranteed or it isn’t. Jesus Christ was either God or he wasn’t. Jesus either died for the sins of the world or he didn’t. These are fundamental questions that can only have one answer. Therefore, when the world’s religions disagree on them, we see they CAN'T all be right. It is impossible. It has nothing to do with being intolerant, it's just simple logic.

I do think there is some truth to the statement “there is some truth in every religion” in the sense that many religions teach us to love one another and embrace morality. However, as we have seen, there are some fundamental differences when it comes to who God is and what is necessary for salvation. After studying the evidence, I do believe that God exists and desires to interact with his creation. I do believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God who died on the cross for my sins. You may disagree with my viewpoint, that’s okay, but you can’t argue that all religions are pretty much the same.

Why are there so Many Different Versions of the Bible? Shouldn’t there Just be One? Part 2

The Bible has been translated into more languages than any other book in history. In fact it is currently written in 2,200 different languages with over 90% of the world’s people able to read it. A legitimate question naturally arises as to whether or not errors occur during translation. The short answer to this is no, they don’t occur. First, anytime a new translation is started, a diverse team of Scholars comes together to work on it. This not only ensures that one man with his own agenda will not manipulate the word of God in anyway, but that in the rare cases of uncertainty in how to translate something, a wide array knowledgeable experts can arrive at a consensus. Secondly, all translations (whether English or any other language) are made from the original manuscripts. New translations are never translated from old translations. For example, if one were making a new English translation, they would use the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic manuscripts and not an English version like the King James or New American Standard. Thirdly, new translations always use the oldest manuscripts available. Manuscripts that may not have been discovered until recently will usually take priority over manuscripts that have been used for other translations of the Bible. This is done to help ensure that the translation is as accurate as possible.

Bible translations/versions are nothing new. Two hundred and fifty years before Jesus was born there was a translation of (what we know as) the Hebrew Old Testament into a Greek document called the “Septuagint.” This translation was for non-Hebrew speaking Jews living in Alexandria to have the ability to read their holy scriptures. Many New Testament writers were familiar with the Septuagint and even used it themselves. This shows that translations are not “altering the word of God” yet simply making them accessible to more people.

The English language changes so fast and is so complex that it needs different translations. We must remember that these different translations serve different purposes and there are different times when different translations are appropriate. For example, I use three different translations at any given time. I will use the New Living Translation for pleasure reading because to me it reads like a novel. I use the New International Version for devotionals or quite time because it has a good balance of readability and word-for word translation. I use the New American Standard Bible if I need to know exactly what word is used and how it is supposed to be understood. All three of these translations are accurate and all three are used at the appropriate times and in the appropriate ways they were designed.

Although we have barely scratched the surface, I hope that I have shown you that there are legitimate reasons for having the different versions of the Bible. Feel free to email me with questions or topics you’d like to explore.

Why are there so Many Different Versions of the Bible? Shouldn’t there Just be One? Part 1

Oftentimes people think that because there are so many versions, than the Bible must be continually changing and if the Bible is continually changing than we can’t trust it. However, after a close look, we realize just the opposite is true; the more translations we have, the more accurate it becomes. The word “versions” could probably be better (and more accurately) described as “translations” (therefore we will use these terms interchangeably). Even though the different translations are in English, as you’ll see in a moment, they each serve a different purpose.

To begin with, you may ask “why do we need so many English translations?” There are two reasons for this. The first reason is because we in the United States live in a rapidly changing society (possibly faster than at any other time in history). These changes affect our language, history and culture. Therefore, as translations of the Bible that were written during a different time period (like the King James Version written in 1611 AD) become difficult to read and understand from our worldview, new versions must be compiled to ensure we can understand what the authors wanted us to know. The second reason is that as archeological digs continue to produce more and more ancient manuscripts, we need to continually be checking to make sure we have the most accurate translation possible.

In order to understand the purpose of a translation, it is necessary to take a brief look at how the different translations come about. When a new translation is being prepared, it will follow one of two different schools of thought. The first one is called “formal equivalence.” This method focuses on a word-for-word translation from the original manuscripts. It does its best to preserve the original word order and sentence structure from the original manuscripts as much as possible. The second method of translation is called “dynamic equivalence.” This method focuses on thought-for-thought translation. It seeks to convey the original meaning the author was trying to get across while at the same time remaining readable. (To see a chart that shows all the different translations according to word-for-word or thought-for-thought click here). To get a better understanding of this concept, let’s compare the same verse using each of these two methods. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a very good translation using the word-for-word method. In the NASB, 1 Kings 2:10 reads “Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the City of David.” The New Living Translation (NLT) utilizes the thought-for-thought method of translation. In the NLT 1 Kings 2:10 reads “Then David died and was buried in the City of David.” As you can see the only difference between the two is “slept with his fathers” and “died.” Most of us Americans aren’t familiar with the phrase “slept with his fathers” as meaning someone died (in fact, because our language changes so fast, some people in America today may accidently interpret this to mean something of a sexual nature, even though it is clearly meant for something different). Yet to an ancient Jew that phrase was very well understood. The word-for-word method preserves the original wording while the thought-for-thought method uses a term that makes sense to us. The most important thing is that they both mean the same thing. Regardless of the translation used, we can clearly understand that David died.

You may be asking yourself about whether or not small changes like those discussed above have any bearing on the accuracy of the text. We must remember that anytime you translate something between languages, some things will not carry over. For example, the Spanish language has a future tense while English does not. Many English words have multiple meanings while some French words do not. The very nature of translation requires some small changes to be made. This is why in issues of the Bible, Scholars and many Pastors alike, study Greek and Hebrew so as to be able to look directly at the ancient texts and see exactly what was meant by the author.

Each of these methods has its own pros and cons. In times of general reading for pleasure and understanding the thought-for-thought method is appropriate. However, one should never use a thought-for-thought method to do a study of a particular word meaning or topic. For studies like that, one should use a word-for-word translation.

Is There Life After Death?

This is a very important question to think about because the Bible says that the decisions we make here on earth will last for eternity. The Bible shows us that our body is a sort of “temporary home” for our soul. When we die our physical bodies are useless but our soul will never die. Once we die each and every one of us will stand before Jesus Christ himself. Based on our decision to accept and love him or to reject and despise him while here on earth, will determine what happens next. (Remember there is no "non-choice." A decision not to choose is the same as flatly rejecting him.) Sometimes different cults or philosophies will teach differently, but the hard truth is that there are only two options of where we go when we die; Heaven or Hell. Jesus himself spent a lot of time while on earth describing the differences between the two. The first option is Heaven. Heaven is a beautiful place where those who accepted Jesus as their savior while here on earth will be able to be together for eternity with God. Think about it, this is the place God calls his home; it has got to be awesome! However, God respects the decisions we make while on earth and if we decide we don’t want to have a relationship with him, he respects that too. The place where God allows those who don’t want to be with him is called Hell. Contrary to popular belief, God doesn't just arbitrarily "send" anybody to Hell. Rather out of His love for us He respects the wishes of those who choose to reject him and don't want to be with him. Hell by its very definition means “absence of God.” It is the only place in the universe where God has withdrawn His presence. Because God is not there it is a very ugly place. The Bible describes Hell as a miserable place that no one should ever want to go. The Bible also explains that Hell was not originally meant for humans. It was originally meant for the Devil and his demons but as people chose to reject God it was, the only way God could respect that wish (Remember it's the only place where He isn't present). We must remember that many blatantly evil people have rejected God including Adolph Hitler, Serial Killers, and Satan himself. All of these people will be present in Hell. Imagine spending eternity in a place with all of these people. The Bible clearly states that God desires for no one to go to Hell, however a just and righteous God must punish sin. The solution is to allow Jesus Christ to pay the price for your sins. You still have the opportunity while here on earth to have a relationship with Jesus Christ and ensure that you will spend eternity with him. I'd like to challenge you to look deep within and ask yourself what is stopping you from making this decision? To learn more on how to have a relationship with God, Click Here.

Can you Believe in God & be Faithful to Him, but not Believe in Jesus and Still go to Heaven?

The short answer to this question is; no. Jesus says in John 14:6, referring to Himself, “I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me.” But it is important to realize why it has to be this way. You see, the whole reason we are separated from God in the first place is because we are sinners, in other words, we are people who do things we know we shouldn’t do. Because God is perfect and holy, it is impossible for him to be around sinful humans. God saw that this was a problem so he sent his son Jesus who lived a perfect life to die on our behalf. When Jesus died something amazing happened. In God’s eyes, all the sins that you and I have ever committed were transferred to Jesus. It’s kind of like if you are standing before a Traffic Judge and he says you are guilty of several speeding violations, but then turns around and pays for the ticket out of his own pocket. The Judge recognized that in order to be just, these wrongs needed to be corrected, but he also knew you couldn’t pay for them yourself. If we didn’t believe in Jesus, than there would be no payment made for our sins and those sins would keep us away from God. Belief in Jesus is more than just believing that a long time ago this guy named Jesus existed and actually lived (although that is an important part of it). It is also recognizing that we can’t get to Heaven on our own. Only through Jesus’ paying for our sins could we be allowed in.

There is another way we can look at this question in addition to what we discussed before. Imagine you are looking at it from God’s perspective. For this exercise we will have to stretch our imaginations, but if you bear with me you’ll see the point. Let’s pretend that one of your close friends stole a million dollars from you. He was then arrested and sentenced to life in prison. After some bargaining with the lawyers the Judge decides he’ll let your friend out of jail, if you allow your son to be beaten and jailed in his place. Now, you love this friend of yours more than anything so you decide to allow your son to be imprisoned and beaten on his behalf. So your friend is released from prison and your son taken in exchange. When your friend is released you are there waiting to meet him. However instead of walking up to you and greeting you with hug, he walks right past you and gives you a nasty look. For some unknown reason, he never wants to speak to you again. Not a “thank you” or a “why did you do that for me?” Nothing. He refuses to acknowledge the sacrifice you made and simply chooses to believe that it must have just been his lucky day. After such an enormous sacrifice by you, your friend flat out rejects you. How would you feel? Wouldn’t you want some recognition for the sacrifice you made? God feels the same way.

If God is Everywhere, Why do we Need to go to Church? Can't we Just Pray in our Homes and Ask for Forgiveness There?

Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to have a true understanding of what “church” is. In asking if God is everywhere and if we can pray in our homes and ask for forgiveness there, the answer to both would be yes. This is shown by Christians whom are bedridden or otherwise unable to attend church. However, this is not the norm and not how God designed church to be. In fact, in the book of Hebrews God tells us directly to make sure we are involved in a church.

Although the church has many functions, I’d like to focus on just two of them. The first reason one should go to church is for the fellowship with other believers. Let’s face it; it’s tough to live on this planet. With all the problems that face us there are going to be times we will need to depend on other people. Likewise, in good times for us, there will be other people who will need to depend on us. This is the function of the church. To be a place where Christians can come together to help and encourage one another while learning more about God.

The other function of the church is that of holding each other accountable for our lives. You see, when we give our lives to Christ it is real easy to live a “moral life” for a short time. However, there will be times when it isn’t so easy. During these times that it isn’t so easy, we can lean on people in the church to help hold us accountable to making good choices. Think about your own life; let’s say you were tempted to cheat a little on your income tax report. If you knew for a fact that the IRS was going to be asking you the very next day if you cheated or not, would you still do it? Most likely not. It works the same way in the church when we develop friendships with other Christians who can help us to make sure we are making the right choices.

Are Some of the Stories in the Bible Simply Fables (i.e. Jonah and the Whale, the Tower of Babel, Noah’s and the Flood, Adam and Eve)?

The short answer to the question of whether or not any of the stories in the Bible are fables or not is no they are not fables and they actually happened. The next logical question I’m sure you’d ask is “how do we know?” So I will continue and answer that question. Dozens and dozens of books have been written on how we can trust the stories in the Bible as truth, but I will just look at a few of points made.

First, we know that the Bible tells us all of the events are true. 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” This means we can trust that all the Bible is true, even the parts we don’t understand.

Secondly we know that the Bible (both the Old and New Testament) is without errors (minus a few very minor copyist errors dealing with large numbers). The Old Testament we have today is the same Old Testament that was used and quoted by Jesus. The New Testament we use today is the same one that was compiled shortly after Jesus' death. We have found more manuscripts for the Bible than any other ancient text. In fact, there are over 24,000 manuscripts (or parts of) of the Bible while the second closest number is 643 manuscripts of Homer’s Iliad. By having this many manuscripts we can compare them and see that the Bible has not been changed over time.

A third factor we can use to trust the Bible is from non-biblical sources. There are many records of ancient Jewish and Roman historians who were NOT Christians, yet wrote about Jesus and his followers. Sociologists (those that study people groups) have noted that almost every major ancient people group has some type of story that is similar to the Bible’s account of Noah’s flood. People who study languages seem to agree that we can trace back all languages to one root language. This would be consistent with the Bible’s account of the Tower of Babel.

A fourth factor we can use is archeological evidence. When archeology became recognized as a reputable method of science less than a hundred years ago, atheists were sure it would prove the Bible was wrong. Actually, just the opposite happened. Thousands of discoveries have proven that events the Bible claim In fact, the Bible has been viewed as being so accurate that I’ve heard reports that people from the National Geographic Society (which is NOT a Christian organization) will sometimes use the Bible to help them in their archeological digs. I would also like to mention that no archeological discovery has ever been able to directly contradict a Biblical account.

We should not be surprised by all of this evidence pointing to the accuracy of the Bible. Our God is wonderful God who would never lead us astray. When we read about stories in the Bible that seem hard to believe, we must remember that they seem hard to believe because they are miracles. The very definition of a miracle requires direct action by God. It shouldn’t be surprising that when God acts, it appears as something way different from our ordinary lives

What are the Differences between the Christian Religions? Shouldn’t there Just be One?

Normally when this question is asked there is some confusion over the term “Christian Religions” because Christianity is by itself a religion. More often than not, the question is asking what are the differences between the Christian denominations (i.e. Baptists, Pentecostals, Orthodox, etc.). Basically what it comes down to is that when Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic church he formed what is known as the Protestant Church. The word Protestant comes from the word Protest because Martin Luther was protesting against the Catholic Church for using other means besides the Bible as words from God. Since that point in the 1500’s there have been many disagreements over minor things such as how much water should one baptize with, how to sing worship, what songs to use, how the church should be governed and so on. These arguments have led to the various denominations found today. Unfortunately a lot of these groups insist that their way is the right way and everyone else is wrong. Even with all of these differences, these denominations still agree on certain fundamental truths such as the Godliness of Jesus, his death and his resurrection and the problem of sin. In trying to figure out which denomination is correct, I always refer back to my Bible to see what it says about the issue.

Why is the "Modern Western God" the Correct One?

Although I’ve had this question asked of me several times, one person seemed to really dig deep into the issue. She went on to ask:

“We seem to discount ‘Gods’ one by one as time goes by. We see the ancient Greek/Roman gods as complete mythology now. What makes people so sure that this is the real thing not just the evolution of old and now discounted or discarded religion?”

I believe this question has three main parts so I will try to address them all. The first part asks why the “modern Western God was the correct one?” This question can be confusing so for my answer I’ll assume that the “Western God” referred to is the same God that the Christian majority in the United States worships. We need to understand that this God does not have his roots in the western world. In fact, it is the very same God that was first worshiped on the exact opposite side of the world; what we now refer to as the Middle East. Knowledge of God spread from the Middle East, to Europe first, then to Asia and Africa, and then finally over 1500 years later, to the United States. You see the Western God is not a Western God at all, but the same God worshiped by people in every country and every continent all over the world.

The second part of the question deals with the “discounting of Ancient Greek/Roman gods.” It is important to note that the Jews had a knowledge of the one true God long before the Greek/Roman gods came into existence. It is also important to note that it was not the appearance of Jesus, (in other words the beginning of the Christian religion), which caused people to automatically discount Greek/Roman gods. During the 6th century BC the advent of materialistic Greek Philosophy first came onto the scene (guys like Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates). It was this advent of philosophy that effectively destroyed the faith of the Greek people in their multitude of gods and not the appearance of Jesus as he wouldn’t come for another 600 years.

Thirdly, the reason we can be assured that this is the real thing and not just some “god evolution” is because the Bible shows us that God has been actively engaging with people since the very beginning of time. Evolution by its very definition requires a changing over a period of time. We can see through the Bible that the person of God is unchanging. He is the same as he’s always been and He will always be the same. We can also see that because people have been interacting with him since the beginning, this is not some new religion that people just invented a few decades ago. The principles in the Bible can also be tested and found to be relevant in all cultures through all times. Something else worth noting is that the passing of time, usually wipes away wrong beliefs. Remember when people thought the earth was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe? We can look back through the pages of history and see that not only has Christianity stood the test of time, but that God hasn't changed.

What Bad Things Must you do to go to Hell?

Often times when I talk with people they'll say something along the lines of "I know I'm not perfect but overall I'm a good person so I know God will let me into Heaven when I die."

The Bible has a lot to say on this issue and views things a bit differently. First, we must look at who God is. God by his definition is all that is holy, pure, perfect and righteous. This is important to note. Because he is these things, God cannot be around sin, if he was it would be directly contrary to what his nature is. Sin can be defined as “anything that is contrary to God’s will.” What that means is that anytime we do one thing that is against God’s will, we become tarnished because of it. Some examples of sin could be telling a lie, stealing something, being angry, cussing at someone, looking at inappropriate things, or love of money. While we humans may not think these things are that big of a deal (after all, it’s not like we are Adolph Hitler or anything), God views it differently. In fact, this subject is so important to God he says that if you are guilty of breaking one rule, you are guilty of breaking all of them. Think about that for a minute, guilty of breaking all of them? That is a heavy thought to carry.

Now let’s just assume for arguments sake that overall you are a good person. Maybe you give money to charity, volunteer at a homeless shelter, or never argue with someone over a parking space. The Bible says all have sinned. So let’s just assume that a person only sins 3 times a day (although if they are like me it is probably more like three times an hour). 3 sins a day times 365 days in the year means they sin 1095 times a year. Over the course of the next 40 years they have sinned 43,800 times. All of the sudden it doesn’t look so good. Could you imagine standing before a traffic judge with 43,800 traffic tickets? Would the judge just overlook it? No of course not, we must be held responsible for our actions. That’s what justice is.

So as you can see, all it takes is one sin for us to be removed from God’s presence which is Hell. You can also see that most of us, no matter how good we are, sin quite a bit more than we realize. However that is the bad news, the good news is that through a relationship with Christ, those sins can be forgiven and we can have eternal life with God in Heaven.