The great brain robbery
The first six days
Animal rights and animal sacrifice
The oak tree of Shechem
When the saints have marched in
The coral model of church governance
The church in prophecy
UFOs, extraterrestrial life, and the Bible
Monkey business in the Garden of Eden
It is necessarily so
The days of creation
Will Israel's enemies succeed?
Christians and the law
Was Jesus God?
Why the sky is blue
The bodily resurrection: does Jesus have a body now?
What does God look like?
The first breaths
Comments on "The Great Brain Robbery"
… I haven't read everything at your web site yet, but I also greatly enjoyed reading your paper about "The Great Brain Robbery." Excellent!
Jeff, Barbados, November, 2006
I think it was a great article-- but here is a question for you: Theologically speaking, why would God create a world where parasites destroy the capacity of other creatures to "think" properly? When God "saw that it was good", was he speaking about the things you mention in your article?
Lenny, USA, February, 2006
Ed. Hi, Lenny. Thanks for your comment. You have raised a fascinating question — what constitutes “goodness” in the creation? For some more thoughts, see the blog "Sheep in wolf's clothing".
Comments on "The first breaths"
As a mother of a son and a daughter and grandmother of two boys I share your wonder at the miracle if birth, life and all that it teaches us. Also - when I see a newborn baby - vulerable, helpless and totally dependent on the love and care of others - and think that that's what Jesus became for us - well words fail me. I see the website is based in Australia, - I'm in the UK - so we are a world apart and yet united in our common faith,
Fran, United Kingdom, August, 2007
Comments on "The first six days"
“And the evening and the morning were the first day…and the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” “Thus in six days God created the heavens and the Earth.” One could be forgiven for thinking that the author of Genesis led us to believe that everything was created in six 24 hour days. “He who hears these words of mine and teaches men so will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven .” He who does not will be called least… Somebody somewhere made something out of nothing. He spoke and it was so. When he speaks we should listen… Mount St Helens eruption took place over millions of years. (Carbon dating is a fairly loose “science”. It only proves that there is no past eternity of matter i.e. Somebody somewhere made something out of nothing. God spoke! It may not sell your book but faith will bring you life eternal. Someone put your eye in its socket and your brain in your skull not over millions of years but in a short space of time.) Don't make a fool of yourself and a sham of God's word… The Bible is a documented and diarized account whether you believe it or not. It is therefore admissible evidence in any fair Court that would compare it to the wild speculation of the “millions of years” school of thought. Have you seen the waves of “science” and panicked?
Barney, Australia, 6th March, 2006
Read your article. To be honest...I don't buy it. I guess you would call me an 'old fashion fool', for I believe in the traditional, literal, six days of creation. I don't feel the need to try and find a common ground with 'science' so called, and the creation account as recorded in God's Word. I believe the over-whelming evidence actually points to a rapid creation of our world...including the dinosaurs.
Ron, USA, 19th February, 2006
Ed. I respect the high view of Scripture taken by those who espouse belief in a young earth. However, I do not believe that Genesis One had to mean to its original readers what young-earthers today interpret it to mean. Further, Romans 1:20 says that we can learn about the eternal nature of God's power from the creation. How can we learn anything about God's eternity from a universe only thousands of years old? I have started writing a paper on the age of the earth which can be accessed at How old is the earth? It's a work in progress.
… From what I have read so far it is very impressive. I should think you would want to try and have it published. Though I have had some interest in the world that was once was, I have never delved into it that much. I can learn from this writing of yours.
Don, USA, 10th February, 2006
I checked out your site at some length. Interesting. You have much more knowledge of the academia of pre history than I. Allow me to make three points. 1 An almighty creator could take any length of time he wanted to create. 2. The radioactivitiy in the primordal material God used to fashion Earth is unknown. The changes caused by "Noahs Flood" are unknown. Therefore the accuracy of much of this dating is unknown…
Kenneth, USA, 6th Febrary, 2006
Ed., Hi, Ken. Without doubt, dating methods are all subject to certain uncertainties. But the total weight of evidence suggests that they are not as flawed as many think. So much evidence in the created order preaches an ancient earth that uncertainties inherent within absolute dating methods do not negate their overall thrust — earth has harbored living things for a very long time. Re Noah's Flood, I for one do not believe that a worldwide flood (which I absolutely do believe in) would have anywhere near the disruptive impact on dating methods that are sometimes supposed.
… I read [The first six days] and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think people need to realize that the design phase is normally over before the construction phase begins. So the smarter God is, the less intervention we'll see. In other words, the more intelligent the design, the less tweaking it requires. I don't think God ever has occasion to say Oops. As in, "Oops, I forgot about DNA. Let's add that." Or "Oops, I forgot to design the universe so that it would inevitably produce humans. I'd better fix that." I think all those things were part of the original design, and that God simply said, "Let it be" and it was. It says that God rested, but it doesn't say that the universe gelled into final form. God rests even as the creation continues to unfold. In fact, since the act of creation is outside the universe, we cannot empirically discover it. The error in our thinking on both the religious and scientific side is to assume that empiricism produces a complete model of reality. Both expect religious truth to proceed from empiricism. They just have different ways of critiquing the fact that it doesn't. When we make something, we might have to go back to the drawing board, or tweak it, or make adjustments or repairs, or add things we forgot, but I hardly think God needs to do that. Or we might think of creation as making paper dolls. You cut the paper, shake it once, then it unfolds into paper dolls without you making any further cuts. I have gone so far as to say that creationism and "intelligent design" are both variants of the Stupid God theory that says, "God is not smart enough to create the universe in a way that I cannot completely understand."
Ken, USA, 3rd February, 2006
I "speed-read" [The first six days], and found it interesting. God's creation is certainly full of wonders, isn't it? I find those ancient creatures quite fascinating, also the mysteries of geology. It looks like you have certainly researched the subject quite well, and brought out some interesting facts that would seem to befuddle that anti-creationist camp. I'm wondering what their counter-arguments would be if presented with these observations? Have you ever had the opportunity to challenge a good evolutionist scholar on any of these points? Again, I found it interesting but didn't look it over with complete thoroughness, but it is late at night here now and I may go back and look it over more thoroughly when I'm fresh…
John, USA, 31st January, 2006
Comments on "Animal rights and animal sacrifice"
I'm with you! The times when YHWH says he doesn't want the sacrifices of Israel is because they were backslidden. The message was always, "get your heart right first". Read Ps 51 for the perfect picture. We also have Paul making a Nazarite vow in the Book of Acts that required many sacrifices. The apostles also went to the Temple during the hour of sacrfice. So the precident is already set. I am so there that for the last 2 years we have gone to keeping Ex. 12 exactly as it says: kill a lamb in your home, eat with staff in hand.
John, USA, 27th February, 2006
… There is no proof of the 1st century Rabbi's name being Yeshua. I am a Jew and leave the future to Ha Shem. Living at this moment in life to do tikunne olam, is more imporatant than sensational disputes that no one really knows about any way. All that is to distract people from being doers of Ha Shem's Torah, (the Word-D'var)…
Sonya, USA, 26th February, 2006
Since we do not believe that a third temple will be built in Jerusalem, why would animal sacrifice be a concern?
Tobi, USA, 24th February, 2006
… Regarding animal sacrifice, that is an Old Testament commandment. There are the daily animal sacrifices, during the Sabbath, during Rosh Hodesh, Pesah, Shavuoth, Sukkot, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur. But Jews do not strictly follow everything that is in the Torah anymore. Rosh Hodesh has been made a minor festival now.The Holy Spirit we talk to (tape recorded), who most of us believe to be the spirit of Jesus Christ, did not mention any animal sacrifice. During our sessions with Him, we do not even have any animals to sacrifice. So I believe that it is unnecessary now…
Aristeo, Australia, 23rd February, 2006
… I have very strong opinions on this animal sacrifice issue. First, the book of Ezekiel speaks about the New Temple. I do not feel that animal offerings have ever stopped anyway. Even USDA uses standards that are similar to Koshering. It seems pretty obvious. If we do our Barucha's, before we partake in a meal, especially one with some kind of biblically Kosher meat, then that is also what I would consider similar to an offering. At least to some extent. Isaiah 53 tells me that the Messiah's mission was to bring us back to Torah. Isn't that we all are moving towards by accepting His sacrifice…
Cory, USA, 22nd February, 2006
… Yes I believe that when Yahshua returns the sacrificial system will be re-introduced. However… it will be righteous sacrifices.
Jim, South Africa
Ed. For a paper by Jim that elaborates the comment here, see "Is the Torah still binding on us today?".
We have no problem with the sacrifices in the future Temple.
We have a view of it that posses us no problem but we are very familiar with how it is a problem for most.
Your letter is so very gracious – you express yourself really well.
D'vorah, The Netherlands
Shalom. I read the article and it really puts one to think. I also entered the site and hope to read the articles with more quality time. I have been taught that with Yeshua's sacrifice the animal offerings in the Temple ended. I really have not put to much thinking on this issue since it has a logical ring to it. Thank you for writing, take care and may the true living G-d bless you and your loved ones in all things you do.
Edgardo, Puerto Rico
Your article is interesting and I wanted to comment that as a christian I don't view the slaughter of animals for sacrifice as being abhorrent. However, at the same time, I believe the time for animal sacrifice stopped the moment Yeshua was sacrificed. As you said in your article, animal sacrifice 'shadow's' Yeshua's life giving sacrifice.. what else could possibly please God after that? If animal sacrifice is reintroduced, as the Jews will no doubt do, it's my belief it's only for their own benefit and not for the glory or kingdom of God. Yes, I believe Yeshua fully endorsed the need for animal sacrifice while He walked the earth, up until His own sacrifice. I believe He sanctioned living by the Torah too and sent many people to the priests after healing them, and walked the Torah perfectly. He did not come to abolish Torah but to 'fulfil' it, same as animal sacrifice, He fulfilled it… Thanks again for… your article, I would have to say I disagree with it though, and I hope one day you will view Messiah's special life changing sacrifice as the ultimate in God's plan, and that nothing else will ever do, or add to it.
Ed. Cheza, I used to think exactly the same way as you, but a long study of many relevant passages, particularly the Epistle to the Hebrews has changed my thinking. You are absolutely right in saying that Jesus' death was the "ultimate in God's plan". But that fact does not render animal sacrifice pointless. For those who believe that Ezekiel's prophecies are yet to be fulfilled — as we at Dawn to Dusk do — the fact of sacrifice during the days of the Messiah has to be taken seriously. Two Dawn to Dusk books deal at length with these vital issues. See the sales brochures at Hebrews: A Fresh Look at an Old Book, and Shadow and Reality.
Comments on "The oak tree of Shechem"
I found you doing research on Abram's terebinth tree! I took copious notes, which I'm sure you'll agree is a high compliment.
This is what I wrote earlier this morning:
And so it was in the valley of Gerizim and Ebal that "the Lord appeared to Abram and said 'I will give this land to your descendants.'"
...I can easily imagine Abram recovering from this encounter, back against the terebinth tree. When he finally regains strength, he climbs Mt. Ebal, and for the first time breathes in the full panorama of God's promise. The childless old man rejoices in the word "descendants" as this glorious day ends.
I imagine Abram pitching tent on the mountain -- at rest in the dream of countless generations, dwelling in the land below.
The above is a result of an exceptionally vivid image of the two mountains that came to me late last month. If the Spirit moves you, I look forward to continuing this conversation.
John, Washington DC, Nov, 2011
I very much enjoyed reading your article, The Oak Tree of Shechem, and look forward to reading more of your work. This story seemed very well researched and challenged my mind with some of it's conclusions.
Since Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth are in the genealogy of Jesus, I doubt that Simeon and Levi could be said to have done the right thing. I don't see where maintaining a pure blood line appears in Scripture. The issue seems to have always been religion rather than ethnicity…
…You might be interested in an article that was in The July/August 2003 issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review. Check it out. I think you will be surprised as to the what they have found through archaeology about the shine at Shechem. The Oracular Oak, or called Spreading Tree in the Bible, was very significant in the formation of early YHVHism. They have found remnants of this custom in Sudan even to this day. The Canaanites use to take an old knurled oak tree (in Middle East there is a type of oak that spreads out rather than up like our oak trees) and tie cloth streamers to the bottom branches. These streamers would hang down from the bottom of the branches. The wind blowing through the streamers would make a whispering sound that sounded like whispering voices. The people seeking an oracle would sit below the tree and listen for the voice of their gods. Abram, needing to get direction from the Lord, came to the Canaanite shine at Shechem in hopes of getting a word from the Lord. He sat below the tree, probably for a fee given to the local Canaanite priesthood at the Shechem temple complex (the tree of oracle was in great demand among the local Canaanites), and received a word from the Lord (Gen. 12:7). In thanksgiving for the word from the Lord, he commissioned the Canaanites to build a new altar to El (Abram was a very wealthy man) on the temple campus next to the grove of trees in which the oracular oak was the center piece. The later deutero-editor tries to excuse Abram's syncretism of using pagan custom to worship God by saying that at the time the pagan Canaanites had control of the land (verse 6). Later this form of oracle became illegal (Deut. 12:2; Isaiah 57:5; Jer. 2:20; Ezek. 6:13) under the deutero-reforms of the later kings of Judah. As you bring out in your article many of the early covenantal events in the life of ancient Israel had a connection to the Canaanite shrine at Shechem. One wonders if part of the reason for the rebellion of the northern tribes was about wanting to keep the old Canaanite customs as oppose to the deutero-reforms of Judah.
Pastor David, USA
Ed. Pastor Dave raises a question of importance. Would Abraham have used pagain customs to worship God? What do you think? Please let us know.
Comments on "When the saints have marched in"
… I do enjoy your understanding of the Millenium that Jesus will usher in for His saints…
Ken, Canada, January, 2008
…personally I am convinced that because of what Christ accomplished by His death and resurrection, through the power in the blood of His cross, all fallen creatures everywhere will eventually experience "an eternity of bliss and joy in the company of one huge immortal family of loved ones.
Comments on "The coral model of church governance"
I think the article is a great thing. I think you are going to have a difficult time selling the idea that there is a difference in practice between authority and control. The very fact that the central "authority" can enforce agreed-upon rules means control.
Comments on "The church in prophecy"
Your article is interesting and thought provoking. I believe that it is an idea well worth expanding. You quote from Romans 11. I feel that the section in that passage (vs's 22-24,25) regarding the grafted in branches to the good olive tree is, I believe, a clear picture of the grace of God toward the Gentiles, but at the same time, of His attitude toward Israel.
David, August, 2006
Comments on "UFOs, extraterrestrial life and the Bible"
… I do believe that UFOs have a spiritual connection and that they'll play a part in the End Time deception…
Jake, Canada, 13th February, 2006
Comments on "Monkey business in the Garden of Eden"
I just read your spoof. Hilarious! I do not think the beginning disclaimer is necessary. Remember Elijah and the prophets of Baal? He was not concerned about them taking offense when he told them to consider that perhaps Baal was "deep in thought, busy or traveling" (1 Kings 18:27). Anyone (including the theistic evolutionists) who comes remotely close to thinking the things you expose in your spoof NEEDS to be taunted.
Carl, USA, March, 2007
Do we have to rehash old arguments? I also understand that we might have some scientists on our side?
If you want to tell the truth about how the earth is being created I think you have done a very good job!… I think the answer is: what is your purpose with it? To tell the truth and help people to make up their mind, then I think it is good! But if you want to bring people closer to God, I do not know if this is the best way…
Catharina, The Netherlands
I thought your exposé was funny and entertaining but it is more suited to Christians who want to have a laugh and I guess it could help us be stronger in our beliefs. I know my friends who are not Christians wouldn't like it. I don't think it would help them. They are in need of reasoned and logical questions and arguments without the sarcasm. Maybe some people would be helped by it but I think it would more than likely just get them angry. As Christians I think we really need to be out there getting into understanding the way people think - I have a lot of friends who are not Christians - only found them in the last 12 years - prior to this I had few to none - my life revolved around the church and fellow believers. Now working 5 days a week in a cloistered environment I am very grateful that I have found them in a community organisation - but I need not to laugh at them or what they think - I need to take them seriously and respect them. I wouldn't like to see my grand children becoming so scornful - I have already detected this in one of them - unfortunately that attitude is interpreted as them having been brain washed. I want them to grow up to be gracious and accepting of other people. I want them to understand why other people think and believe as they do.
Helen, WA, Australia
Ed. Thank you, Helen, for your comment. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Scorning the views of others rarely helps. Christians ought to show respect for the sincere beliefs of others (including those of other Christians with whom we have serious doctrinal disagreement). Who knows? They may be right! My first reaction was to remove "Monkey Business" from the site. After some thought, I have decided to add a disclaimer to the top of the article and leave it up. If you are interested in my reasoning, please check "Should Christians ever mock others' beliefs"?
I enjoyed "Monkey Business". It would make a very good short play for a youth group or in a service. Could that be done or do we need to connect with you due to copyright laws?
Rabbi Michael, USA
Ed. Feel free to use "Monkey Business" as a skit or the basis of a skit in any context. We would be more than happy to receive any ideas you have for improving on it.
Interesting parody… There are a lot of challenges coming up in the courts on this issue for and against. If in fact any court rules on the positive use of creation the victory will be short lived. I truly believe that chapter is already written. It will be one more opportunity for the those in this country who do not want a creator given credit for their existence, to inflict their unrighteousness on the rest of us. They are very arrogant and want their views to dominate all others. They in fact are the center of their universe and thus find it hard to believe that we (those of us who have the faith to understand that in fact the universe was created from nothing by God) don't recognize them as the source of all knowledge and creative ability. The inevitable outcome of this in this country is obvious. It further divides the country in two setting it up for a massive fall. The positive point is that those who truly do believe will strengthen in their resolve and stand out all the more.
Brian, NY, USA
Just read in the Orange County Register (Southern California), concerning evolution that some of these gentlemen feel that Christians should be put in cages, in zoos, further stating that the problem is their faith. Indeed these are interesting times we find ourselves in.
John, CA, USA
Thanks for… your "Monkey Business" spoof. It was very witty and quite effective in pointing out the ridiculous nature of modern science's "logic." As Aldous Huxley says, paraphrasing, "We rejected God because we wanted to be free to pursue our own morality." Rather than science being a objective pursuit of truth, it has become a means of rationalizing immoral or amoral behavior. Another way to put it is that it is a thinly veiled rebellion against God. Thanks again. Keep up the good work! I will be sure to send correspondants to your site when the question of Creation vs. Evolution arises.
Richard, NC, USA
Ed. How ironic that one of the most powerful insights into the mind and greatness of God — the Creation (Rom. 1:20) — is so often used as "proof" of "no-God".
I have been hurt by so-called Christians who tarnished the Name of Christ our Lord.. I am so glad that there are great Christians out there who genuinely loves HIM and is willing to share the Gospel in whichever way they can… God Almighty created us for a purpose that we worship him till the end of Time. Never never forget that we are His children.
There is no doubt our countries are hell bent on turning our backs on God and anything that even looks the slightest bit like religion. Nevertheless, for those that endevour to understand, knowledge is there and available for the open minded. It certainly did all start in the Garden of Eden and from that point mankind lost it's authority over God's creation to the present god of this world… Thanks again for your interesting info.
Colin, New Zealand
Comments on "It is necessarily so"
This is a well-written piece…
Michael, USA, 9th February, 2006
Your website looks very interesting, I plan to spend some time reading thru it all, as I do indeed take the Bible literally as far as I am able to understand it. My view is that the Bible should be read as it reads, without applying tradition or dogma to the rendition…
Margaret, Bermuda, 7th February, 2006
Comments on "The days of creation"
I thought your article “days of creation” was a worthwhile read, I learned something from it, and I hope to imitate your respectful attitude toward other points of view and your admission in many places that you don't know what something means. I am a “gapper”, and I see that you were too. I am interested in why you changed, since you have, as far as I could see, no real arguments against the gap theory. I would be very surprised and disappointed if your reason is Rom 5:12.
Thank you for pointing out the lack of definite article on the days and comparing this to the rest of Scripture, and similarly about the “first” day, not really saying the “first” but “one” day. I think that is excellent work! I think that supports the gap theory because, day one was not the first day, i.e. the beginning of time, but just one day. Day 2 was not “ the second day” as in the second day from the beginning of time, but just a second day after the one day mentioned previously. (I think it is excellent work whether it supports what I believe or not.) Another excellent point of yours is the repeated verb “was” after evening and morning, not found in the rest of Scripture. I think it means an evening came into being and (then) a morning came into being: one day. The verb is repeated because the action is sequential, not in unison.
The big weakness of your article is regarding “evening and morning” not being a literal day. If it just said “day”, your theory could stand, but “evening and morning” is a literal day. The first 3 days were probably not 24 hours, but still I believe they must have been one evening followed by one morning. You say there is no way to find out if “evening and morning” could have a different meaning. Yes there is, and you did it, but don't want to accept the unambiguous results. As with everything else, see how the term is used in the rest of the Bible.
If anyone is interested, I have a website on the gospel to the Jewish people, Psalms and OT Bible prophecy www.voiceInWilderness.info. I am working on a defense of the gap theory but it's not ready…
Steve, USA, April, 2008
I've read through the briefer version of your paper. I takes me back to the days when I was interesting in the creation bit in Genesis and spent some time reading and going to lectures on these things… This is poetry and I think it's a good idea to consider what the intention of the author might have been. Whenever Moses (or whoever) put this together it's generally considered that the aim was to proclaim the greatness of Israel's God over other God's. He creates by his word. He speaks and it happens. It is simply not interested in specific historical/ creative events or their order - which may or may not be accurate. However having said that I have always believed in a young earth. It makes sense to me when I put all my (limited) reading and thinking about this topic together. I jiust believe that God spoke and it happened some 10000 yrs or so ago - perhaps in a micro second - and I've not read anything that has challenged this - despite the fact that most people I know look at me as if I'm mad when I say this. But as for Genesis, it's just not interested in specific detail. This was never it's intention and I always think that people should concentrate on the Gospel about Jesus' death and resurrection and the need to deal with the sin that Genesis talks about rather than concern themselves too much with (I'm afraid I would say) distracting arguments that rarely convince anyone. I've become more ambivalent on these things over the years. I tend to feel that once someone has repented and trusted in Jesus then they will work out what they think about Genesis and it's literalness and what they conclude - about evolution or special creation - and how to they see the details - will be just fine by me.
Phil, Australia, 31st July, 2006
… As a trained biological scientist, theologian and ancient historian, I would make the following comments. All to often the often heated debate over Genesis 1 and its intended meaning is a pointless exercise that ignores the basic teachings of the text. Without going into undue detail, we need to remember that firstly Genesis 1 is not a scientific treatise, but an explanation by God and written by Moses in about 1450BC to His people concerning the origins of the physical world and the human race. Further we need to remember that it was written in the language of the people of that time, of which we have but copies of copies of copies, though shown to be remarkably unchanged down through the millenia are in a language known to relatively few in the Church as a whole. The purpose of Genesis 1 is to reveal who created?: ie God; what was created?: ie the Universe and mankind; why all was created?; for God's glory The questions of when? and how? are simplistically, "In the Beginning, and by the power of God's Word". Science is man's appropriate and God inspired response to seek deeper and more detailed answers to the How and When arguments. Science cannot answer Who or even Why and it is arguable whether it will ever be able to give a final definitive answer to when or how… PS.
A good Article, especially the longer version.
Rev. Peter, Australia, 12th July, 2006
Personally, I am a happy young earth six-day creationist, and not persuaded otherwise by reading your article, and not wishing to debate the issue or to try to persuade you to agree with me. I just wanted to take up one point from your short article, and that is the last sentence, ‘In sum, the uncertainty as to the definite meaning of yom in Genesis One and the true intent of the evening-morning formula give us good reason to look to the evidence from nature itself to help break the impasse. The problem with this procedure is that nature can reveal nothing about how it was created (only that it was created), because what we see in nature is God's providential governing and preservation of his creation, not his creative work. Creation was a miraculous activity of God while in providence and preservation he works in ways that are non-miraculous. Christians have always recognized this difference – compare for example the Shorter Catechism's answer to the questions, ‘what is the work of creation,'– Ans: The work of creation is God's making all things of nothing by the word of his power in the space of six days and all very good.' and ‘what are God's works of providence.' – Ans: Gods works of providence are his holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures and all their actions.' Trying to solve how God created or how long it took by examining nature is akin to trying to work out how Jesus healed a leper by examining his newly healed skin, for we can't examine God's creative process, or decide how long it took, any more than we would be able to decide how Jesus healed the leper, or how long it took, by medical examination, for what we see when we look at nature is not creative acts, but God's care of what he has already created.
Peter, Australia, 10th July, 2006
I have read [The Days of creation] and have seen all these arguments before. Both young and old earth Christians rob themselves of the treasures revealed by God about himself and the world that are in Genesis 1 & 2 when they focus on the argument of the age of the earth. I am not an astronomer nor a geologist, therefore, I have to take on faith anything these men say. Men tend to call something science (which merely means knowledge) and this seems to make it infallible. Yet "science" is changing all the time. Therefore I am cautious about being too dogmatic about "scientific facts" when most of these are conclusions drawn from, or "proved" mathematically from within a cultural framework that believes we have or can attain to all knowledge. Young earth or old earth, isn't the question. The question that has to be faced by all is "Is Jesus of Nazareth, Lord and Saviour?" Their answer to this question and not the age of the earth will determine their eternal destiny. Many men of the 18th and 19th Century were God fearers who would have believed in a 6 day creation but these men were in no way Christian.
Phil, Australia, 8th July, 2006
Just received my Feb. 28, 2006 The Journal, and was pleased to find a reference to you and your website on the back page, and the hint that you were an ancient earth creationist. I checked out your website and was pleased to find out that you are! I feel like a rare bird as an ancient earth/universe creationist among so many that are either young earth creationists, or don't care one way or another… Young earth creationism sounds very plausible from reading books like The Deluge Story in Stone and The Genesis Flood coauthored by the recently deceased Henry Morris… Plausible until one starts checking what they say against the real world… I went on to get a Masters Degree in Geology from UCLA and work for the US Geological Survey, and no one ever asked my views on creationism and evolution. It just was not an issue… I thank you for being one who is able to put together the physical and written records without doing violence to either.
Robert, USA, 20th April, 2006
…You must remember that men like Professor Eric Magnusson and his counterpart at UCLA are far better qualified to speak on these matters than most. The Bible says so little on creation but mountains on re-birth and re-creation. That is where the focus of the Christian should be and certainly not on speculation.
Ken, Australia, 27th March, 2006
…I do not know when God created the heavens and the earth, but one thing I do know for sure is that God is not a Liar. God says exactly what he means. He doesn't say one thing and mean another. He could have easily said; It was evening and then it was a million years and then morning, and it was the first day. Is God playing games with us??? He could have repeated that 6 times and then say he rested on the 7 millionth year. Could you picture God saying that?? He explained in plain language that everyone could understand in simple terms (not everyone is a great scholar) how he created the heavens and the earth and everything in it. He spoke it into existance. It was also meant for the simple unlearned folk to be able to understand. How we like to read into things and complicate the simplest of statements!!!!…
Joy, Australia, 20th March, 2006
Comments on "Will Israel's enemies succeed?
… You are correct in warning people not to "mess" with The God of Israel. The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, delights in doing that which looks impossible, perhaps the Temple will be built in the time we least expect it. Just a thought. Non the less we must continue to look forward to the coming of Yeshua HaMashiach, and be willing to obey and follow His Torah [teaching / direction] as He gives us the grace and strength to do so, giving praise in all circumstances. The heading: Will Israel's enemies succeed? Yes and No. They will succeed to the "point" YHVH allows and wants them to succeed by playing a part in bringing about His plan and purposes for the redemption of the House of Israel, completing the new covenant. I look forward to that glorious moment.
Philip, Australia, September, 2006
… Very interesting. I have long thought that Iran will be a major player in the end times debacle. They have always threatened nuclear responses and bragged about their capabilities. Their President is quite outspoken about his desire to have Israel wiped off the face of the planet and I believe that given the right circumstances, he'll give it a shot. Perhaps this will come to fruition once a 7 Year Peace Agreement is signed as foreshadowed in Daniel etc
Dr. Gary, Australia, September, 2006
Comments on "Christians and the law"
I have read, Christians and the Law. It is pleasing to see your advocacy for keeping all of the Laws of God which is what we also do, and your recognition that the New Covenant contains the same instruction as the Old Covenant. It was the people who broke the terms and were at fault with the Old Covenant which made it void. The New Covenant is made with people who have the Holy Spirit and therefore the terms of this New Covenant are within them controlling their lives.
David, Australia, April, 2008
… The amazing thing found throughout true Christianity, is regardless of how Law and Grace are explained in the various denominations, all of the real Holy Spirit indwelt believers are adhering to either the OT 10 Commandment law of God, including the spirit of it given by Jesus in Matthew 5, or the New Testament Law of Christ, which is essentially 9 of the 10 Commandments. Whilst no one can really agree on how to define Law and Grace, God through the indwelling Holy Spirit has written his Laws within true believers throughout the body of Christ. Go figure...I can't explain it better than that. Oh, one other thing, the Church that will exist in the Millennial Age will be a OT Torah observant Church, where days of worship will be Sabbath and the Holy Days of Leviticus 23, as well as the dietary laws of Leviticus 11 (cf. Zechariah 14 and Isaiah 66). Even the sacrifices within the new temple will be re-instituted. But Romans 14 cannot be ignored or explained away.
Pete, USA, April, 2008
… Your article about christians and the law is very good and brings light on this so much controversial subject. I have send a similar article to my jewish friend in Israel who love the Lord of hosts our beloved saviour JeshuaHamashia, the anointed one of Israel, the king of Israel… In Germany there is just a small awaikening of christians towards our roots and supporting Israel. Its a lonely walk and full of misunderstanding by our bretheren.The reformation has done a good job to cut the last roots to our inherence out of the churches. But thanks to God the righteous one of Israel I am in a fellowship of believers that are on their way. The coming sunday we have organized a prayermeeting for the whole area of northrein-westfalia ( the biggest state with 16 Million people).
Wolfgang, Germany, February, 2007
I thought it was well done. It hits on all the major arguments people have against God's laws…
Jeffrey, USA, March, 2006
Indeed it is very important about having the Torah in a beleivers life. This is part of the message Bishop Dominiquae takes to the Nations. Her 3rd book Grafted In talks about applying the Torah to your life. The church will be greatly blessed as they take on the Torah and discover their Jewish Roots.
Karen, Israel, March, 2006
…At present I am trying to explain the Torah for Christians truth to a web forum and the venom is ,,,, well not unexpected. My wife and I have been Torah "desiring" for a little over three years…
Raymond, USA, March, 2006
It is very gratifying to find other believers who believe and teach as we do. We are definitely on the same page but with different terminology. I do believe that HaShem's final result, Yeshua's approach to Torah, will include a much stronger stance on "The Israel of God." After all, Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah, and as he said, "salvation is of the Jews." If you haven't already read it, I recommend Dr. Daniel Gruber's book, The Separation of Church and Faith, Volume I, Copernicus and the Jews. We in our congregation are not yet quite sure as to our role with the "church." I will probably purchase a few of your books for sale in our… shop for outreach when your website becomes ready for sales. Will you have a discount for resale?
Robert, USA, 24th February, 2006
Ed., Thanks, Robert, for your positive comments. Yes, indeed, salvation is "of the Jews". (See the Dawn to Dusk book "Shechem to Calvary: the Story of the Covenants", for more on this amazing saying of Jesus.) And although we are not yet set up for online ordering and payments, ordering a book is only an email away. And yes, we will gladly provide a discount for anybody who wishes to resell our books.
Go My Brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are right on target---keep up the good work.
Rabbi Dr. David, USA, February, 2006
… I have done my own study and are happy for you to review it and correct me if you feel I have overlooked any issues. How I look at at being corrected is - I don't know everything and have nothing to lose if I am wrong so I'm happy to be corrected by solid Scriptural arguments. It is hard for me to fit into any group as it is. I've been wrong before and as I don't claim special revelation or a superior relationship to God than any other people I'm willing to change and follow truth.
Greg, Australia, February, 2006
Ed. What an inspiring approach, Greg. We would like to believe that we have the same attitude. We at Dawn to Dusk do not believe we have any special revelation or commission from God. We are fired by the desire to share with others what we believe Scripture teaches, and that is all.
… I agree with it 98%. Are you the author? Interesting conversation with "Martin". It takes the Spirit of Messiah within us to help us refrain from responding carnally to such a person.
John, USA, 13th February, 2006
Ed. Unless otherwise stated, all articles on the Dawn to Dusk website are by either Rod McQueen or Martha McQueen
There is much to comment on. I am not ambitious enough to tackle everything and besides, I do concur that we are to live by scripture -- all scripture. Those that proclaim "grace" frees us from the law ignore much scripture.
Translation causes loss for us many times. "Scholars" use religious words such as "grace" to teach what they believe. The word grace could easily be removed and a tremendous amount of confusion would be eliminated. You have proved that point…
Neal, USA, February, 2006
… The problem with the article is understanding the difference between The Law in The Letter and God writing His Law in our hearts and minds. Read my new book coming out in March 2006 and get the answer.
Art, USA, February, 2006
…Your article about Christians needing to keep the law is not exactly how I see things today…
Bruce, UK, February, 2006
Just read [Christians and the law]. It expresses where I stand before both God and His Law. Committed to obey, but human and frail like Nickos, not yet perfect!! I like your turn of phrase and summarily dunking the erroneous premises of Dunn, Bruce, Colwell and others…
Lyall, New Zealand, February, 2006
That was indeed a very good article. Makes the whole question/idea pretty easy to understand. I'll refer some new believers to that article…
Jason, USA, February, 2006
Shalom Rod, I had a look at your article and found it to be excellent. I believe it is about time, that believers in Yeshua (Christians and Messianic Jews) realise that He did not come to abolish the law, but to show us how to keep it with a Spiritual intent.
Jim, South Africa
Comments on "Was Jesus God?"
… I agree that there are some Christians that struggle with the divinity / deity of Jesus Christ – generally because they've not correctly understood His claims! I've had the opportunity to read your article and am happy to see that you understanding is Biblically solid. Keep up the good work…
Mark, Australia, February, 2007
… I fully support your attempts to help others believe the Truth that Jesus is one with the Father God. The whole idea that we some somehow be able to grasp this truth is flawed ! God is God, and He is infinite. God can be anything He wants/wanted to Be; from Eternity. Clearly The Word (Living & Written) reveals that God is Father; and is also in some way/form/dimension/expression, Son - Jesus. And the way that they are everwhere in the universe (or multiverse) is by the Spirit of God (Spirit of Jesus in N.T.) I often refer to Revelation chapters 4 & 5 to people who struggle with this. All 3 are very clearly blended in nature; on The Throne; The Spirit surrounds the Throne and is in The Lamb; Creator (Father) and Lamb (Son) are both worshipped…
Clem, Australia, February, 2007
… I checked out your site and read [Was Jesus God?] and could not agree more. Yes, in our tendency to embrace Yeshua we forget He instructed us that worship was to go to the Father. Though some may label me a heretic for saying this: Yeshua showed us that He was in submission to the will of His Father which does not make Him any less God as He is the father's only Son who inherits all His Father has or gives Him. He has submitted Himself to His Father's will and His Father has placed Him in place no other can attain…
(Rabbi) Mordecai, USA, February, 2007
Rod: I looked and what I read was accurate – I can only say that for what I read. The beginning was interesting.
Glen, February, 2007, USA
Yes, I too am a believer and I praise God for those who are getting the message out through this wonderful media! Blessings to you as you continue in His service.
Rose, February, 2007, Canada
People talk about having God's spirit in them and scripture tells us that we have a small part of that now and will have more when we are no longer physical. However, people stumble that God can be Spirit and put that Spirit in as many places as He wishes. I think that the Man Christ was born of the flesh just as we are and as scripture shows but had a different beginning just as the Man Adam had a different begginning. Christ is called in Scripture "the second Adam" and there is a correlation I think based on how they came to be. The Spirit that was in the fleshly body of Christ I think was the same Spirit that we call God. Trying to explain God is most likely beyond our ability while we are still in the flesh but it looks like there is One God who created everything, one spirit in all and in you all. This is a tough subject to discuss with many people so I try not to cause offense if people have a diffent understanding. No doubt there are many things that we don't understand! Thankfully there will come a time when we do. I look forward to the time when all can know God as He is and peace will regien amoung men.
David, USA, November, 2006
I have just waded through the excessive voluminous "Was Jesus God". What a waste of time. The author could have expressed his opinion in the first page and end the story. Has it ever occurred to you and many of those who continue to argue that we need to believe what Christ said? What God's voice from heaven said. Mat 3:17 ... This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased?
Brother to the saints.
First born of many brethren.
Of the family of God, Who has been and will ever be God the Father. Of whom the whole family is named?
As Christ is his Son he has family characteristics of His Father. We as the body of the Ekklesia (Future Bride) will become of the same family of God, at the resurrection. We pray to "Our Father" - or at least I do! The angels and angelic beings pre-existed the creation, shouted for joy at the creation. The one who emptied himself of his power did the creating before his human birth -read it for yourself.
The process of becoming Spirit beings from flesh, "this corruption must put on incorruption" 1 Cor 15:50. If Christ was born of Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit - he put on corruption. If we believe that we can put on incorruption, is it not quite possible to put on corruption? So in Jn 17:1 - 26 v1, "glorify your Son". Read the whole chapter not just v5.
Father, Son, Family of God, Kingdom of God, brethren, sons and daughters. It is really very easy to understand, just leave behind all the traditional, trinity, binitary, Unitarian etc, etc, Just family.
Vic, Australia, Nov, 2006
… I studied the Nature of Christ issue for several years. I finally (and this is really making a long story short) came to the conclusion that there could only be ONE eternal being - not two. He alone was once alone. Trying to get the Son of God to be God the Son and having both Father and Son be the same "God" is a little too metaphysical for my mind. However, you posed a point that I think has extreme ramifications that I have not heard anywhere else. It may cause some rethinking…
Robin, USA, 13th July, 2006
I did successfully download your article "Is Jesus God?" and re-formatted the text into a Word Document for easier reading. It stretched out to 13 pages, which I find very interesting indeed. Firstly, as far as I'm concerned, your case puts an end to the Unitarian proposition… regarding the "origin" of Jesus Christ. I also knew of the belief of "Jehovah's Witnesses", that Jesus was "created" and had to reject that, but had little biblical "proof" to disprove it. Your article gives me much to think about.
Comments on "Why the sky is blue"
I enjoyed your article, but it has a major flaw. The sky is not blue; it only appears that way. Take a cup of sky, if you can, and it is clear as crystal. Look at the sky when a storm is approaching and it may appear green or brown. Some days the sky appears vivid blue. Other days the blue appears soft as gossamer. At sunset the sky appears as myriad colours from one end of the spectrum to the other. Yet the eyes our creator God gave us detects all of these colours and shades though the reflection of light. That's why, at night, the sky appears black. There is no light to be reflected. To say the sky is blue because God made it that way is to limit God's greatness, and God cannot be limited.
Leslie, USA, April, 2007
Thanks for the instructive and edifying article. Pseudo-science endeavours to dethrone God... True science recognises the glorious God on His throne. "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." What if the sky is not blue? What would be the effects if it is red or pink or green? Surely there must be a purpose that it is blue?
Pastor Sing, Malaysia, November, 2006
Ed., If any readers have any thoughts on this question, please share them with us.
… Over the past ten years, I've either mellowed, become senile (or a combination of both), or become more open to what I now refer to as "TRUE TRUTH"; the FREEDOM producing kind. The "absolutes" I now recognize come from what I refer to as, Immutable Natural Law or Universal Principles. Perhaps in some (most) minds, I am still a bit too "narrow", but I find our Creator has His?Her? stuff together and allows "scientific discovery" to further prove The Genius of Creation…
Daine, USA, November, 2006
… The read was straight to the point that just because one may be able to explain the workings of a complex marvellous structure, one should not overlook the miracle of the complexity itself. Tragic that so many people give way to the belief in God because of what science can explain relating to the workings of the subject itself versus the question of it's very origin....sad.
Mark, Canada, November, 2006
Thank you Rod. I think you did a nice job on that article.
Prof. Stephen, USA. November 2006
Comments on "The bodily resurrection: does Jesus have a body now?"
…I stand by the Reformed understanding of the resurrection (bodily) of Christ. And I believe his resurrected body now is identical to what it was between his resurrection and ascension. My theology of Christ's resurrection and ours at the return of Christ is amply spelled out in the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and the three ecumenical creeds.
Ron De Y. January, 2007
That's some heavy thinking. I might have to take a break and come back to it. Here are a few of my thoughts in response to the first paragraph: "this Jesus who was received up from you into the heaven, shall so come in what manner ye saw him going on to the heaven." (Acts 1:11 Young's Literal Translation). "so... in what manner " is describing the action of coming/going. Like the going shall be the coming. The verb meaning is almost identical -except for the direction of movement. It is a likeness of manner of action , but not necessarily of form or body. My thoughts are that this verse needn't be telling us of the substance or nature of Jesus body. I would say a similar thing could be said about food, that in the same manner it goes into the body, so it comes out - completely different form, but similar movement.
Garth, December, 2006, Australia
Comments on "Biblical language"
… I've read your article. No adverse comments at all, other than to say that for a general reader I think it goes on a bit. If you were submitting an article for one of my publications I'd instruct you to cut it by a half, better by two-thirds. I hear people wail when I say that, but, in writing for a publication (even if it's going to be on the net), we write for the reader, not the author. And readers today have an attention span of a little less than a gnat. The beauty of such editing is, however, that it focuses the author on clarity. As my old editor was always opining: Every word must earn its keep. That's always good advice.
As regards the contents. Absolutely no problem. And since there is quite a bit of repetition, it could be cut quite easily.
… Even literal translation, as you touch upon, is of its time. Thus many of the literal renditions of Wycliffe or Tyndale are today not literal in modern English and require a translation of their own! And even where there is meaning-for-meaning, it may be that the translator didn't understand the meaning, or even the original literal language. A good example of this is in the meaning and importance of the title of the psalms. Even by Christ's time the Jews had lost their meaning, hence the bizarre translation (literal) found in the Septuagint version. James Thirtle in his simple book "The title of the psalms", as far as I am concerned, precisely defines these with a clarion clarity which reverates through time to our age…
John, March, 2007, United Kingdom
… [Biblical language] is a fascinating insight into the work of the scholars who tackle the task of translation of the Bible. The references to all the many idioms we use remind me that each language has its own character and that we need to get to grips with it to properly understand words. These I hear, "Would you like to set the table for dinner.....You might want to consider this or that." I know full well that these are really instructions, even though my wife insists she is not giving orders! When I reply in literal response I get into trouble! About 25 years ago we met a couple who became long standing friends. Their daughter was on a pre-confirmation course and the vicar of their church told his candidates to forget the King James translation and use a modern one. My friend commented that he saw no reason to drop the old version. When I commented that it was so we could understand the Bible better, he declared he could completely understand the King James version. In the matter of the Noah's Ark story we need to remember that numbers were very commonly used in description. Assuming, as I do, that the tale was copied from the Epic of Gilgamesh, we need not imagine anything more definite than a long time during which it rained continuously. Again, the reference to 70 times 7 by Jesus when discussing foregiveness, is another way, using numbers, to express a limitless value. But, in short - a good article. Keep it up. By the way I also liked your precis on God's image.
Keith, United Kingdom, February, 2007
Interesting study, thank you for the info. I find the KJV to still be the best translation available. Any time I have problems with understanding the text I will then call upon the commentaries of men known for their ability to be excellent expositioners and faithful to their exegetical tasks. I find men like John Calvin and John Gill to be such men among others.
Ray, February, 2007, USA
… I found [Biblical language] an interesting read. I've sometimes spent way too much time debating some people in my church about why they think it never rained before the Flood... Or people outside the church who do the same thing. I recall once arguing with an atheist who was trying to take one passage in Leviticus about the rabbit chewing the cud, and I wound up accusing him of splitting hares... Sometimes, it's good to admit how much we don't know even if the meaning "seems plain."
Matt, USA, February, 2007
Very interesting, well reasoned and enjoyable to read… I have an ongoing interest in this topic, as a I am an INTP (if you are familiar with temperament theory). Where does that then leave us, do you feel?… One reader may say in despondence “so you cannot trust the Bible at all, Christianity is a lie propagated to gain control over me”. … Another may say “I don't care, God told me that verse xyz means ….” For me, it means that if we wish to be teachers and listeners we need to be so circumspectly, heeding the warning “caveat emptor”. Maybe we could also paraphrase 1Tim 1:8 as “when you quote scripture, first make sure that you are using it legitimately”. I find the eyes roll up and ears close when I make such a ludicrous claim. The problem, it seems, lies not with the text, but with the heart of man, who either allows too much, or nothing at all…
Elmar, South Africa, February, 2007
I found [Biblical language] to be a very good representation of the difficulties of translation. Very practical examples. It gives rise to the old saying that “the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things”. All that is essential for salvation is clear. Much of the rest could be disputed and has been. I currently use in my preaching and Bible Studies the New Living Translation. It to me speaks in 2007 American English. If I want to really take apart a verse, I would of course many translations and lexicons, ect. But I have found this rarely necessary.
Mike, February, 2007, USA
… I really like the numerous examples. I do not have any more comments for three reasons (1) I read the article during my lunch break two days ago and I will need to read it again to refresh myself; (2) It is a very long article when reading on the computer, and there is so many things to comment in reference to; and (3) While it was something I have come to know, it still had a depth that I have yet to swim. Nevertheless, I bookmarked it for a later time…
Jacob, January, 2007, USA
Well done and amusing. You do have some problems with your examples of idioms and metaphors. For example: Midbar = a waste, i.e., a place where sheep cannot graze. Wilderness, at least to Northerners, implies greenery, the point is a midbar lacks greenery. It's not a desert, it just does not have sufficient grazing for herds of sheep.
Yom: Well, you pointed out that perhaps Hebrew yom means something different. 40 days and 40 nights is literal: yom v'lilah -- day and night. So it could be translated as raining non-stop.
feathers and wings: gods and goddesses in the ANE had wings, again, it's meant as a literal description.
You could point out that, more often than not, one word in Hebrew needs a sentence to translate.
yarbitzeni (Psalm 23) does not mean merely "he maketh me to lie down."
Hebrew differentiated between lying down like a human and like an animal.
That one word means: he made me lie down with all fours legs tucked under me (speaking as a lamb, which, of course, is the surface semantic domain).
However, that's not the full meaning. It is linked to the water. The full sentence needed to translate yarbitzeni is: He made me lie down with all four legs tucked under me and made the water flow to me.
"Pisseth against a wall" is, again, a literal description of the type of clod who did this type of thing. BTW, there are signs on European cathedrals that ask people not to piss on the walls. So,....
Oh, there are plenty of idioms and metaphors abound, but quite a bit is meant as purely literal description.
Dr. R. A., Israel, January, 2007
Comments on "What does God look like?"
Just a note of thanks for the very interesting article "What does God Look Like”. I copied the entire article and find it very interesting indeed and informative. We would welcome more of the same and more information concerning Dawn to Dusk Publications. Again "Thank You" and God Bless.
Bob & Roberta, USA, February, 2007
… [What does God look like?] was VERY good and well written. I will certainly be reading more on your site.
Gary, February, 2007, USA
That was a very decent article…
Jason, February, 2007, USA
That was a good read. I enjoyed it.
Jonathan, February, 2007, USA
I found it interesting to read and helped me to understand more about our God, I shall pass this on to my friends.
Christina, February, 2007, United Kingdom
I read your article about the “form of God” and agree with it 100%. I just wish (and pray) that you could also see the symbolism in the scriptures that refer to the Temple in Jerusalem and the reinstatement of the sacrifices.
Phil, February, 2007, United Kingdom
Thank you for the beautiful article about God!
Fred, Brazil, Feb, 2007
Very glad to have found your site. Am happily rambling through it… I look forward to finding more of what your site contains.
Peter, USA, Nov., 2009
Just wanted to tell you that I have been looking at your site and your blog. I am loving it!!! I look forward to reading a lot more of your articles."
Margaret, USA, July, 2009
Rod, I wanted to say it again... I loved your book! You are an **excellent** writer. I so enjoyed your tasteful use of vocabulary, allusion and digression. I would read your writing on ANY subject! It is rare that I can let loose with heartfelt praise, so I thought I should let 'er rip!
Bill, USA, July, 2009
Your words and ministry are invaluable to the Body of Christ and a source of encouragement and faith building to the individuals who receive the message. I pray that God will sustain your gift and spread it further afield.
Tom, USA, May, 2009
… God truly loves me, I am blessed and praised Him for being able to be in touch with you and blessings received through the articles, and great opportunity to tell my people what I have read and learnt and received blessings through your articles. God is great, He does miracles. And this is a miracle of God that I could write you and know you through these articles. Please do me a favour to receive your articles, information of God, all writings and articles helping to know more and deeper of God without stop. With the love of God and great appreciation.
Simon , United Kingdom, May, 2009
Thank you very much for such inspirational messages and spirit lifting, please would you also add on to your list my wife's e-mail addresse, she would appreciate these messages and has in fact indicated will devote a lot of time going thru them when I forwarded this one, God bless as you continue to preach his word on this site!
John, United Kingdom, May, 2009
… Your website has a wealth of inspiring articles… Thanks - I truly enjoyed reading your material and will visit your site from time to time.
Barb, USA, March, 2009
I was very interested in your understanding of, and commitment to the Lord as Creator. To me it is a wonderful theme, along with the 'old, old story' of His love and great work in Christ Jesus…
Rev. Chris, Australia, August, 2007
You don't have to convince me of Creation, I'm a traditional Deist after all. But I like your site and the tone of it. If you wish I'll put it on my off site links page.
Lewis, June, 2007
As a Christian with a PhD in Plant physiology and Biochemistry I find your articles very simplistic and not helpful at all… However each to his own – one day we shall all know the truth
Ken, New Zealand, June, 2007
… I have glanced at a few of your papers and have bookmarked the sight for future reading. I think biological evolution is wrong and I hold the framework view of creation with an ancient earth and Adam having appeared long before 6000 years ago. For 36 years I had previously followed the day/age view and revised that view about 3 years ago. I am always disappointed when excellent 'creation' videos always throw in 'the 24 hour days' view. If you ever produce a DVD concerning creation in an ancient universe setting I would be very interested. I have many of Hugh Ross' excellent books and one DVD which focus on 'progressive creationism' - a view for which I have a great deal of respect. However, I do think that Genesis one is presented in a framework and that the literal 24 hour days are analogical of God's creative epochs and were presented this way for the benefit of Israel as it headed toward a settled and sabbath-keeping life in the promised land. However, over time I shall study your papers in greater depth. Thanks once again.
Ray and Carol, May, 2007
Gerald, March, 2007, Canada
… Do you know the cost of shipping books to Trinidad? The public education system here is steeped in evolution and we would love to get good creation material into the hands of people.
Steve, March, 2007, Trinidad
I checked out your website… I will keep mine very brief.
Of the three articles I read, biblical language, age of earth and does Jesus have a body, I was saddened by your lack of understanding orthodox christianity. I dont know what language or theological training you have had, but you make some rather bold errors that have been dealt with in the past. Your biblical language article turns God's word into a puzzle that only those with special knowledge can draw out (error of the gnostics), the age of the earth lacks an answer to the theological question "Does death come through adam's sin? If all creation is subject to death because of Adam's fall(as the Bible clearly states), then the geologists cant be right about that dinosaur fossil, and the body of Jesus was settled with the docetists. I have a masters of theology from one of the best seminaries in the United States and have spent my life studying God's word and the great men who expounded it. I have yet to find any serious commentator or orthodox linguist come to the conclusions you are impressing upon your readers.
I can only assume you mean well by creating a website like this. But you are putting serious exegetical errors into the hearts and minds of God's people. Good men over the last 2000 years have settled most of the issues that you are bringing up. While it is exciting to tell people that you have secret knowledge, and mask it in what seems to be intellectual arguments, it is a poor replacement for the uplifting of God's supremacy and holiness to a people who are in desperate need of Christ. I could go step by step through your articles and we could debate until the Lord's return. This would be futile and bring no edification to the body. What I did not find in any of the articles is "from the rising of the sun to its going down the Lord's name shall be praised." Instead, I hope to remind you that Paul would not have a website like yours, He wished to preach the simplicity of Christ and the gospel's power to save wretched sinners from what they deserved.
Stephen, USA, February, 2007
After reviewing your site, especially your ministry goals and beliefs, I immediately became intrigued. I do read extensively and perpetually search for greater understanding of God's word. I am frequently offered opportunities to read books, magazines, course materials, and other writings. I consider it a great honor and priveledge to read and gain insight through the thoughts of others. I always find it amazing that ministries, authors, and publishers should even care about by humble opinion… I spend the vast majority of my time reading and writing. I have written over 600 reviews including book reviews, Bible course critiques, and other materials. I don't profess to be a scholar, although I have helped with some forthcoming books and publications… Therefore, if you would, send what materials you can or wish and I will provide my humble thoughts - if you want. It would truly be a great honor for me and I know a wonderful learning experience…
Dr. L, February, 2007, USA
I took a very brief look at your web site and did not find the content to be Biblically accurate.
Michael, Feb., 2007, USA
…I'm in the process of writting a similar book myself. I'm a Gentile trying to show a Gentile Church world that Ezekiel shows that there will be animal sacrifice in the Millennial temple too. So good luck with your Shadow and Reality…
Darlene, USA, 20th March, 2006
… great, great, great. Love what you wrote about tolerating opposing views.
Gordon, USA, March, 2006
… I just finished taking an initial quick tour of [your site]... it looks good. I do like the approach you are taking regarding the inerrancy of Scripture (i.e. genre, idiom, etc.). God willing, I'll set aside some time again soon to take a closer look at this article and the rest of your site. Until then, thank you again, and may God be blessing you, my brother.
Brian, USA, March, 2006
Your website address was passed on to me. I have been browsing your site and reading with interest about your soon to be released books. I am especially interested to know what visual content (photographs, diagrams, artwork) they may have--in particular, "Wild Kingdoms". The sample of the written content has some fascinating facts and I am hoping the visuals are equally captivating. There are not really any samples of this on the website, so I am just wonderimg about it.
Rosalie, Australia, February, 2006
Ed. Samples of the kind of pictures we will include in this book (depending on permission) can be found in various articles on creation that can be accessed at the "Seeing God Index".
… You have some very good things on your web site.
Lenny, USA, 8th Feb, 2006
…I've already bookmarked your site, plan to read through a variety of materials, and will likely stop by on occasion to see what's new. BTW, the site is organized very nicely and the writing is very approachable. You and Martha have done a nice job.
Pam, USA, 6th February, 2006
I really like your site. I particularly enjoyed your Dialogue with Martin the Lutheran.
Ed. The "Dialogue" Sam speaks of is found at Martin the Lutheran.
That floating menu on the left of your web page is a galacticly hugh irritation... unload it.
C. E. W.
Ed. Thanks, CEW. Anybody else got a comment on this? I thought it was such a great idea. Felicia wrote and said:
As for your floating menu - keep it! I'm pretty sure if there's any research out there, it'll show that a viewer is more likely to select something from your menu just BECAUSE IT'S THERE and it's DRAWING ATTENTION TO IT. If you want to capture the 'browsing websurfer' you need to reduce effort, arouse interest & 'make it easy'. Your menu does this well.
I checked out your website, and appreciate your mission at Dawn to Dusk. I hope you're making some contact and inroads in the secular community. Thanx for being willing to tackle the apologetic challenge of connecting with postmoderns. Jesus' best to you both in your shared ministry.
I agree with your thesis about the Glory of the Lord; however if I could add that in conjunction with this the Christian Church has forgotten about the fear of the Lord. I believe for too long we have been told that to fear God is to reverence Him; however it was the Apostle Paul himself who said that it was because of the “Terror of the Lord” he persuaded men! Why should we fear He who saved our souls? He is coming in judgment. The apostle John, closest to the bosom of Christ while He was on earth, fell at His feet as dead when He saw the glorified Lord – whose eyes were as a flame of fire! It's as if we as Christians have put to one side that this age of grace is soon to close and the three groups as defined by 1 Cor.10: 32 will enter into the age of judgment. We before the Bema seat and the world of unsaved through great tribulation. Christians have also been guilty of reductionism in the area of faith in defining faith as mere trust in God whereas true biblical faith transposes to living; thus the evidence of true biblical faith is our works. Interestingly enough neither the saved nor unsaved are judged according to their faith but both are judged according to their works. All this has impact on your thesis – perhaps something to think on for your next book? I would be pleased to meet you sometime – but in the mean time It would be nice to know a little of yourself and also the price of your book.
Home Blog Archive