Paul: misapplied, misunderstood, but never mistaken
I agree with your statement on Paul. For nearly two millennia now, an increasingly antinomian church has deftly manipulated the Pauline corpus in the spirit of Marcion so that it has been made to say the opposite of what Paul intended. Hopefully the grassroots Hebraic roots movement that is springing up internationally will effect a sea change in this regard. I believe it has a chance to do so if it is not marginalized by extremists in the movement.
Dr John, USA, May, 2009
Evolution's quiet revolution
As you mention, committed evolutionists will try to 'believe' their creed despite stunning evidence for creation.
Bruce, Australia, April, 2009
Thanks for sharing. Great confirmation of faith. One tires of the continual dribble in the media of evolutionary assumption presented as fact. Why don't you write a Discovery Correspondence course, call it Origins, that pulls together some of the most outstanding and recent evidence that harmonises with the creation view, and undermines faith in evolution.
John, Australia, April, 2009
Thank you. It helps to see it, as I had to write on this topic for a magazine, likely will do a column on it later this year as well.
Russ, USA, April, 2009
Interesting and well presented! Society has been victimized by the old adage: tell a big enough lie often enough and with enough bluster, and everyone will believe it. But that brings to mind Abraham Lincoln's dictum: You can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all the time!
John, USA, April, 2009
Not too many write about evolution any more… With your permission I would like to consider using it in our Newsletter. Of course, you and "Dawn to Dusk" would get full credit. I am doing what I can here to help dispel the misconceptions mankind has covered itself with, and which is suffocating the belief in a Creator God for most of mankind.I surfed your site a litte too, and it is very well done.
Ken, USA, April, 2009
1. Evolution is not a philosophy. It is a scientific theory about the natural origins of biodiversity.
2. Evolution in no way discounts the creative hand of God in nature. God is perfectly capable of creating via miraculous or natural means, as the Bible tells us. The fact that we develop in our mothers' wombs entirely by natural processes does not mean that we are not also fearfully and wonderfully made by the Lord.
Jordan, Canada, April, 2009
Thank you. I am right behind you belief in Creationism and a blessed Maker of our universe. I appreciate what you write. May God bless you and open the blind eyes of those whom human wisdom has blinded to the bright light of Christ's glorious gospel. I intend to forward your message to others.
Maurice, United Kingdom, April, 2009
Thank you Rod. It is amazing how evolution has been accepted so unscientifically, showing that there is another motivation behind it all.
Peter , Australia, April, 2009
Are the resurrection accounts contradictory?
Well done Rod......common sense sometimes isn't so common.... Happy resurrection....
Coach, USA, April, 2009
Good stuff. Keep up the good work. Every little bit helps the kingdom cause.
Timothy, Indonesia, April, 2009
In many ways, it is the lives of the disciples and apostles that makes the Resurrection compelling. If something dramatic and life-changing had not happened why did they become so dynamic and courageous?
Janet, United Kingdom, April, 2009
...Good going. Who would have believed the Bible documents if every writer wrote the exact same thing (the world would have believed they merely copied the first writer). They each wrote within their perspective and no writer claims anything else. We should expect that there would be different situations recalled by each writer. Apparently, those who challenge the Christian documents have never read present-day newspapers writing about the same story and if every reporter wrote exactly the same perspective, there would be an outcry about "copying"....
J., USA, April, 2009
Your religion has a lot more problems than inconsistencies between separate accounts of a possibly fictional being, written over 50 years after said being's supposed death…
Abby, April, 2009
Thank you for this. Having just returned from a 6am sunrise service to receive your email, I have a few moments to kill before Church. Whilst I agree with what you say, there are other important factors here. The gospels were written decades after the actual events took place and are written for a specific purpose (John 20:31). They were written to specific readerships in order to explain these events in a way that made sense to them. Hence John's Gospel is very different in its language and its theological expression from, say, Matthew. A Greek readership will struggle with the Jewish overlays of Matthew and vice versa. The trap that most critics fall into is in assuming that they are reading ‘The Daily Express' or the ‘BBC Web Site' – a blow-by-blow account of what happened, rather than, as John 20:31 tells us, a theological insight into the events surrounding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus (that doesn't mean it wasn't historically accurate too). As with St. Paul seeking metaphors to explain the atonement, we find that no account of a divine act can fully explore the depths of its significance. Also, we need to respect the diversity of human experience of the risen Jesus. The Gospel records were no doubt absolutely accurate from the standpoint of those who wrote them (or more specifically to those who witnessed the events). Anyone who knows the truth that ‘Jesus is Alive' will express that faith in different ways according to their experience of his Spirit in their life. The Easter Day experience from Mary Magdalene's perspective will inevitably be different from that of Peter or John. Why should we think otherwise?
Roger, United Kingdom, April, 2009,
… I enjoyed reading your article about the resurrection account. May God bless your ministry. Take care. He is Risen!
David, USA, April, 2009
In many ways, it is the lives of the disciples and apostles that makes the Resurrection compelling. If something dramatic and life-changing had not happened why did they become so dynamic and courageous?
Janet, United Kingdom, April, 2009
I did finally get around to your article, and your stress on many women, coming over a period of time, is good. But as you note, your article is very short and does not address other issues...I am not an inerrantists, so for me this does not matter. Keep working.
Troy, April, 2009
Thanks - that was useful and interesting reading.
Tony, U.K., April, 2009
… Not surprisingly we are looking at the Resurrection account in John on Sunday evening at our Café service, as well as the Walk to Emmaus and Thomas - our subject is "doubts, questions and revelations". So this is very relevant, thank you…
Sue, U.K. April, 2009
How I miss him
… I hope you don't mind some constructive criticism but I felt your blog left a wrong impression… Rod, I know what you are trying to do, and I applaud you for it. I don't want to knock what you are attempting to do but your blog left me with the impression that we are left completely on our own now that Jesus has gone off to heaven and we will be on our own until either he returns or we join him in glory:
John 14:16-18."And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you. “I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you."
Rod, I am sure that is not the impression you wanted to leave but that is how it struck me.
Les, WA, Australia, March, 2009
Ed., Thanks, Les, for pointing out an unintended inference. Absolutely, believers have a current personal relationship with Jesus Christ. (See also 1 John 1:3). Nevertheless, we don't want to ignore Jesus' clear inference that his disciples would “mourn” when “the bridegroom [is] taken away from them” (Matt. 9:15). By comparison with our future, intimate fellowship with Jesus, what we know now, as real and satisfying as it is, is but “small change”. We currently see through a glass darkly.
You forgot that after walking with the Lord Jesus for three years and being the leader of the inner circle, Peter denied Jesus. You forgot that the other two members of the inner circle of disciples, James and John, requested places of honor in Jesus' kingdom (James and John were sure it would be an earthly kingdom - so much for understanding and being so uplifted, inspired, and awestruck), and that it appears only one disciples dared to witness the crucifixion. Your assumptions about everything being so wonderful for the original disciples is your own projection onto the actual experience, and your projection does not fit. Read the texts again without your already fixed conclusions.
John, March, 2009
I walk now with him in my heart every minute of the day and night. I have been very privileged to visit his home town and travel his land twice in my life time already. I have felt his presence there in Israel. I have and still do feel his presence with me here in this place where I live. Yes indeed it would have been a wonderful experience to have been with Christ in person and to walk in that way with him but we are not in that possition, that time has gone, but we walk with him every day of our life by inviting him in to all that we say think and do in service and love to him.
Barbara, Australia, March, 2009
Well done! On many occasions, I have imagined being there and witnessing the marvelous things the first disciples witnessed---the healings, Jesus walking on water, Lazarus coming out of the tomb at Jesus' command, etc. Such meditations, I believe, serve to enhance faith and inspire hope. Keep up the good work!
Vince, USA, March, 2009
While I applaud your intention I cannot say that it gave me any insights which I may already have on what it would have been like to be one of the first disciples. Maybe it is because the short blog is not the right vehicle but I thought that there is not enough reflection and personal feelings expressed. Forgive me for saying it may possibly suit a new Christian. I don't think it is meant for someone as long in the tooth as me. I commend your efforts and pray they will be richly blessed,
Stanley, Canada, March 2009
Cosmic quicksands and the puny weakling paradox
It a pity in reviewing an article about mathematical physics you only mention the weak force of gravity. The whole universe is one big electromagnetic field. The electric plasma power of the universe is easily seen in the auroras which power our earth. The other fields and power lines are not as easily seen. Thunderbolts are a great power. Have you view the huge storms that continue to create extreme discharges on Jupiter. The engine of our planet is powered by the sun. Gravity accounts for perhaps 20-30% of the mass of the universe. When the greater electric element of the universe is incorporated the speculative mathematical gravity based theories can be seen to incomplete and in accurate. Mathematics based theories like Hawkins and others propose generally stem from Einstein's E= MC squared. The basic assumptions of this equation limit its a licability to creation. Including the notion that time can be speeded up and slowed down. Clocks measure the elapse of time, clocks can show differences in their measurement but time itself is instant and cannot be sto ed or started, speeded up or slowed. The twin travelers aging differently analogy is a stunt - not reality…
Vic, Australia, Feb, 2009
Who is the salt of the earth?
I read your article about the salt of the earth. I see that you researched it extensively. We can answer the question by reading the parallel account of this incident. In Luke, some of Christ's statements are duplicated from Matthew 5, indicating that it is the same incident. In Luke 6:19-20, the multitude was there, but Christ "lifted up His eyes toward His disciples." He spoke, and in Luke 7:1 it says He spoke in the hearing of the people. He said His disciples were salt and light, but others heard him say it. This is a situation somewhat similar to Matthew 13, where Christ spoke a parable to the multitude, but explained it only to His disciples. That is why I believe the salt of the earth is the Church.
Randall, USA, Dec., 2008
I agree. He was speaking to Jewish people and continuing the Isaiah 60 light of the world message. Of course the ingrafted from the nations are to continue this, but it was spoken to the Jewish people.
Don, USA, Dec 2008
… My point in all of this is everyone including jewish people have the right to believe in Him and yet some patronise jewish people and choose rather to ingore them because they have been taught that God has already saved them all. SO SAD...................Do the men who teach such things hate the Jews? Are they not excluding them from salvation which is God's goal for all people to believe in His Son? Is it not our obligation as former gentiles to provoke them through jelousy to Jesus…
Robert, USA, Dec 2008
As far as I am concerned, I think the New Covenant reality of Christ can only be seen once we get past the "shadows" of keeping the traditions of the Jewish fathers(ie,Col.2:14-17 shows that Christ nailed the handwritten laws to His cross, and now we have to get rid of the "Tabernacle of Testimony" because that is the only way to get into the Holy of Holies. Heb.9:8 shows that as long as that Tabernacle is still there in our religion, we cannot have a one on one relationship with Christ and the Father, because we cannot go into His presence. The salt refers to those who are able to live their lives now by the Faith of Christ(Rom.1:17-compare Acts 26:18) As long as we depend on our performance to save us… we will not be able to take that through the resurrection, because it is just works of the flesh, rather than what God is doing to save us. Of course we cannot sin, or He will leave us(II Tim.2:12-13)because that denies Christ.
Mary, USA, Dec 2008
Dear Rod, I am so happy that you write that replacement theology is wrong. Please visit the website http://haderek.ca
Rita, USA, Dec 2008
… Hmm. Yes I suppose its possible Jesus was referring to the larger audience of Israelites. It raises a good principle though about the audience to which certain scriptures apply. One that bothered me is in Mat 24 the "you" there. And when they deliver you up ... We see Christians in India being killed today. Could it be them? It doesnt have to be American Christians, does it? As though they w ere the centre of all scripture…
John, New Zealand, Dec 2008
I think you bring up some good points in this article. Please email me to remind me to visit your blogg.
Greg, Australia, Dec 2008
Whether Yeshua was speaking to a few or a great crowd, he was speaking to Israelites (the remnant of the nation, which was Judah). As a nation it had "lost its flavour", and was no longer a light - probably a reference to Jerusalem which was set on a hill and at Sukkot time the festival of lights made it stand out for a great distance. The only way they could be "re-salted" was by entering the new covenant. We don't think of "Christians" or "the Church" as something distinct from Israel, but they comprise the new covenant assembly of Israel. The message was for "them" but it is also for "us".
Selwyn, USA, Dec 2008
… in general I can't say I agree with your thesis. For one thing, the entire discourse out of the mouth of Jesus is directed to his disciples (Matthew 5:1-2), so I would hold… that this is foundational teaching for the Church, the disciples of Christ. Also, while I don't hold to “replacement theology,” as that term is normally understood, it is clear that in some ways the Church does come to be a new nation that fulfills one phase of God's plan (Matthew 21:33-34), pending the grafting back of the natural branches. It's true of course that God isn't finished with national Israel and one could cite many scriptures to demonstrate that, but I don't feel these Scriptures are correctly applied to national Israel…
Ralph, USA, Dec 2008
Thanks for the article. I love your spirit of analysis. The argument that all Israel is the salt seems a bit oblique to me. I think Yeshua is talking to all his followers, Jewish and non-Jewish…
Rabbi Shmuel, USA, Dec 2008
… I read it and still conclude it was addressed primarily and directly to the disciples, regardless of who else might have been within earshot. Granted, it is not stated clearly just what the multitudes did but Mt. 5:1 says the disciples came to Him once He was seated. V. 2 says he taught them (the disciples). I don't see how this could be national Israel. If it were that would be one big lump, not a scattering of grains. Also, national Israel is not a positive light and they don't season the earth spiritually, which is what the salt is depicted as doing.
Larry, USA, Dec 2008
… My personal studies and revelations have persuaded me to believe Jesus was in fact referring to His followers. That is why He also explained that if they lose their saltiness they cannot be made salty again…
Robert, USA, Dec 2008
… In the long term, you will see that I might agree with your overall premise, but in the short term I do not. The Bible tells us why. The sermon on the mount was only partially for those disciples and general public who may have been there. It was the gospel. It was gospel spreading but it was not for them spiritually... not yet.
The proof of this is in 1 Cor. 2:14 which clearly states that without the Holy Spirit one cannot understand the Word of God. They see it as foolishness. Gospel spreading, has as it purpose to be proclaimed and not to convert or convince of anything spiritual. Once heard, God will use that in the resurrection; specifically the Second Resurrection when the lion's share of all who have lived will be called truly to repentance, baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit…
The good news, long term, is that in the plan of God, everyone who has ever lived will have his or her opportunity to know all truth, have access to the Holy Spirit, enter the Salvation Process and, if successful there, enter the Kingdom of God with eternal life.
For now, however, God is not saving the world, calling the world or bestowing His Holy Spirit to the masses. This is self-evident… If God were saving the earth now, why is there coming a time when most flesh will be dead? How could the salt refer to the World now? It cannot.
One can only be a light with the Holy Spirit in them. Christ was never with anyone who had the Holy Spirit. He never had a meal with a converted person as the Holy Spirit was not giving until 40 days after He was gone on the Day of Pentecost [Acts 2].
Eventually everyone will have their opportunity to be the salt of the earth, but now now. Those who heard the sermon on the mount that day did not have this salt and had no light in them.
Chris, Minister, USA, Dec 2008
I agree. The "everlasting covenant" is called the "salt covenant." Not only does salt serve as a preservative, it lasts and lasts and lasts. If you dissolve it, it comes right back when it dries up.
Monte, USA, Dec 2008
… You do not need much salt if it has not lost its savor, and that is why we read that the remnant of believers in the last days "will be very small and feeble"(Isa.1:9-compare 16:14)but the most of the called have been unable to translate the "pattern" of the symbols of salt and light,etc., into the reality of Christ and following Him, which means they have not learned to use the testimonies that prophesy(Rev.19:10)and that bring us the 'Light"(Isa.8:20-"To the Law, and to the Testimony; if they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no Light")…
Alex, USA, Dec 2008
I think you are absolutely right!… It is encouraging to read that after "the fullness of the Gentiles" has come in, Israel will no longer be spiritually blind. As it is written: For I would not, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." (Rom 11:25-26).
Jeff, Barbados, Dec 2008
I believe you are correct in your assertions. I do not believe in replacement theology because Romans 9-11 makes it very clear right in the New Testament that God is far from finished with Israel. The New Covenant is yet to be made with Israel and Judah. That being said there is now a special relationship established with the church that did not exist as a body until Christ's resurrection. Thus Paul refers to the church as the Israel of God. That suggests an Israel belonging to someone else. The church has a relationship with God that the physical nation of Israel hasn't. God divorced Israel thus their relationship is different than before the divorce when the Old Covenant was in full effect…
John, USA, Dec 2008
Enjoyed your article. Very true what you said about replacement theology.
Rabbi Stanley, Israel, Dec 2008
Israel is the salt of the earth - that is rather obvious from the Tenakh.
Isibiel, USA, Dec 2008
I enjoyed your blog entry. It is useful to bear in mind that the Sermon challenges all Israel to fulfill their purpose and calling to be a light to the nations. Of course, to be light, they must be filled with the light of Messiah.
Rabbi Glenn, USA, Dec 2008
Good article, I agree Israel is His Chosen people
Stephen, USA, Dec 2008
… I read the Blog and thought it was right on target. Great job. I think this is just another example of replacement theology seeping into the church. Keep up the good work !
Rabbi Daniel, USA, Dec 2008
Very intresting. seem when we think past normal christian thought we some times recive the left foot of fellowship. I remember when the Senior pastors would warn the peopel befrore I taught that .... " Everyone knows pastor Fred is a rebel.." rebel on dude.....LOL
Fred, USA, Dec 2008
Many are cold but few are frozen
Just to let you know that I visited your blog and read your very interesting article about the remarkable iceworm. Many thanks! The internet truly is a wonderful resource. Some months ago I began recording and uploading short video talks to YouTube. Perhaps sometime, you may consider doing the same. Here's a link to some of mine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-EQTJ9O9M0.
Jeff, Barbados, June, 2008
The forgotten fourth horseman
… I think [Ron Weinland] is suffering from visions of grandeur. The Two witnesses may be alive at this time, but I doubt they know their future. It seems there is too much that must happen before they appear on the scene. Yes, I think we are all anxious for our Lord to return and set up God's Kingdom on Earth, but we need to understand that many events must happen before that climatic day. I would like to know more about your organization. I will try to learn from the sites you provided with your memo. Any other material you wish to provide is welcome.
Bob, USA, April, 2008
… I must congratulate you on your website and your work. It seems that you and I are very much on the same wavelength. I agree wholeheartedly that God has given us three revelations – The Creation, the Bible and Jesus Christ. Must confess I have not been aware of Ron Weinland's books and agree with your article. However the events that are unflolding in Israel, the rise of Islam and the potential of current world finacial crises lead me to feel that the events that will lead to the appearance of the fourth horseman may be closer than most think.
Gordon, Australia, April 2008
Moses, earth science, and astronomy
The problem with so much of this debate is it seems to neglect the witness of scripture and substitutes attempts to bind my conscience and others. The Hebrew word raqia variously translated sky,firmament indicates a polished metal dome over the earth. All I can say in reply to your email is what Martin Luther said 500years ago. It is a shame when Christians do not know their own books.
Norman, April, 2009
I was surprised to see someone writing from a more conservative stance on Moses. We believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, with no errors, including no errors in areas of science and history which it touches. Appreciated your emphasis on language devices to explain some of his statements. Poetry and common ways of expression are often non-scientific, but that does not mean that the speaker does not know anything! Deut 33:14, by the way, speaks of months, not the moon--I assume that's what you were getting at.
Matthew, USA, May, 2008
The article is spot on. I did find that statement about too "primitive" to get to their level extraordinary. It is an example of the disease, "modern is always smarter and better," taken much too far… Nice work,
Rochelle, Israel, April, 2008
I like what you have written. C.S. Lewis is tackled this issue more than once, though I don't have the references before me. the very fact that we can refer to a "dark ages" is a reminder that during more ancient times people were not so naive. One frequent assertion that Lewis counters is that the ancients were gullible about miracles. His point is that the ancients knew enough about the laws of nature to know that these events were not normal. Ancients knew that loaves did not multiply. they may have differed about the cause of the multiplication (Satan or God?), but they knew the miraculous compared to the natural…
Dan, USA, April, 2008
… I read the article and have bookmarked your site for a more thorough reading when I have a little more time available. Seems like a pretty interesting premise and that you have spent some time doing your research - though I would have liked to see more references in the blog posting to source materials. Take care.
David, Niue, April, 2008
I agree with what you have written at the link: some people tend to read these ancient documents too simplistically. I agree that modes of expression need to be understood within their cultural context and that there is not always correspondence between form and meaning, ie some idiomatic constructions are complex and substantive, basically noncompositional in form and content.
David, April, 2008
Nice article, Rod. You did a nice job.
Todd, Bosnia & Hercegovina, April, 2008
While I agree that those seeking to tear the Bible down often come up with ludicrous ideas like some of these, I really don't think it's the best place to spend one's energies. Those people aren't going to be convinced by anything we say or do, so it's pointless to argue. I thought the argument about the "firmament" (I prefer "expanse") and its meaning was weak, because the examples the page gave still involve a beaten-out sheet; thickness is irrelevant. And nobody said that Moses ever thought the RAQIA` was made of metal, so that part is a straw man. The word refers to the fact that it's stretched-out, i.e. it reaches across a visible distance, not what it's made of. But suppose they did conceive of it as a solid dome? So what? They were doing the best they could with the knowledge and language they had. The next time somebody gives you that bit, just ask them to explain in scientific terms what love is. Sooner or later they'll resort to metaphor and figurative language, because it can't be done within the limits of current human language. Why hold Moses to a higher standard than they hold themselves? It's hypocritical, and I'm not above pointing it out…
There are some good points in the article, but I wouldn't spend your life on the subject. There are much more important things. I fiercely disagree with folks like the ICR people who claim that the creation account is the basis for the veracity of everything else, because the basis for our faith is Jesus' resurrection, not how long it took to make the earth.
Dave, April, 2008
I found it underwhelming…
Jay, USA, April, 2008
The books of the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, were written over 600 to 700 years and some based on oral and written traditions reaching into the Bronze Age. The claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is a pious myth easily falsified by the texts themselves but we will, for the sake of argument, assume the myth. If Moses wrote the Pentateuch, it would have been sometime in the 15th century BCE… So to fix the time of Moses and the alleged authorship of the texts that describe the Biblical cosmology, we are fixed in the late Bronze Age and an author who spoke Middle Egyptian and would have had an Egyptian concept of the Cosmos. In the 15th century BCE there was no Hebrew language or script. Using the author Moses as a metaphor for cosmologic tradition, we begin in Egypt and specifically in the delta where Avaris would have been the capital of the Hyksos Pharaoh under whom Joseph lived. This would point to a Memphis cosmology where Ptah was the head of the pantheon as was a blacksmith whofashioned the world. This, of course, is reminiscent of the Hebrew "raqya" which recalls beaten out metal.
The Biblical cosmology was that of a dome, supposed hammered out of metal, called raqya that was like a bowl turned upseide down and sunk into a pail of water...hence there was water below the earth (aretz) which floated on the surface of the "water below" like a flat piece of wood. This flat earth had four corners as mentioned at Isaiah 11:12 me'arba kanefoth ha'aretz. Water below the floating land could "trickle up" in the form of rivers, lakes, and springs. Water above the raqya...translated as "firmament" is held up by the dome and the stars and heavenly bodies hung from the inside of the dome like lanterns. If the dome's "windows" was opened up, rain occurred or, if held open, the great flood…
So what do we have? We have a co-mingling od Bronze Age Egyptian and Iron Age Mesopotamian cosmologies forming 2 separate creation accounts in Genesis, not to mention a redacted Mesopotamian flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
The long and short of it is we are dealing with Bronze and Iron age perceptions of astronomy and science incorporated into ancient "Holy Writ" with a simple purpose of telling us "God did it!" Underneath the mythologies are rationalities concerning our individual intercourse with the world and our societies. We are left to choose whether we want to embrace the myths or the rationality.
Jack, www.historian.net, April, 2008
Thanks, Rod. The opinions that you review and criticise are typical of those who wish to discredit the Bible and trash the Creator and Redeemer of the world.
Oesterly and Robinson were liberal critics of the Bible, and children of their time: they were Evolutionists. Moses was the son of Amram and Jochebed. He was discovered by the princess of Egypt, Hatshepsut, daughter of Thothmes I. She got Jochebed to wet-nurse Moses, and she taught him the lore of the Hebrews. As adopted son of the Pharaoh, Moses was sent to the Scribal School where he passed out with top honours. Then he was sent to the Military Academy, and was commissioned into Pharaoh's army. He led an expedition up the Nile to the 4th Cataract into the land of Cush (Sudan), where he met and married his first wife (Numbers 12:1)…
The Firmament seems to be the Atmosphere: it is the milieu where the birds created on Day 5 could fly (Genesis 1:20). Is that your Blog? Well done, Rod.
Rev. Ben, United Kingdom, April, 2008
Heaven: God's user-friendly interplace
I find it very interesting. I can agree with most of what you wrote, but question your understanding of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit is also a person in the "God Group" (pardon my affectionate irreverence, if you can), was He also in the beginning with the Father and the Word? Have you looked at my blog at http://puritanlist.blogspot.com? I really did enjoy reading your piece.
Steve, USA, March, 2008
Interesting blog about the non-space, space. Nice to throw some thoughts out there, I'd never myself pondered our Creator existing without a 'place' pre-creation.
Felicia, Australia, March, 2008
Global warming: good news, bad news
… I found your article well-written, communicated clearly, and was very interesting. Thank you.
Gerald, March, 2007, Canada
Should a temple be built in Jerusalem?
If it takes an angel to measure the temple in Jerusalem, what makes you think it can be "seen" on earth?
SK, December, 2008
Ed. Without intending to sound flippant, I ask, “Why not?” It takes angels to act as ministering spirits to the heirs of salvation, yet we can see them.
… I visited your very interesting and informative, "Dawn to Dusk" web site and read your blog, "Should a Temple be Built in Jerusalem?" I certainly agree with you, Rod. Bible prophesy strongly indicates that a Temple will be built there again and sacrifices will be offered there before the return of Christ. When the sacrifices are stopped and the abomination of desolation is set up in Jerusalem, the Great Tribulation will be imminent and the return of Christ will follow within three and a half years. So, you are exactly right… I'll be visiting your web site from time to time, Rod, as there are a number of articles I want to read…
Jeff, Barbados, November, 2007
Home Blog Archive