Adam couldn’t face God. Cain’s face fell. Moses’ face shone with reflected light when he returned from the mountain of God. Bezalel and Aholiab constructed the Table of Facebread, which corresponded in the cherubim to the Face Of The Man. David and his men ate the facebread. Saul feared Goliath, but David’s face was red, literally “filled with blood,” before he bloodied Goliath’s face and the usurper fell facedown. [1]
Does thinking about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch give you the eco-jitters? Do you shudder at the thought of the world running out of space for landfill? Worry no more. We finally have the answer.
.
I’ll bet this one doesn’t make the headlines like King Julian did. The media pump up anything that might possibly support evolution, regardless of how many in the scientific establishment have great doubts about it. The average secularist might want to stay wrapped in his evolutionist fantasy, but what excuse do evangelical Christians have for their willful delusion? Even less, now that the evolutionists’ false paradigm has again been shown to be a theory that misinterprets the data:
Daniel Harrell tries to marry chalk and cheese by positing that Adam and Eve were real people, just not the first real people. They were the first people with whom God entered into a Covenant relationship.[1] The Rev. Harrell is sitting on the fence, an extremely pointy fence.
For many Christians, the biblical characters Adam and Eve can present a significant challenge to accepting evolutionary theory—that is, when they are cast as historical figures who are also the biological progenitors of the human race. …the Rev. Daniel Harrell discusses how there may be some “middle ground” in the way that Christians understand Adam and Eve. Harrell points out that the historicity of Adam and Eve does not necessarily conflict with science. Rather, the claim that conflicts with science is the idea that Adam and Eve were the first humans, who were the only original biological ancestors of all humans today.
[This post has been refined and included in Sweet Counsel: Essays to Brighten the Eyes.]
Continue reading
From the latest Creation Research newsletter:
After noting that animals living in perpetual darkness have “vestiges of eyes”, Dawkins asks the following question: “Given that a cave salamander lives in perpetual darkness so has no use for eyes, why would a divine creator nevertheless furnish it with dummy eyes, clearly related to eyes but non-functional?” (Dawkins, Greatest Show, p. 351)
He will set up a banner for the nations, And will assemble the outcasts of Israel, And gather together the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the Land. Also the envy of Ephraim shall depart, And the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, And Judah shall not harass Ephraim. But they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the west; Together they shall plunder the people of the East; They shall lay their hand on Edom and Moab; And the people of Ammon shall obey them. The LORD will utterly destroy the tongue of the Sea of Egypt; With His mighty wind He will shake His fist over the River, And strike it in the seven streams, And make men cross over dry-shod. There will be a highway for the remnant of His people Who will be left from Assyria, As it was for Israel In the day that he came up from the land of Egypt. (Isaiah 11:12-16)
Everyone knows what “walking on water” means. You can do the impossible. Often it has a negative spin, as when it is applied to politicians with a Messiah-complex.
But what does it actually mean in the Bible? And why did Jesus do it?
“Human beings are animals whose preference for group membership is simultaneously the source of their greatest salvation and their ultimate destruction” —Xenocrates
Who has the majority of evidence to support their paradigm? Is it the Young Earth Creationists or the (mostly atheistic) Evolutionists? (Please note that as far as I am concerned, anyone else is just sitting on a very sharp fence trying to hide the pain with clever words.)
The Old Earthers, whatever their stripe (from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to certain young Sydney Anglicans I admire and the misguided mob at BioLogos), despite their bluff, rely on hearsay and circular reasoning. Creationist cosmologist Russell Humphreys writes:
Human talent amazes me. Totally aside from the child prodigies, we are an extremely gifted bunch. After only a couple of decades on the planet, from those who have the opportunity to apply themselves with enthusiasm to their particular area of interest, we see some incredible achievements. For the godless, this should certainly seem miraculous. But for our dark hearts it just proves how smart and wonderful we already are in ourselves. This is the ingratitude Paul speaks of.
For Christians, talent (or beauty or wealth) is just another dead giveaway of God’s existence. And God Himself almost seems to despise this early glory as a short-lived covering of wildflowers that appears suddenly after some long-awaited rain. This is the glory of youth and it is insufferably vain. It exalts itself by calling its competition dumb and ugly.
Bible Matrix blog
