Humans and Dinosaurs #3

If God created all sea, air, and land creatures on the fifth and sixth days of creation, with humans being created on the sixth day also, then yes, humans and dinosaurs coexisted at one point in history.  I say this because the penalty for eating the forbidden fruit in the garden was death.  Romans 5 says that "Just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." My reading of Romans 8:19-25 indicates that the death that occurred in men after the fall also fell upon all of creation.  All of creation was subjected to frustration as a result of Adam.  I don't believe Scripture teaches death before the Fall, if you know verses that teach this, please let me know. 

As long as men and dinosaurs coexisted, wouldn't there be evidence of their coexistence?


Let's take a look at one example.  The Lindworm!  The Lindworm is found within Eurpoean mythology. 

Were Lindworms real?  Would they classify as dinosaurs today?

Historically, Marco Polo, reported seeing Lindworms in Central Asia.  Here's the quote from Marco Polo:

.. snakes and great serpents of such vast size as to strike fear into those who see them, and so hideous that the very account of them must excite the wonder of those to hear it. ... You may be assured that some of them are ten paces in length; some are more and some less. And in bulk they are equal to a great cask, for the bigger ones are about ten palms in girth. They have two forelegs near the head, but for foot nothing but a claw like the claw of a hawk or that of a lion. The head is very big, and the eyes are bigger than a great loaf of bread. The mouth is large enough to swallow a man whole, and is garnished with great [pointed] teeth. And in short they are so fierce-looking and so hideously ugly, that every man and beast must stand in fear and trembling of them. There are also smaller ones, such as of eight paces long, and of five, and of one pace only. (The Travels of Marco Polo, Ch. XLIX)

To read the entre chapter from The Travels of Marco Polo, click here. He goes into detail on how they are caught and how they are very valuable, because they are used in making a medicine - very much a part of Traditional Chinese Medicine. 
 There is a lot more present on the Lindworm at the following sites:

http://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Lindworm
http://www.book-of-thoth.com/thebook/index.php/Lindworm
http://dragonsinn.net/fict-lindworm.htm
These sites aren't well cited, but I'm sure that if you search for the specific details within these sites you will be able to find historical citations.  At least I posted the Marco Polo quote. 

Is the Lindwurm evidence of dinosaurs existing with humans?  What do you think?

Human and Dinosaurs #2 -The London Hammer

 What would it mean if a hammer was found in a layer of rock that ordinarily would be dated at the time of the dinosaurs?  Would that mean dinosaurs, grafted hammers.  Does anyone remember the show Dinosaurs.  According that show's fantasy, they did.  If I remember correctly, the father dinosaur in that show was a construction worker. 




If you don't know what I'm talking about there is a hammer called "The Hammer" or the "The London Hammer".   It has this name because it was found in London, Texas.  The hammer is from the Cretaceous time period - a time when human evidence should not exists according to Darwinian theory.  Of course some, people claim that this hammer, isn't actually from Cretaceous rock, such as the following two writers:

http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=315
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

However, some sites, take a different approach to this artifact:

The following site lists it as an unexplained and unsolved mystery of the world.  Adding to the mystery, this site says that "the quality of the iron equals or exceeds the quality of any iron found in the modern world."  Wow!  What would that mean?  Check out the summary of this artifact from Mysteries of the World (of course they also have information about aliens...): http://unexplainedmysteriesoftheworld.com/archives/the-mystery-of-the-london-artifact

"The Hammer" even hit ZME's "Ten Most Amazing Unexplained Artifacts."  From their write up, we hear that there was a team that dated the hammer to be way older than the rock formation it was discovered.  This definitely would mean people co-inhabited with dinosaurs.  Here's a quote from their site, "A team of archaeologists checked it, and as it turns out, the rock encasing the hammer was dated back more than 400 million year; the hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old. Additionally, a section of the handle has begun the transformation to coal. Creationists, of course, were all over this. The hammer’s head, made of more than 96% iron, is far more pure than anything nature could have achieved without an assist from modern technology."  Read more: http://www.zmescience.com/other/most-amazing-unexplained-artifacts/#ixzz1XwaHASzl

Here is information about the hammer from the museum that houses the artifact: Creation Evidence Museum.

What do you make of this? Who do you trust? And why?

Humans and Dinosaurs #1

It's a hot topic now in my classroom; did people and dinosaurs exist at the same time?  This question has been asked in a couple of different classes in the past week.

Matt Damon would say if you think people and dinosaurs ever coexisted, you shouldn't be qualified to be president of the United States of America (near the end of the following video). 

Here's one reason why dinosaurs likely are not as old as many scientists claim (230 million years old according to this site).  Did you know that red blood cells were found within dinosaur bones?  Most scientists upon hearing this would think this is improbable, that the findings must be wrong!  Why?  Because there is no way that red blood cells could be preserved for millions of years.  There's no way they wouldn't have decayed.  The known laws and functions of science would lead them to believe they must have been decayed.  To make matters even more interesting, soft bone tissue has also been found within a T-rex bone!  Again, what?  How is this possible?

Watch the full episode. See more NOVA scienceNOW.

It's funny that when this was discovered, scientists began to think about the possibility of finding DNA and then cloning dinosaurs, just like in Jurassic Park!  Really, that's the first thing that came to mind.  Why wouldn't it come to mind that this evidence shows that dinosaurs aren't as long extinct as previously thought?  Why isn't this being addressed. 

Jurassic Park - Here we come! 

Again, if the bones are millions of years old, you would expect there to be no red blood cells, no soft tissue present.  It would have decayed and become hard minerals.  But it hasn't.  Please note, the source for this is PBS!  I didn't quote from a Christian website. 

Defending Hell #3

Defending hell is a strange title for a blog post.  But from my perspective, hell is under attack.  A large number of Christians and non-Christians question the existence of hell.  And ultimately in questing the existence of hell, the existence of God is being questioned, as well as the significance of Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross!  An apologetic for hell is sadly necessary. 

One objection to the existence of hell is its duration.  Eternity?  Isn't that too long of a punishment?  Wouldn't an all-loving, merciful God believe in remediation, and not eternal condemnation?  No second-chance? 

 Let's first admit that if you believe there might be a hell and there might be a God, that God if he was able to create all things, must be greater than us.  His ways, thoughts, and actions must function on a higher plain than that of humanity.  When we start with that notion, we have to admit that God is soverign and if I don't understand his judgment against sin, it doesn't really matter. 

I also believe that from our experiences in life, we are given the ability to at least reasonable understand how God could justify eternal condemnation  of hell.  Let's consider our own prison systems.  If someone outright intentionally, murders someone we would expect them to receive a death sentence - here life in prison, or a trip down death row.  If someone rapes someone, we likely would also wish for a life sentence, although we know rapists get way less and when released are often times repeat offenders.  If someone who murdered someone gets off the hook - he cry foul!  We desire justice and we desire tat the punishment fits the crime. 

How long would it take to murder someone?  One gunshot - dead.  Murder can be instantaneous.  But how long is the penalty?  Much, much longer.  For a one second crime - one moment of stupidity, or anger, a person receives a life time of punishment.  How is that fair?  It's fair because a life was taken, and the only way to repay a life is to lose your life. 

Now think about hell?  Who is the crime against?  Sins are committed against God.  If a person lives for 30 years, that's thirty years of sinning against God.  As great a value as human life has, the value of the life of God is much greater!  So for a one second - three minute crime committed against a human, a lifelong sentence can be expected in many cases.  For lifelong crimes committed against God - how long should the crime be? 

Also, if we think about the exchange that is weighed out in penalties - a life for a life, we should consider that God is eternal.  An entire sinful life against God - wouldn't an eternal penalty fit the crime? 

But, the love of God objection is usually thrown out here.  I would have to say the love of God justifies the penalty of hell. God Father had his Son, Jesus Christ, brutally executed by the hands of his creation.  Jesus Christ on the cross, suffered the eternal penalty of hell - that doesn't make sense to me, but God is outside of time and it is possible for him to somehow suffer hell in a three hour time span.  If God the Father is willing to allow his son to serve as a substitute for us, and if Jesus Christ, his son, is willing to suffer hell for us, so we won't have to experience hell - isn't that the greatest love of all?  If he experienced hell, even though he was innocent, so we who are guilty won't have to experience hell, how can we truly object to God sentencing sinners who have rejected him from the punishment of eternal hell? 

I still don't get hell - I still don't like it, and I definitely don't want anyone to suffer it, just as God doesn't evidenced through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, but my personal likes and dislikes have to be submissive and obedient to the will of God and his Word. 

Defending Hell #2

In today's American culture, it has become, at least in my opinion,  politically incorrect to say someone's religion is wrong.  When it comes to religious beliefs, the spirit of the age seems to encourage a relative approach - it's all good, as long as it's good for you and it doesn't harm others and you are respectful of others' beliefs.  Respect, however, seems to be more than just showing care and a whimsical approach to sharing one's beliefs with another, respect is not saying someone else is wrong.  It's not claiming that your faith is exclusively true - bad news for any exclusive religion, including Islam. 

The result of this spirit of the age is that even within Christian circles, there is a doubt of the existence of hell.  It's become the view that love means being accepting of all ideologies, political viewpoints, religions, sexual orientations, and etc.  The thought goes, "If we can be so loving and open to accept and cherish everyone regardless of personal differences, then God should be that loving too!  An all-loving God, if he exists, wouldn't send someone to hell, because their beliefs didn't align with his."  It really shows, that we think we know more about love than God.  It shows that we think we know more about justice than he does.  How arrogant is that?  Our words, our thoughts, our beliefs, cannot trump those of God expressed in his Word. 

Some Christians have jumped on the universal salvation bandwagon.  They still claim that salvation is through Jesus, and through faith, but they allow an opportunity after death for people to come to faith in Christ!  Is this in Scripture anywhere?  Christian universalism is of course grounded in a right heart position, that no one should perish and suffer hell, which by the way is God's heart position too, in his moral will.  But in his decreed will, God allows for us to be morally free agents.  He isn't the puppet master of our souls - forcing us into a relationship with us.  So in his decreed will, he allows for humanity to reject him - to mock him - to spit on him - to trample him underfoot.  The major flipside to this is that it means God's righteous judgment upon the people who reject him.  The upshot of course is that for those who have accepted him, it wasn't forced, it's a true love relationship with the Master of the Universe! 

When this life is over, where do you want to stand on man's word, or God's.  I'd like to cite some of the verses which Bill Wiese lists in his book which show the existence of hell within the pages of the Bible. 

 

Appointed or Assigned 

Luke 12:46
Revelation 21:8

Body in Hell

Proverbs 1:12
Matthew 10:28

Darkness

Job 33:28-30
Matthew 8:12
2 Peter 2:4-17

Destruction

Job 21:30
Matthew 23:33
2 Thessolonians 1:9

Eternal Separation

Proverbs 15:29
2 Thessalonians 1:9

Hell

Psalm 55:15
Matthew 16:18
Revelatoin 20:14

These are just a few of the verses, and I mean just a few, which Bill Wiese cites in his book.  For the full list, check out his book 23 Minutes in Hell.  Also check out his book, Hell: Separate Truth from Fiction and Get Your Toughest Questions Answered

Defending Hell? #1

It may come as a shock, but there is a need for an apologetic on hell.  Seriously. 

Read the following page for more information:   Pew's Hell Survey.  According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007, only 59% of Americans believe in the existence of Hell. 

Proving hell's existence to someone who isn't a Christian, is next to impossible.  How would you do it since hell is only experienced after death, unless of course, God gives someone a vision of hell and the person recognizes the vision was from God and puts trust in that vision? 

The need for defending the existence of hell isn't necessary for the unbeliever, it's necessary for believers.  Read the link to "Pew's Hell Survey" and the percentages given indicate that there must be Christians who do not believe in the existence of hell!  From personal experience, I have heard Christians question the existence of hell based on the existence of an all-loving God.  Think Rob Bell's book, Love Wins.  Ultimately, the problem lies in our over-emphasis of certain characteristics of God.  We over focus on God's love and mercy, and we ignore or erase God's nature to be just and holy!  We forget that grace, although it is free, is not cheap!  Grace is very, very costly to God. 

G - od's
R - iches
A - t
C - hrist's
E - xpense

Here are some books on hell: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/august/5booksonhell.html

Selling Truth for Unity #1

From Charles Colson's article, "As Long as we get Along: Selling Truth for Unity":

He quotes Bishop Lee who said, "If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy."

Colson can't think of anything more dangerous.  He explains that this is basically saying, "we can tolerate anything within the church just to keep the church together."  This reminds me of Paul when he addressed the Corinthians about the man they knew was sleeping with his father's wife.  They allowed it to happen!  We can't allow and tolerate open sin in order to avoid conflict or schism within the church.  In the case of Bishop Lee that was tolerating an openly gay man as a bishop in the Episcopal Church.  Doing so would be avoiding the prerequisites of a church leader laid out by Paul in his pastoral epistles given to Paul and Titus, as well as clear writings about the sinfulness of homosexuality and other sinful actions in Romans 1.  Paul also had to take such stands against false doctrines and teachers within the church.  Think the Judaizers and Gnostics of his day. 

Colson gives two reasons that so many Christians are selling truth for unity!  The first is money.  He says, "There is a lot at stake economically!"  If a church becomes split, who is going to pay for the pastor's salary and retirement?  Who is going to pay for the congregation's building loans?  Will someone's reputation be hurt?  The second reason he gives is that American Christians no longer take truth seriously!  As a result, we tend to think that all people of good will are "basically on the same side."

I've met many college students at UCI who believe that we're basically good and following the same path.  Some of these students grew up in the Christian church and have fallen away to religious pluralism and universalism.  Many take the stance that we cannot know the truth in any situation - even morality!  Everything is subjective and relative with personal preference being the guide and norm of our lives.  How dangerous is that?  Well, that's what you get when you shoot for unity above truth.

Colson concludes his article by saying, "It's all well and good for evangelicals to sit around and talk about "those crazy Episcapalians." But they're just reflecting what all of us do to a lesser degree.  Lee's words ought to be a sobering wake up call to all of us."