online nursing continuing education
Online Nursing Continuing Education EDU Tip Eriani Doyel writes articles about Education. For more information about continuing education visit =>http://www. Online learning is web-based. It is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, throughout the year. Anyone in the nursing profession can access it if he completes a simple registration process. [...]
Source: continuingeducationo.com
Sonia Sotomayor: Measured by the Word of God and Found Wanting
By Herbet W. Titus, J.D.
On May 11, 2009, President Barack Obama nominated court of appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to a seat on the United States Supreme Court. In support of this nomination, the President assured the American people that Judge Sotomayor was a deserving and worthy nominee. Not only would she be an able justice, the President intoned, she would be impartial, and she would have “empathy.” Thus, the President proclaimed that, with the nomination of Judge Sotoamayor, he had fulfilled one of his campaign promises, the one that he made to Planned Parenthood in 2007, that his judicial appointees would have “the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a teen age mom; the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.”�
Within days after this announcement, the President’s glowing endorsement became tarnished by the nominee’s own words. Delivering the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001 at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Judge Sotomayor asserted her “hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” This statement not only generated a crescendo of voices accusing Judge Sotomayor of “racism, ” but a deep and abiding concern that Judge Sotomayor did not have the judicial temperament that would enable her to judge impartially.
Indeed, in the week before the President’s public announcement of his choice to replace retiring Associate Justice David Souter, Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic raised questions about Judge Sotomayor’s “judicial temperament, ” citing the testimony of various lawyers who found her to be—“a terror on the bench, ” “overly aggressive—not very judicial, ” “behaves in an out of control manner ... makes inappropriate outbursts, ” “nasty to lawyers, ” and “a bully on the bench.”
In Deuteronomy chapter 1, we learn that God instructed Moses to “take you wise men, and understanding” and appoint them “judges, ” charging them to “judge righteously” without “respect of persons in judgment ... hear[ing] the small as well as the great, ... not ... afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s.” (Deut. 1:13, 16–17). Earlier in Leviticus, we learn that God expected judges to “do no unrighteousness in judgment, ” neither “respect[ing] the poor, nor honor[ing] the person of the mighty.” (Lev. 19:15).
Tracking this law of Moses, a person appointed to exercise the judicial power vested by Article III of the United States Constitution, is required to take not just one, but two oaths.
First, he must swear or affirm that “I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me ... under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Second he must swear or affirm that “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
In the short time that the American people have had to appraise whether Judge Sotomayor would be true to these oaths, it is becoming increasingly apparent that even her supporters—from the President on down—have backpedaled. In an attempt to soften her statement that a “Latina woman” judge would be superior to a “white male” jurist, President Obama said that “I am sure that she would have restated it.” Others have chimed in, including the President’s press secretary who dismissed the matter as just a mistake in the choice of words.
But, if one takes a closer look, Judge Sotomayor’s self-identification as a “Latina judge” reveals a person who is definitely not qualified to be elevated to the nation’s highest court. Indeed, a closer look reveals that she should be removed from the court of appeals on which she currently sits.
Sotomayor v. Solomon
According to Deuteronomy, the first and foremost qualification for the office of a judge, is that the person be “wise and understanding.” (Deut. 1:13). In her 2001 speech at the Berkeley law school, Judge Sotomayor stated unequivocally that “there can never be a universal definition of wise.” Hence, Judge Sotomayor expressed her conviction that judges have no choice but to draw upon their life’s experiences to resolve disputes between parties in cases and appeals brought to them. Further, she asserted the “hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
According to the book of Proverbs, however, there is a universal wisdom, established before the foundation of the world “to lead the way of righteousness, in the midst of the path of judgment.” (Prov. 8:20). And this wisdom is universally available to all (Prov. 1:20–23), the only precondition of which is to fear God and to diligently seek it. (Prov. 2:1–10). And, if one heeds this command, he “will increase learning ... and ... shall attain wise counsels.” (Prov. 1:5). On the other hand, those who “despise wisdom and instruction, ” will become “fools.” (Prov. 1:7). Thus, the Bible summarizes the several chapters in Proverbs contrasting the wise and the foolish with this conclusion: “The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom; and before honor is humility.” (Prov. 15:33).
These Biblical truths can best be illustrated by one of the most popular and acclaimed events in the history of Israel. In recognition of his youth and inexperience, King Solomon humbled himself before God, praying for an “understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad; for who is able to judge this thy so great a people?” 1 Kings 3:9. In response to Solomon’s cry, “God gave [him] wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart ... wiser than all men.” (1 Kings 4:29, 31). Then, Solomon displayed that wisdom when he adjudicated the dispute between the two harlots, ordering the dividing of the baby, knowing full well that the mother’s heart even of a harlot would reveal whose child it was. (see 1 Kings 3:16–28).
In Sotomayor’s world, however, Solomon’s “wise judgment” could only be explained as sheer luck.� After all, King Solomon was not only not a woman—much less a harlot—but had grown up in luxury, a favored son of King David—born with a “silver spoon” in his mouth.� How, then, could Solomon have known that a mother’s love would triumph over a harlot’s spirit?� His life’s experience was surely that of a “white male” and, according to Judge Sotomayor, totally unable to administer justice in a dispute between two fallen women—unless perchance the harlots had been represented by women lawyers sympathetic to civilization’s “oldest profession.” After all, as Judge Sotomayor would have us believe, the ruling by nine white men on the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that racially segregated schools violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws was made possible only because the children’s advocates were persons of color.
Judge Sotomayor proposes that for more consistent and reliable rulings in favor of minority groups the bench should be populated by “statistically significant numbers” of women, and people of color. Presumably, Judge Sotomayor believes that a judiciary more representative of such demographics will by a combination of their “rich life experiences” more often than not reach better conclusions than a bench over represented by “white males.” While this may have an appearance of wisdom, “the end thereof [would be] the death” of equal protection of the laws. (See Proverbs 14:12). For true wisdom does not come from a multitude of diverse voices, but only from God above. (James 3:13–18).
Sotomayor v. Moses
Judge Sotomayor agrees with her fellow Yale Law School classmate, Professor Martha Minow of the Harvard Law School, that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives—no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging.” Judge Sotomayor goes on to elaborate:
I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances ... but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.
And Judge Sotomayor finds this color and sex-conscious approach to law and judging should be welcomed, not tempered, much less subordinated, to the rule of law:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.... I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from our experience and heritage but attempt ... continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
In chapter 18 of the book of Exodus, we are given quite the opposite description of the judicial role, as explained by Moses to his father-in-law, Jethro:
What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sittest thou thyself alone and all the people stand by thee from morning into even? And Moses said unto his father-in-law, Because the people come unto me to inquire of God; When they have a matter they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God and his laws. [Exodus 18:14–16.]
First, note that the people on both sides of the dispute voluntarily brought their case to Moses. No one was coerced. And Moses was not assigned at random to the case. Both sides knew that they would get Moses as their judge. Why did they come? Because Moses shared their life’s experiences? To the contrary, Moses had been raised in Pharoah’s house. He had not suffered enslavement, as they had, but had lived his first forty years in luxury. (See Exodus 2:1–10). Furthermore, while the Israelis were making bricks out of straw, Moses lived on the backside of the desert herding sheep. (See Exodus 3:1). And Moses had even married a foreign woman. (See Exodus 2:21; Numbers 12:1).
Surely, there were others more qualified than Moses to “feel their pain.” But the people, who had previously rejected Moses as their judge (see Exodus 1:14) now embraced him. Why? They knew that Moses would judge impartially, that he would “not respect persons in judgment, but [would] hear the small as well as the great.” (See Deuteronomy 1:17). Unlike Judge Sotomayor, Moses did not “aspire” to be impartial; he was impartial, because God commanded it. (See Leviticus 19:15). Unlike Judge Sotomayor, Moses had no choice to behave otherwise. (See Deuteronomy 16:18–20). Neither sympathy, nor opinion, nor prejudice could ever be a touchstone upon which Moses would decide a case.
Second, note that Moses based his decisions on “the statutes of God, and his laws, ” not as Judge Sotomayor who would base her decisions on her “perspective” of the law. No. The people did not come to Moses to get his “perspective” on the matter in dispute. They came to get an authoritative resolution, one that would put the contending parties at rest, not leave them wondering that, if they had chosen someone else, they might have gotten a better deal. Judge Sotomayor, however, can offer nothing more than her “perspective, ” because she does not believe in the pre-existence of a set of rules by which judges are obliged to make their decisions. Rather, she believes that judges make up their own rules either on the basis of their “experiences, ” or on the basis of “inherent physiological or cultural differences.”
In contrast, Moses knew that God, mankind’s creator, had imposed upon His creation a set of rules which bound equally all mankind, male and female, and of every nationality. And it was the judge’s job simply to “make the parties know the statutes of God, and his laws.” Moses put this “common law” system in place even before God had revealed in writing the foundational principles of those laws. After all, not only had Moses been engaged in dispute resolution, but he had appointed others to do likewise, even before God handed down the Ten Commandments. (See Exodus 18:15–16, 19–26). None of is remotely possible in Judge Sotomayor’s world, divided as it is by the “inherent” differences between men and women, and “whites” and “people of color.” According to Sotomayor, there can be no “neutral” principles of law, because there is no legal ground common to both sexes and to all nations. The Bible record is to the contrary. (See Psalm 19; Romans 1:18–20; Galatians 3:28).�
Sotomayor v. Deborah
In the book of Judges, we are introduced to Deborah, “a prophetess [who] judged Israel” during one of the numerous times of oppression suffered during the period between Joshua and Samuel. (See Judges 4:4). As had been the case with Israel’s judges from Moses to Ehud, Deborah’s immediate predecessor—and as would be the case with those judges from Deborah’s successor, Gideon to Samuel and beyond—“the children of Israel came up to [Deborah] for judgment.” (Judges 4:5). Clearly, the people did not change their practice of seeking resolution of their disputes just because of Deborah’s sex or her tribal identity. Nor did they expect to be judged by any “sex-based” or “tribal-oriented” standard. Rather, the rule of law that prevailed during Deborah’s judgeship was the same rule that had been applied by Moses and would be applied by all of the judges thereafter. Thus, when Barak was summoned to appear before Deborah, the rule that only males would go to war (Deut. 20:1–9) was not changed, even though Deborah relented to Barak’s plea and accompanied him to battle. (Judges 4:6–9).
According to Judge Sotomayor, however, the rules do change, and such change is based upon the sexual orientation and ethnic background of the judge: “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Would Judge Sotomayor change the law to accommodate a plea from her “Barak, ” President Barack Obama, to accommodate his weakness? Why not? After all, Judge Sotomayor believes that a judge’s life “experiences” is what really counts in the judicial process—that, in reality, law is a reflection of the personal characteristics of those applying it.
If so, then why should we believe Judge Sotomayor when she tells us that her “gender” and her “Latina heritage” are the two most prominent determinants that shape her judicial opinions. She is not just a woman, but she is a divorcee and childless. And she is not just a self-described “Latina, ” but she is a “Newyorkrican, ” that is a “born and bred New Yorker of Puerto-Rican born parents who came to the states during World War II.” And she is a diabetic, and has been since childhood, and was raised by a single mother and whose father died when she was young. If law is nothing more than a judge’s life’s experiences, then shouldn’t Judge Sotomayor open the entire book of her life, including her failed marriage, to Senate scrutiny? How else would a Senator know how to vote on her confirmation?
As for Deborah, we are told only that she was the “wife of Lapidoth” and that she “dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim.” (See Judges 4:4–5.) Why so short a biography? Because in raising up persons to judge Israel (Judges 2:16), God no doubt adhered to the Mosaic standard revealed in Exodus 18:21: “thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness.” That standard did not change just because Deborah was a married woman to a man who was of the tribe of Ephraim.
Sotomayor v. The Bible
How would Judge Sotomayor measure up to the four Exodus standards? In order to be “able” to judge:�
The Bible teaches:
?�� A judge must be “wise and understanding.” (Deut. 1:13).
Sotomayor believes:
?�� “There can never be a universal definition of wise ... I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
The Bible teaches:
?�� One must “judge righteously, ” not by “appearances, ” but by “just judgment.” (Deut.1:16 and 16:18).
Sotomayor believes:
?�� “‘[T]o judge is an exercise of power’ and because there is no objective stance, but only a series of perspectives—no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging. I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.”
The Bible teaches:
?�� One must “fear God, ” not be “afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s.” (Deut. 1:17).
Sotomayor believes:
?�� “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
The Bible teaches:
?�� One must be a “man of truth, ” not a “respect[er] of persons” doing no “unrighteousness in judgment.” Leviticus 19:15.
Sotomayor believes:
?�� “The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”
The Bible teaches:
?�� One must “hate covetousness, ” for the “tak[ing] [of] a gift ... doth blind the eyes of the wise; and pervert the words of the righteous.” Deuteronomy 16:19.
Sotomayor believes:
?�� “We ... must continue ... to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have a statistically significant numbers to measure the difference we will and are making.”
Clearly, Judge Sotomayor’s view of herself as a judge, when measured by the Word of God, is found wanting.
Post Reply | View Replies
Source: www.feedcat.netnursing continuing education seminars Nursing Continuing Education Seminars EDU Tip Here we are talking about Continuing Education programs that are accredited by Federal or state Accreditation Agencies. Accreditation is a mandatory legal requirement. The word “Seminar” comes from the Latin word “semen, ” meaning “seed.” Just as a seed helps the plant to grow, Seminars help professionals to grow by unlocking their [...]
Source: continuingeducationo.comWhy Young People are Leaving the Church By Gary DeMar
Ken Ham, who believes in a literal six-day creation that happened around 6, 000 years ago, says the church opened a door for the exodus of youth, beginning in the 19th century, when it began teaching that “the age of the Earth is not an issue as long as you trust in Jesus and believe in the resurrection and the Gospel accounts.” Ham concedes that “salvation is not conditioned on what you believe about the age of the Earth and the six days of creation.” He admits that there “are many who believe in millions of years and are Christians.” Even so, the Genesis issue does matter, he argues, “because salvation does rise or fall on the authority of Scripture. The message of the Gospel comes from these words of Scripture.” But Christian old-earth advocates believe in the authority and integrity of the Bible as much as young-earth advocates do. By their own admission, young-earthers note that a number of well respected theologians and scholars did not and do not believe in a young earth. Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892) had this to say about the age of the earth.
“Can any man tell me when the beginning was? Years ago we thought the beginning of this world was when Adam came upon it; but we have discovered that thousands of years before that God was preparing chaotic matter to make it a fit abode for man, putting races of creatures upon it, who might die and leave behind the marks of his handiwork and marvelous skill, before he tried his hand on man.”[1]
I don’t know anyone who would accuse Spurgeon of not holding up the authority and integrity of the Bible. In the book edited by Terry Mortenson and Thane Ury, Coming to Grips with Genesis, the following is found: “The Baptist ‘Prince of Preachers, ’ Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892), uncritically accepted the old-earth geological theory (though he apparently did not realize that the geologists were thinking in terms of millions of years.)”[2] Further digging will show that Spurgeon did believe in an old earth, “many millions of years” old:
In the 2nd verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder.[3]
Take note of the fact that this sermon was preached before Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859.
There are many modern-day evangelical, Bible-believing scholars who hold to an old-earth position on the age of the earth. Gleason L. Archer (1916–2004), who was a staunch defender of the inspiration and authority of the Bible, held the old-earth position[4] as did Arthur Custance (1910–1985) in his book Without Form and Void.[5] His detailed analysis of the position can be found here. Without Form and Void “has been described by John C. Whitcomb, one of its chief opponents, a Hebrew scholar himself, as the definitive work on the Gap Theory, also known as the Restitution Theory. By the way, The Scofield Reference Bible also taught the gap theory, which necessitates an old earth:
- “Jer. 4.23–26, Isa. 24.1 and 45.18 clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of a divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe.”[6]
- “Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains.”[7]
Clarence Larkin, [8] another dispensationalist, held the old earth position, as did Finis Dake (1902–1987). Since The Scofield Reference Bible was first published in 1909, and it is the most widely distributed study Bible in the world, why is it only in the past few decades that we are seeing young people leaving the church? By 1943, 1, 925, 000 copies of the Reference Bible [had] been published.”[9]
I could just as easily take the other end of the dog and claim that it’s the last book of the Bible that’s causing young people to abandon Christianity. Creation’s not the problem; it’s eschatology. For more than 100 years, Christianity has been dominated by a prophetic belief system that discounts the future by repeatedly claiming that “Jesus is coming back in your generation!” People can only take so much of this after the passage of more than 100 years of assurances! There are many potentially good books that are spoiled by a preoccupation with the end times. Numerous failed predictions have led many Christians to question the reliability of the Bible. Young people notice these things. They put 2 and 2 together and begin to realize that Christianity is irrelevant this side of the grave because “Jesus is coming back soon!”
So why does Ken Ham pick only old-earth creationism and not the entire dispensational system that is footnoted and codified in Scofield, Larkin, and Dake? I realize that Answers in Genesis is a creation organization, so creation is its emphasis, but if creation affects other areas, an eschatology is also a big part of the Bible (bigger in content than creation), why not mention it as well?
Bart Ehrman, author of numerous books critical of the New Testament, abandoned Christianity, not because of creation but because of eschatology. His best-selling book Misquoting Jesus describes how he struggled to reconcile what he believed to be errors in the Bible.[10] His pilgrimage from Moody Bible Institute to Princeton changed him forever. His trek down the road to skepticism begins with what he describes as “one of the most popular books on campus” at the time, Hal “Lindsay’s [sic] apocalyptic blueprint for our future, The Late Great Planet Earth.” Ehrman writes that he “was particularly struck by the ‘when’” of Lindsey’s prophetic outline of Matthew 24. “When” is the issue in the young-earth/old-earth debate, so why isn’t an issue among young-earth advocates since, as I will show, the interpretive principles are the same.
Ehrman’s story is not unusual. Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University and self-professed “ex-Christian, ”[11] devotes a chapter to the subject of eschatology in his book The Evolution-Creation Struggle.[12] He believes that the interpretive methodology of dispensational premillennialism is inexorably linked to the way its advocates defend their position on creation. This is unfortunate, since dispensationalists have been wrong about both ends of the Bible.
Creationists claim that they interpret the Bible literally, but when they come to a prophetic passage like Matthew 24:34, they throw their literal hermeneutic to the wind. (See my detailed response to the Left Behind series: Left Behind: Separating Fact from Fiction.) Don’t you think young people notice this type of interpretive sleight of hand? Consider the following comments on Matthew 24:34 from Henry M. Morris, a dispensationalist and a founding father of the modern-day, six-day creationist movement. The comments on “this generation” come from his creationist themed Defender’s Study Bible which was first published in 1995:
“The word ‘this’ is the demonstrative adjective and could better be translated ‘that generation.’ That is, the generation which sees all these signs (probably starting with World War I) shall not have completely passed away until all these things have taken place” (1045).
Morris describes the use of “this” as a “demonstrative adjective, ” but it is better designated as a “near demonstrative” adjective identifying the proximate generation that will see the signs, the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. In Greek and English, the near demonstrative (this) is contrasted with the distant demonstrative (that). Greek language specialists make this very point:
Greek grammars and lexicons recognize two demonstratives: near and distant. The near demonstrative, as the name denotes, points to someone or something “near, ” in close proximity. They appear as the singular word “this” and its plural “these.” The distant demonstratives, as their name suggests, appear as “that” (singular), or “those” (plural).[13]
The near demonstrative “this” always refers to something contemporary, as the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature makes clear: “[T]his, referring to something comparatively near at hand, just as ekeinos [that] refers to something comparatively farther away.”[14] Prior to his comments in his Defender’s Study Bible, Morris wrote the following extended comments on Matthew 24:34 in his book Creation and the Second Coming:
In this striking prophecy, the words “this generation” has the emphasis of “that generation.”[15] That is, that generation—the one that sees the specific signs of His coming—will not completely pass away until He has returned to reign as King.[16] Now if the first sign was, as we have surmised, the first World War, then followed by all His other signs, His coming must indeed by very near[17] — even at the doors! There are only a few people still living from that[18] generation. I myself was born just a month before the Armistice was signed on November 11, 1918. Those who were old enough really to know about that first World War—“the beginning of sorrows”—would be at least in their eighties now. Thus, we cannot be dogmatic, we could very well now be living in the very last days before the return of the Lord.”[19]
Consider the last sentence: “we could very well now be living in the very last days before the return of the Lord.” When young people continually hear such things, they get discouraged and find solace elsewhere. Who wants to be part of a religion that is continually preaching inevitable gloom and doom? “A philosophy calling for an escape from time is not likely to involve itself in the battles of time.”[20] Pretribulational dispensational David Schnittger pointed out the problem more than 20 years ago:
Many in our camp have an all-pervasive negativism regarding the course of society and the impotence of God’s people to do anything about it. They will heartily affirm that Satan is Alive and Well on Planet earth, and that this must indeed by The Terminal Generation; therefore, any attempt to influence society is ultimately hopeless. They adopt the pietistic platitude: “You don’t polish brass on a sinking ship.” [Coined by dispensationalist J. Vernon McGee]. Many pessimistic pretribbers cling to the humanists’ version of religious freedom; namely Christian social action and political impotence, self-imposed, as drowning men cling to a life preserver.[21]
Furthermore, how can young people believe in the authority and integrity of the Bible when there has been a long history of repeated and failed attempts at date setting? (See my book Why the End of the World is Not in Your Future).
Matthew 24:33 tells us what audience Jesus had in view: “so, YOU too, when YOU see all THESE things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.” It is obvious, and without any need for debate, that the first “you” refers to those who asked the questions that led to Jesus’ extended remarks (Matt. 24:2–4). Jesus identifies those who will “see all these things” by once again using “you.” If Jesus had a future generation in mind, He could have eliminated all confusion by saying, “even so THEY too, when THEY see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, THAT generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Instead, Henry Morris and others have to massage the text to support a future tribulation period.[22]
Then there is the problem with the way Morris understands the meaning of “last days” in the notes of his Defender’s Study Bible. He states, “this ‘last days’ prophecy of Joel was fulfilled at Pentecost only in a precursive sense” (1179). Even though Peter says that the events at Pentecost are a fulfillment of what Joel predicted (Joel 2:28–32)—“this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:17)—Morris argues that “its complete fulfillment must await the time of the end. . . . Thus Peter’s statement: ‘This is that’ (Acts 2:16) should be understood in the sense of ‘This is like that’” (1179).[23]
What implications does this have for the issue of the authority and integrity of the Bible that Ken Ham rightly raises in his book Already Gone: Why Your Kids Will Quit Church and How You Can Stop It? How will we ever convince skeptics of the truthfulness of the Bible when it is distorted to defend interpretations where “this” means “that” and “this is that” actually means “this is like that”? Don’t even get me started on words like “near, ” “shortly, ” “quickly, ” and “at hand” (see here and here). I wonder how young-earth creationists would respond to an old-earth creationist who applied Morris’ interpretive methods to Genesis.
So then, it’s not the age of the earth that is driving young people away, it’s the fact that the Bible is not taught in a comprehensive way that has meaning for the here and now.
Post Reply | View Replies
Endnotes1 Charles H. Spurgeon, “Election, ”
The New Park Street Pulpit, 6 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan [1856] 1963), 1:311–322. No. 41–42 preached on September 2, 1855 on 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14.
The online version � 2 Terry Mortenson and Thane Ury,
Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Publishing, 2008), 96.
3 Charles Spurgeon, “The Power of the Holy Ghost, ”
The New Park Street Pulpit, 1:230. No. 30 preached on June 17, 1855 on Romans 5:13. The online version can be found at http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols1-3/chs30.pdf
4 Gleason L. Archer,
The New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001).
5 Custance.org �6 Comments on Genesis 1:2 in the 1945 edition of
The Scofield Reference Bible.
7 Comments on Genesis 1:11 in the 1945 edition of
The Scofield Reference Bible.�8 Clarence Larkin,
Dispensational truth or God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages (Philadelphia: Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate, 1918), 21–24.
9 Arno C. Gaebelein,
The History of the Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Our Hope Publicans/Loizeaux Brothers), 1941), 11.
10 Bart D. Ehrman,
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York: HarperCollins, 2005).
11 Michael Ruse, “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians, ”
National Post (May 13, 2000), B3.
12 Michael Ruse,
The Evolution-Creation Struggle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005).
13 Cullen I K Story and J. Lyle Story,
Greek To Me: Learning New Testament Greek Through Memory Visualization (New York: Harper, 1979), 74. “Sometimes it is desired to call attention with special emphasis to a designated object, whether in the physical vicinity or the speaker or the literary context of the writer. For this purpose the demonstrative construction is used. . . . For that which is relatively near in actuality or thought the
immediate demonstrative [
houtos] is used. . . . For that which is relatively distant in actuality or thought the
remote demonstrative [
ekeinos] is used.” (H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey,
A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament [New York; Macmillan, 1957], 127–128, sec. 136).
14 William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich,
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4
th ed. (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1952), 600.
15 I received the following in an email: “I will admit that the word ‘this’�has ALWAYS presented an obstacle to a full understanding of the Discourse. Have you ever considered this word COULD HAVE BEEN�‘that’ in the original�[Manuscript]????�I believe�from my reading that�could have been possible” (November 12, 2007). Almost anything is possible, but there is no indication that the Greek word
ekeinos was ever used. It’s pure conjecture. The emailer’s comments show the extremes people will adopt to hold on to an interpretive system that has no biblical support.
16 There is nothing in Matthew 24 that says Jesus is going to return to reign as king on the earth.
17 Why does “near” mean “even at the doors” for Morris in his day, but it did not mean “near” in the first century?
18 Notice how Morris uses the far demonstrative “that” to refer to a generation in the past. How would he have described the generation in which he was living? Obviously with the near demonstrative “this” to distinguish it from “that”
past generation.
19 Henry Morris,
Creation and the Second Coming (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1991), 183. Morris died on February 25, 2006 at the age of 87.
20 R. J. Rushdoony,
The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1971), 129.
21 David Schnittger,
Christian Reconstruction from a Pretribulational Perspective Oklahoma City, OK: Southwest Radio Church, 1986),
7.
22 The latest example is found in Tim Demy and Gary Stewart,
101 Most Puzzling Bible Verses: Insight into Frequently Misunderstood Scriptures (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2007), 105–106. They argue that there is no mention of an audience reference in Matthew 24:33, just that “The phrases ‘this generation’ and ‘these things’ are linked together by context and grammar in such a way that Jesus must be speaking of a future generation.” This is the height of obfuscation. Jesus clearly identifies the audience: “when YOU see all these things.” The “you” are those in Jesus’ audience.
23 Thomas Ice argues in a similar way: “But this is [
like] that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” He tries to explain the addition of “like” by claiming that “The unique statement of Peter (‘this is that’) is in the language of comparison and similarity, not fulfillment.” (Thomas Ice, “Acts, ” in Tim LaHaye, ed.
Prophecy Study Bible [Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000], 1187).
Source: www.feedcat.net"Watch the Skies!" By Gary DeMar
“Pop-culture fiction, not academic nonfiction, is now the cutting edge of public discourse on spirituality.”[1]
For several months I have been working on an extended project that explores the relationship of pop-culture to societal norms and worldview shifts. In addition to comic books, film, and music, I’ve been looking at science fiction and the search for extraterrestrial life. Science and science-fiction have converged on the subject for quite some time. “Nicholas of Cusa (Kues, German, 1401–1464) was a theologian who in De docta ignorantia endorsed the idea of other inhabited worlds in the mid-fifteenth century. Remarkably, Nicholas even affirmed that the inhabitants of the planets were superior to Earth’s human residents.”[2] It’s surprising how much interest and writing there has been on the subject for more than 500 years! It was surprising.
Extraterrestrial superiority is the norm for modern-day space-travel theorists. Evolution is the driving force behind most of it. It’s the belief of these writers and theorists that space exploration is the hope of mankind. In Star Maker (1937), Olaf Stapledon (1886–1950) “placed humanity on a cosmic evolutionary journey that ends in near divinity. . . . [He] believed we needed a new mythology for the dawning of the technological age.” The claim is made that the inherent principles of evolution will make space a utopia because science and scientists will lead the way.
C.S. Lewis was one of the first modern writers to spot the obvious flaw in space-utopia thinking. In a letter to Arthur C. Clarke dated December 7, 1943, Lewis wrote: “Technology is per se neutral: a race devoted to the increase of its own power by technology with complete indifference to ethics does seem to me a cancer in the universe. Certainly, if he goes on his present course much further man can not be trusted with knowledge.”[3] They continued this debate until 1954. Lewis died on November 22, 1963, and Clarke went on to fame with a much expanded film version of his short story The Sentinel (1948) that became 2001: A Space Odyssey. The Sentinel is about a warning beacon left on the Moon by an ancient alien civilization to signal when earthlings make their way into outer space. Even Clarke understood that man’s moral nature is problematic, not because of sin but due to his unevenly evolved condition. There are two things to keep in mind when reading the star-travelling utopians. First, alien civilizations are portrayed as more intelligent (more highly evolved), and, second, earthlings are a threat to the cosmos because they are yet “savages” when compared to the evolutionary development of other alien races. Here’s how Clarke states it in The Sentinel:
Perhaps you understand now why that crystal pyramid was set upon the Moon instead of on the Earth. Its builders were not concerned with races still struggling up from savagery. They would be interested in our civilization only if we proved our fitness to survive—by crossing space and so escaping from the Earth, our cradle. That is the challenge that all intelligent races must meet, sooner or later.
Much of twentieth-century science fiction that makes it to the silver screen has portrayed aliens as sinister. War of the Worlds, published in 1898 by H. G. Wells and later made into a film in 1953 and again in 2005, is a good example. The same is true of The Thing from Another World (1951, 1982), Invaders from Mars (1953), Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956, 1978) and many more too numerous to list here. At the end of the 1951 version of The Thing, a newspaper reporter sends out a warning over the radio: “Watch the skies, everywhere! Keep looking. Keep watching the skies!” The message was clear: aliens are bad. They are not our moral equals.
Given the evolutionary overtones of so many scientists and science fiction writers, how is it possible to make any moral assessments? Who are the good guys, and who are the bad guys? How do we know what’s good or bad? Evolution on earth is a history of “Nature, red in tooth and claw.” Why is it now wrong to be equally misanthropic in the pursuit of greater evolutionary development? Philosopher Richard Rorty (1931–2007) provided a thought-provoking moral experiment for naturalistic philosophy to grapple with. Rorty challenges atheists to offer a compelling satisfactory naturalistic answer to the following:
Aliens from another planet, with vastly superior intelligence to humans, land on earth in order to consume humans as food. What argument could you make to convince the aliens not to eat us that would not also apply to our consumption of beef?[4]
Rorty’s morality question was done with flair in the 1962 episode of The Twilight Zone “To Serve Man.”A race of seemingly benevolent aliens known as Kanamits[5] is led by “a Christopher Columbus from another galaxy and another time.” This superior alien race lands on Earth and brings with them advanced technology with the promise of a utopian world. Initially wary of the intentions of such a highly advanced race, even the most skeptical humans are convinced when their code-breakers begin to translate one of the Kanamit’s books with the seemingly benevolent title, To Serve Man. Sharing their advanced technology, the aliens quickly solve all of Earth’s greatest woes, eradicating hunger, disease, and the need for warfare. Convinced that the Kanamit’s are alien benefactors, earthlings are clamoring to visit the Kanamits’ home planet where it is believed a paradise awaits them.
All is not well, however, when a code-breaker discovers the Kanamits’ true intentions: Their book, To Serve Man, is a cookbook, and all their gifts were designed to make humanity complacent, to fatten them up for the slaughtered. Here’s how host Serling concluded the show:
The recollections of one Michael Chambers, with appropriate flashbacks and soliloquy. Or more simply stated, the evolution of man, the cycle of going from dust to dessert, the metamorphosis from being the ruler of a planet to an ingredient in someone’s soup. It’s tonight’s bill of fare from The Twilight Zone.
So, given evolutionary assumptions, was it morally wrong to turn humans into “an ingredient in someone’s soup”? Evolutionists would surely protest the “dust to dessert” analogy, but there is no basis for any moral aversion. The 1983–1984 television mini-series V offered a similar plot line when alien “benefactors” wanted to suck earth dry and use humans as cattle. Many science fiction films still portray aliens as malevolent (e.g., the Alien franchise), but a trend toward aliens as saviors dominates and began with The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). Earthlings are stupid and evil, and only a higher evolved alien race can save humanity. Here are Klaatu’s parting words:
This universe grows smaller every day, and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all, or no one is secure. This does not mean giving up any freedom except the freedom to act irresponsibly. Your ancestors knew this when they made laws to govern themselves, and hired policemen to enforce them. We of the other planets have along accepted this principle. . . . It is of no concern of ours how you run your planet, but if you threaten to extend your violence, this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned-out cinder. Your choice is simple. Join us and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face obliteration.
Implied in this warning is that man has not evolved enough to understand his place in the cosmos. Aliens, because of their evolutionary development, are our saviors.
E.T.: The Extraterrestrial was the new model. Spielberg summed it up when he said in a 1978 Rolling Stone interview, “The movie will only be successful if, when [people] see it, they come out of the theater looking up at the sky.”[6] It’s no longer “Watch the skies” for danger, watch the sky for salvation. (To be continued. . . .)
Post Reply | View Replies
Endnotes1�James Herrick, “Sci-Fi’s Brave New World, ”
Christianity Today (February 2009), 25
2�James A. Herrick,
Scientific Mythologies: How Science and Science Fiction Forge New Religious Beliefs (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 45.
3�Walter Hooper, ed,
The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis: Books, Broadcasts and the War, 1931–1949 (New York: Harper Collins, 2004), 594.
4�Quoted by Richard Mankiw at http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/06/richard-rorty.htm
5�
Richard Kiel plays the head Kanamit. Kiel played the “Jaws” character in
The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) and
Moonraker (1979). He reprised his “Jaws” character in the film
Inspector Gadget (1999). In 2002, Kiel wrote his autobiography,
Making it BIG in the Movies. He is often confused with Ted Cassidy (1932–1979), “Lurch” in
The Addams Family, where he gets the short end of the stick in
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) when he declares that there are no rules in a knife fight.
6�Quoted in Chris Hodenfield, “The Sky Is Full of Questions: Science Fiction in Steven Spielberg’s Suburbia, ”
Rolling Stone (January 26, 1978), 33–38.
Source: www.feedcat.netnursing continuing education for the 21st century Nursing Continuing Education For the 21st Century EDU Tip As the world continues to get more complex, careers are becoming more specialized and require continuing education credits to remain in good standing. This is especially true in the medical fields although many professions and professional organizations also demand their members to continue to develop the [...]
Source: continuingeducationo.comWhy Paying Attention to the Constitution Matters By Gary DeMar
I received the following portion of a longer email from someone who disagreed with me on the interpretation of the Constitution related to the relationship between the Federal government and the states. He opened his email with this statement (my response follows his comments):
“I, sir, have an education in law; you do not.� All you have are the efforts to rationalize your way around it—pseudo-law from the lunatic fringe which is applied to everything as one-size-fits-all all non-answer to everything.� Empty of content, it is an avoidance of everything, beginning with law and reason. The Constitution, sir, applies both to Federal and state gov’ts: it is expressly the ‘supreme law of the land’; it is�expressly stipulated therein that any subordinate law—and all other law is subordinate to it—�inconsistent with it is unconstitutional, including state constitutional provisions and law. That is why, as example, GA’s first constitution was amended to make it religion-neutral—to modify its prohibition against active clergy holding public office—upon ratification of the Federal Constitution.�All states with such prohibitions did the same, exactly as they modified the oath of office in the state constitutions to accommodate those who hold different, or no, religious views.”
Your claim to “have an education in law” is irrelevant since there are others who have an education in law who would disagree with your views. Anyone who has the ability to read and reason can join in this debate. The Constitution doesn’t require that a Supreme Court Justice “have an education in law” or even be a lawyer! I suspect that your claim to “have an education in law” means that you are NOT a lawyer or a law professor. So please don’t try to pull professional rank on me. If you are a law professor, then say o. As far as I can tell, you are a liberal statist crank.
You are wrong on your understanding of the relationship between the Federal and state constitutions as the Constitution was originally conceived. The prohibitions concerning clergymen not holding dual offices were in place in some states prior to the drafting of the Constitution. �For example, Delaware’s constitution (1776) established the Christian religion (Art. 22) while not elevating “one religious sect” in the “State in preference to another” (Art. 29):
ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
“I, ___________ will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced.”
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
“I, ___________ do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”
And all officers shall also take an oath of office.
ART. 29. There shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this State in preference to another; and no clergyman or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of holding any civil once in this State, or of being a member of either of the branches of the legislature, while they continue in the exercise of the pastoral function.
A jurisdictional separation between church and state was maintained by prohibiting a “clergyman or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination” from “holding any civil office” in the state, “or of being a member of either of the branches of the legislature, while they continue in the exercise of the pastoral function” (Art. 29). Let me repeat. This state prohibition was in effect prior to 1787, and Article VI, sec. 1 in the Constitution did nothing to change this at the state level.
Taking your view, then one has to explain how the Constitution of North Carolina in 1776 provided, “That no person who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State” and remained in force until 1835, when it was amended by changing the word “Protestant” to “Christian, ” and as so amended remained in force until the Constitution of 1868. And in that Constitution among the persons disqualified for office were “all persons who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”
Your understanding of the Constitution is a revisionist version. The Federal Government through the courts has turned the Constitution on its head, and your comments are evidence of this fact. Many of these changes came by way of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment which has been used to nullify the original intent of the Bill of Rights. Originally the states only wanted to give limited authority and enumerated powers to a national government. Thomas Jefferson made these points in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
“Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
The very wording of the First Amendment is a brake on the Federal Government: “Congress shall make no law. . . .” If Congress can’t make a law, then it can’t make a law.
Post Reply | View Replies
Source: www.feedcat.net
