The Quiz Heard 'Round the World

Recently in the news there was some controversy over the private Christian school Blue Ridge Christian Academy. Part of their curriculum uses material from Ken Ham, of the Answers in Genesis ministry.

I've mentioned before how I fully support his ministry, and also pointed out how many people (Christians often included) would get rid of him in a second if they could. It's very sad to me that Christians are against him because the primary message of his ministry is God's authority in scripture over man's authority.

Because of his background, he achieves this primarily through apologetics and education on Young Earth creationism. Young Earth Creationism is a set of three words that sets atheists on fire and gets the venom shooting often with Christians as well. For someone to actually suggest that God could have created the world in six days, without using Evolution, is considered to them to be the most egregious of statements.

The school mentioned above came under attack because a quiz was given with answers corresponding to what the students had learned on one of Ken Ham's curriculum DVDs. This is a Christian school, teaching from a Christian perspective, but as soon as someone opposed to Ken Ham's ministry found out about it, there was a media firestorm. Atheists and Christians came out of the woodwork to condemn Mr. Ham and his ministry; as well as, to make threats towards the school itself.

Thankfully, in the midst of the "scandal," support began pouring in to the school as well. Donations sent to them will likely keep them afloat through the next fiscal year, when previously it looked as if they may have had to close.

I will not normally take so passionate a stand on something, but it bothers me how much guff people give Mr. Ham and AIG Ministry. They're accused of child abuse and brainwashing our youth. Everything they are teaching is scripturally based and accurate as it relates to God's word. Mr. Ham understands salvation and Christ, and believes the essentials of the faith. Why is it then, that so many are opposed to him?

My theory (not to steal the evolutionists' words) is that it flies in the face of what man has established as scientific truth. Ken Ham is not opposed to science as some would suggest. He simply understands that our Creator God, who left us the Bible as his evidence, has also placed ample evidence within creation for us to understand His universe. Ken Ham simply approaches science from a perspective that places God's authority above man's.

But, while Mr. Ham has to daily "battle" attacks on his ministry by atheists who would prefer to see him out of the picture, my concern is going to be more with my Christian brethren.

I've mentioned before that belief in young earth is not a salvation issue. You can be saved by Christ and  believe in an old earth, and Jesus isn't going to revoke your salvation. But, it does reflect an authority issue, and that can be a slippery slope into other, more serious compromise. Not surprisingly, these days there is a huge authority issue within the faith already. People have left the Bible in favor of pop culture Christianity that has Jesus floating around telling everyone how great they are. It's not Biblically sound, but it feeds our human desire to keep God out of the majority of our life decisions. Reliance on self and independence are promoted as the flavors of our time. Christians have unfortunately fallen into this pattern that the world pushes daily.

And, one of the most common areas to find that compromise is with the world's thoughts on science and evolution. Science is not incompatible with Biblical thinking. There is no natural law or observation that God does not already fully control. We are told in Chapter 1, Verse 1 of God's Word that by his hand all was created. And, because he is God and can do this with no trouble, it was created in six days.

Creation, as the Sunday school grads will recall, was initially perfect. In fact, up until the sin of Adam and Eve, things were going along just fine. Adam was given dominion over all of the earth. On the sixth day, God had created all land dwelling animals, and that means that humans dwelt with some of our favorite creatures to discuss, Dinosaurs (though the term 'dinosaur' didn't come around until the 1600s). Prior to Genesis 9, all creatures ate plants, so there was no risk of dinos and humans trying to eat each other. It wasn't until the earth's landscape was changed by a global flood in Noah's time, that God allowed man to have all animals for food, and the dynamics of the environment could no longer support some life (dino extinction). Dinosaurs could have easily fit in an ark that only had to take two of each "kind" of animal. Likely the animals were of prime breeding age since they needed to repopulate the earth, so they may have been smaller than full adult size. This would allow comfortable accommodation within the ark, which was also significantly larger than any Sunday school picture we may be used to seeing.

These are the basic principles (taught with much more evidence than what I have provided here) used in AIG ministry. The quiz given to the 4th grade class at a Christian Private school, was based on these concepts.

It's wonderful to me that some of our upcoming generation will have Biblical truth to stand upon. For the parents training their children in the way they should go with good, solid, Biblical foundation you have my utmost respect and praise.

The world decided a few hundred years ago that if you didn't accept evolution as cold, hard fact, you were either an idiot or crazy--or both. I can understand even today why those who do not believe or are in rebellion with God would also think the same way towards us. But,  I cannot for the life of me understand why fellow Christians will jump at a chance to attack other Christians over the basis of trying to teach the Bible to children instead of man-made scientific theory.

©Dan Lietha http://www.danltoons.com

Were the scientists there when God spoke the worlds into existence? God poses the same rhetorical questions to Job (Job 38:4). The methods used by scientists are human designed, and therefore by nature subject to the curse of sin. Scientists are no more noble in their morality than others, so why do we place all of our faith in them as if they cannot skew evidence in favor of evolution? At least for creationism we have the Bible to stand upon. Scholars the world over will attest to its validity, and for the Old Testament, even more so in some cases. Therefore, the Genesis account should stand firm in the face of scrutiny. But, in our midst, the devil walks among us seeking whom he may devour, and lately, he seems to be intent on devouring Christians who would stick to the Bible's authority on our world and its history.

Compromise is the flavor of the day, and it will only get worse. It is time to take a stand on Biblical truth. The reason I support AIG is because they are not afraid to stand for their beliefs. They catch more slack from outside sources than any other ministry I can think of to date. And, what they teach is not outrageous from a Biblical standpoint. The problem is we don't like the Biblical standpoint, and prefer to mix and match passages to suit our individual needs and moods.

In effort to show support for Mr. Ham and the ministry (and because I think it's a great quiz), I decided to take the same quiz that the 4th graders took. Turns out, as a 27 year old college educated man, I still got the same answers as the 4th graders. Those who know me will attest to the fact that I am not stupid, so it seems then that God's word is not dependent on age, and that the so called "Child abuse"accusation leveled at Ken was misplaced hatred on the atheists' part. Clearly, I'm a fully functioning adult.

Below I've posted the original quiz and my updated version (which I made slightly more essay format). I posted a copy of mine to Ken Ham's Facebook page to show support, but honestly shied away from posting it on my account because I was concerned many of my friends and even fellow Christians would have chided me for it.

That's where this blog came about in the first place. When talking about Biblically sound, hard to take truths, sometimes people's feathers get ruffled. God's word is a sharp sword, piercing and convicting to the heart, so it is no surprise things don't always sit well with everyone. My word is not God's word, but the Bible is God's word, and I believe it 100%. I will not waver on its account of anything, from creation to final things, I take it at face value because it is meant to be taken that way. We are not to read into it our own desires and wants, but to let it speak to us and convict us of our sin and need for a savior. And, the grand drama of perfect creation, sin, the cross, and our eventual heavenly home is all based on the foundation that God does what He says he does, did and will do.

Regardless of differing opinions on non-salvivic issues, we all must recognize a sin problem and the need for Christ to eliminate that problem. It's at the heart of the faith, and AIG Ministry has that goal at its heart as well. Do me a favor fellow Christians and give these guys a chance. I'm amazed at what I learned from studying some of their resources. It's great, Bible-based info, and it allows us to stand for what God holds true, not what mankind wants to be true in an effort to eliminate accountability to God from their lives. God's authority through scripture is the name of the game. If the goal of our salvation is to be ever more like Christ, do we really want to eliminate the foundation upon which all of Christ's ministry and purpose rested?

--------------------
For more resources on Answers in Genesis and their ministry check their webpage: http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.arkencounter.com
http://www.creationmuseum.org

Here is the original quiz that caused the uproar and article response from Ken Ham: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/04/30/atheists-attack-christian-school

Here is my version of the quiz:
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s88/sh/343ebf16-70ab-467a-a32b-b77877fc0676/e0a283894aa678cff22f3c7242e0e459 

The Error of Earl

Many of us have probably caught an episode or two of "My Name is Earl." Though short-lived, it garnered quite a following in its 4 seasons. Juliet and I originally caught it on Netflix, and watched through the entirety of the show. I'll admit, it's got some funny moments.

The premise begins when the main character, Earl Hickey, is hit by a car after winning the lotto. He had done nothing but bad things up to that point in his life. When he recovers, he decides he is going to make up for all the bad things he had done prior to his lotto win. He makes a list, and begins his quest to right the many wrongs which he had previously committed. Now, the idea of someone getting a large sum of money and going around doing good things for people is a great concept to our minds on the surface. But, one element of the focus of Earl's quest stands out to me as incorrect. I'd like to explore what I will call, "The Error of Earl."

If we took a quick poll of our immediate family and friends and asked them, "what is the greatest thing someone can do in this life,"  I'd put money that "helping others," would be the top answer. Our world's morality system, and truthfully an element of God's morality system, is focused on helping those who cannot help themselves. Christ taught that whatever we do for the least of our brethren, we do for him. This concept in and of itself is not a bad concept.

In the show, Earl begins seeking answers from what he believes "Karma" would want him to do. "Karma," in the case of the show becomes his driving force for what he does or does not do. And, as many episodes will attest, Karma is often a fickle mistress to him.

The eastern religions and faith systems of our day like Buddhism and Hinduism also contain an element of this idea of Karma. Do good things and good things will happen; do bad things and bad things will happen. It has become a throw away word in our culture where every celebrity who contributes to a cause is doing it because "it's good karma." Christians do not rely on a system of good versus bad deeds, but rather cling to the cross of Christ. Why do we do what others do not? Because Christ's teaching about the nature of God and morality and truth shows a much different worldview than that proposed by man-made religious systems.

It is true that within Buddhism and Hinduism (and many other religions) there is not an exact element of  "salvation,"as there is with Christianity. This is likely due to the fact that these religions are reliant totally on the individual to achieve something. Whether enlightenment, Nirvana, good karma, etc... something is being sought after by the individual, by their own actions. Again, the idea of doing good things is not inherently bad. As we see often in the show, Earl's good actions often produce positive results. The intention of the heart becomes the issue when good deeds are simply measured against a subjective standard of "good."

The problem within these religions is that they are simply that: Religions. Religion will say "do this or do that," but Christ says "It's done." Within the context of Christianity there is an exclusive claim made by Christ which sets it apart from other faith systems of the world. Christ says humans are not inherently "good." Just as the Bible mentioned plenty of times prior to Christ, man has a disease: Sin. From the first act against our Creator in the garden, to even the most basic failure we may have today, mankind has issues. Christ tells us that in and of ourselves, we (as diseased creatures) cannot bring about our own cure.

In the show, Earl is constantly seeking what he thinks will restore his Karma balance and put him back in a state of happiness and fulfillment. His actions mirror similar thought processes found within the major Eastern Religions.

Buddhism and other systems like it will say if you balance the amount of good and  bad, you can achieve some state of happiness or comfort within the world. Islam has a similar concept in that if you adhere to its tenants (5 pillars of Islam) you can achieve favor with the one God (Allah). Even Judaism in its current form relies on some form of good works to earn favor with God. God allowed for a time in ancient Judaism a system of sacrifices and laws meant to temporarily cover the sin (disease) of the people. Like all others since Adam, the Jewish people were dealing with the exact same "sin problem." God laid out laws and order for them as a precursor to what Christ would ultimately achieve on the cross. The sacrificial system of "doing" was a means of showing that no matter how much they "did," they could never be fully reconciled to God. This is a lesson Earl could take to heart. He is exhausting himself trying to figure out what "Karma" wants him to do, but never stops to think what God would want him to do. And, though small, there are elements of the faith within the show demonstrated in some minor characters. He is not "without knowledge" of at least the basic idea of one God. His view of God is quite misguided, but he does imply through some conversations that he believes God to exist in some form. Personally, I think his constant appeals to Karma demonstrate he is more inclined to let her be his god, than to seek any sort of Biblical understanding of God. Oddly in one episode a tornado hits their town and a Bible is seen passing through the hands of many of the characters. None of them seem to understand the truth held within, and see it more as a "sign" of good karma, or that God is with them in their endeavors. Again, a misguided view.

Now, someone can (and probably will) say that within the context of Buddhism and other works based religious systems that God is not always something in which they believe. That is true. Buddhism is fairly atheistic in its thinking, and does not believe in a higher power other than one's self. Hinduism has millions of gods, and people pick and choose the ones that fit best with how they want to live. The pattern that emerges here is that people are trying to do something or achieve something outside of their Creator. It is really a rather bleak worldview at its heart. With Buddhism, the ultimate goal of Nirvana is essentially a state of emptiness and nothingness. Where is the hope in that? Though the culture will argue with me on this one, Christianity is set apart from these other systems in that Christ says there is only one cure for our sin disease. His sacrifice.

Sadly, most people are not aware that they even have a problem. They will compare laterally themselves to the works of others. Maybe they say something like, "well I don't murder people so I'm better than that guy." But, God's standard of morality and truth is much higher than simply do not murder. God's standard says that in our current state, we cannot be in fellowship with Him. God does not compare us laterally, but sets an objective standard by which all are measured. That standard is perfectly just and righteous, as God's nature is perfect justice and righteousness.

Now, Christ was there at the beginning of creation with God (2nd part of Triune God- John 1:1), and would acknowledge that perfect fellowship with our Creator is what this world was meant for in the first place. We were created for perfect fellowship with our Creator and are now fallen away from that original intent. There's a reason bad things happen within the world. As Paul says in Romans 8:22, creation is groaning like a woman in labor pains under the curse of sin. But, the hope of the Christian is that once in Christ, we have no more condemnation. Our disease is cured and the debt we owe to a Holy and perfect God is paid in full.

No other world religion or value system has this element, and it is why Christianity is exclusive in its belief. We cannot earn or do anything ourselves to earn favor, happiness, good karma, or whatever else people seek. The common things we enjoy like a good meal or quality time with family are a product of God's common grace extended to both believers and unbelievers. It is a grace separate from the saving grace that Christ says is required for an eternal fellowship with God (John 8:24). If people realized just how amazing that fellowship will be, they'd likely dump the works based religions and lean fully on Christ for their salvation and perfection. Because, God promises us a world restored and renewed. Yes, it's not on this side of the curtain…not completely anyway, but the great hope for us as Christians is the eventual fulfillment of all Christ came to do for us on the cross, which includes a restored creation.

My concern for both Christians and non-Christians these days is that our culture has become too accustomed to these works- based ways of thinking. Even within certain Christian denominations and circles, an element of works is present. The Catholic church still tells people that by somehow doing enough "hail Marys" and other forms of penance, they will keep their forgiveness secure. This is simply man trying to impose control where he truthfully has none. As John puts it in his first epistle,

"if we confess our sins, he (Christ) is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9

Paul and James write that good deeds and works are a product of faith in Christ, not the means by which we earn salvation in Christ. They do not justify us. Only the cross could do that. Nothing but the flawless, sacrificial lamb (Christ) could atone for the world's sin problem. But, Christians are called to bear good fruit. In Christ we become a new creation and the old passes away (2 Corinthians 5:13). A result of this is the desire to do good, but the good we do is simply a sign that we are new within Christ. It is not done to achieve something because we are already justified within Christ by our faith in Christ.

Now, we will not be perfect on this side of Heaven that is true, but we now have no condemnation in Christ (Romans 8:1). If we earnestly repent then He is faithful and just to forgive us. No other world religion offers forgiveness of sin by simple mercy and grace. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc… will tell people that they are basically good, and that the more good deeds they achieve in this life, the better. This is Earl's line of thinking in the show. He tries to make up for his wrongdoing (his sin) by simply righting the wrongs with the people he mistreated. He never addresses his inherent capacity to have done the bad things in the first place. He believes that by doing good deeds, he can earn his way back into favor with the universe or Karma or whatever.

But, consider this. Even the most devout Buddhist, the one who achieves so called Nirvana, is still in a system of belief that believes he will simply be reincarnated in a never ending circle of new lives. Is there hope in that? It sounds terrible. What if, right before death, that Buddhist somehow fell short of his own standard. By his own belief, there is then a chance he will be reincarnated as a lesser life form, no matter how far along he was before. Hindu's have the same concept of death and rebirth, and it has led to the atrocious "Caste" system in India and other places, whereby the individual's place in society is directly related to how good their past life was. Do people even remember these past lives? How can someone be held accountable for something they technically never even did. It is flawed, and leads to some poor treatment of the very people the religion of Hinduism says it should be helping. It is contradictory within itself.

In death there is no opportunity to balance out good and bad karma, so they simply have to hope that prior to death, their good outweighs their bad. Unfortunately for them, any good deeds done outside of faith in Christ will mean nothing on that side of the curtain (Hebrews 9:27; Daniel 12:2). Juliet and I believe in Christ because we acknowledge our failure to live up to God's objective standard. We understand that there is no other name under Heaven by which men can be saved (Acts 4:12). Gandhi, the Buddha, and all of the other great minds of the past, had one essential truth missing. They did not trust Christ to eliminate their sinful nature. They were stuck in a system of reliance on self. Had they looked to Christ, as the Bible shows him (I realize some Christians can give Christ a bad name), they would see that his burden is easy.

"Come unto me all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Matthew 11:28-29

Constantly trying to outweigh our good and our bad must be a truly wearisome effort. Earl learns throughout the season of the show just how complicated living by Karma's rule can be. He does not always see a direct benefit from his good because there is no objective standard to what is "good" outside of God's standard. Karma is an incredibibly subjective concept. Who is to say that what he did or did not do is good or bad in that system of belief?  I'm sure a show in which Earl's first act was to put faith in Christ and have his past bad deeds forgotten as far as east is from west would have made for low ratings (Psalm 103:12). For Earl; however, it would have made his life instantly more fulfilled, and justified him before a Holy and Just creator whose requirement is faith in the sacrifice he made on the cross.

There is a slippery slope these days within Christianity. Christians, desiring to please man over God, are beginning to implement eastern religious practices and elements into their Christianity. While the Bible does not outwardly condemn practices like meditation (emptying of self) and yoga (whose positions are designed to honor specific Hindu deities), it does warn us of becoming too much like the world. Christianity is exclusive because Christ said it is the only way (John 14:6). Christians did not make this up, it is God's truth, stated numerous times by Christ.

We can always do more to help our fellow brethren, and truly mature Christians are called to go above and beyond. But, there is a wide gap between helping out of our desire to help as Christ would have done, and helping because we have a worldview that tells us the more good we do, the better we are. There is something inherently prideful about a good deed done outside of Christ, because it will always give a sense of satisfaction with oneself. The only selfless good deed would be that done as an outpouring of the Holy Spirit with no attempt to earn favor with God from it. Though often taken out of context, James does hit on something when he says that faith without works is dead. The church has taken a lot of liberty with that verse to try to argue that there is some need for works to earn our salvation. But, when compared with similar texts from Paul's teaching, we see it lines up nicely with the idea that works are a result of being a new creation after being justified in Christ by our faith in Christ.

I am probably guilty of not doing enough as an outpouring of my belief in Christ, so I will resolve to bear more fruit from this point on. But, I know in my heart, that my eternal destination is not in any way a product of what I do or do not do here on earth, outside of putting faith in the only one who can reconcile me to fellowship with my creator: Christ Jesus.

It's All Greek to Me

I wonder sometimes where I get ideas to do things. Often a random conversation or occurrence will spur in me the desire to create or do something that I would not have otherwise thought to do. This happened a few weeks back when on a whim I decided I would teach myself Greek.

Originally, or what I told myself anyway, was that I would learn Biblical Koine Greek, so that I could begin reading the New Testament in its original language. This would allow me to better defend the authority of scripture and the relevancy of the Bible to those who think it has been changed too much over the years to be of any use (hint: it has not been changed in ways that dramatically affect the faith).

It's Greek to Me

As I decided to begin writing this, I remembered an oft heard phrase, "It's all Greek to me." I began wondering what the origin and intent of such a phrase was originally. My understanding, from the context, was that it had something to do with an idea that was not able to be understood easily. Actually, I find the Greek language, though somewhat difficult, to not be overly complicated thus far. So, here is some of what I found that I will share before continuing.

Wikipedia shows that it may have originated with Latin speaking monk scribes in the Middle ages as the Greek language was slowly dwindling among those copying transcripts in monasteries. Shakespeare and other authors had also used the phrase in a similar way as well. The link above will fill in the rest for those who care to check it. Welcome back!

The article had at its end a list of the variations on this phrase for different languages, including (to my surprise) one for Greek. The Greeks would say, "Αυτά μου φαίνονται κινέζικα" roughly translated, "This seems Chinese to me."

Oddly enough, Juliet's native tongue also references the Chinese language as its unintelligible language related to this turn of phrase. There's is something like, "Me suena en chino or está en Chino," which basically is the same concept of, "this is Chinese to me."

I'm not sure what the point of that lesson was except that I found it odd that in Greek there happened to be a phrase similar to ours which referenced their language. I guess those who speak Greek see Chinese as the hard language. I'd probably agree.

So, I began simply by hand copying various writings in Greek. The typical first year seminary reading of John 1:1 and the Lord's Prayer were my first choices. The idea was more for a familiarity with the language, as I still could not directly translate them just from visual at this point (or currently if we're being honest). From that I learned the alphabet and its pronunciations.

My first roadblock hit was learning that the pronunciations of Koine Greek (Biblical writings) and Modern Greek (That which is spoken in Greece) are much different. Also, that native Greek speakers are very emphatic about how one pronounces their language. Youtube had quite a few attacks on pronunciation by native speakers critiquing the videos of seminary and other professors attempting to teach Koine Greek.

Because I decided to teach this to myself on a whim, I'm not particularly sure yet which pronunciation approach I will take, but I am leaning towards understanding both if possible. The letters are the same, just different ways to say them.

With any goal, there must be an element of personal reflection or growth. So far I have learned a few things about myself from this endeavor.

1) If I am not being pressured with homework and due dates, I study better and learn faster

Sorry teachers, but the freedom of knowing I am doing this of my own accord and not being forced or required makes it so much more enjoyable. We'll see how disciplined I stay as I progress, but for now, it's very fun to me. I can write and study when I want, where I want, and other than personal goals I have nothing rushing me.

2) I learn better writing things than typing them

Sorry computer nerds, it just happens that physically writing the language has helped me retain the information better. Practicing by writing it has been helpful too. I could sit on Google Translate all day typing in phrases for memory, but I likely will not remember them. I have a really nice little notebook with a great pen that makes my handwriting look legible, and I slowly and carefully write each phrase and word and do my best to absorb it.

3) I will eventually have to cooperate with someone or something to fully grasp the language

Sorry self, you can't just go solo on this one. At some point I realize I will be past the basics of the language and get stuck, or just need someone to quiz me. There is a demo for the Greek version of Rosetta Stone that has the majority of the Level 1which I have been repeating over and over trying to learn phrases. I would love to purchase (at some point) the full 3 level version because from what I can tell so far, it is a legitimate way to expose yourself to the basics of a language.

4) I need to expose myself practically and culturally to the language 

Sorry wallet, eventually I would like to take a trip to Greece. Most people I talk to from Mexico (Juliet's family and her) say the best way to learn a language is to immerse yourself in the culture and be surrounded by it. This would explain why with only a college level understanding of Spanish, I am now able to fully grasp what Juliet and her family talk about in conversation. If I am focused, with words I know and context, I can figure out the topic and conversational aspects; as well as, the emotional emphases used by the speakers.

I first realized this trick when on our engagement night, Juliet and I attended a showing of "Night at the Museum" in Mexico. She assured me there would be English subtitles so I did not think to question her. I had also seen the movie once in English. It turns out there were no subtitles and it was completely in Spanish, but I followed it and understood a good portion from hearing it (not just my memories of seeing it in English).

This wouldn't be the first time that happened, as years later she assured me prior to seeing Avatar that it would have English subtitles too. Her dad sat next to me translating every 10 minutes or so because once again she was mistaken. It was fun though. The Spanish subtitles for the Na'vi language sections were the easiest parts because I am pretty good at reading Spanish.

My weakness in Spanish is speaking it, and part of that is shyness. I told Juliet I could probably hold a conversation with her. She isn't so sure. Our dogs understand Spanish more than English because she speaks to them with Spanish words. I learn those words and began using them as well. Our dogs don't have bones, they have "huesos," and Puggy doesn't know what a "bone" is.

Moving On

Going forward, though I find this to be an interesting project, I have not yet established my endgame. Juliet says she would learn with me if I promise a trip to Greece someday. She probably is set up more mentally to absorb multiple languages as she is already fully fluent in two. She'd rather learn German or Italian next, but maybe after Greek we can do that. Is there really anything stopping someone from having at least a base knowledge of 4 or 5 languages? After my study thus far, I'd say a general understanding is certainly possible, though it likely would take years of disciplined practice.

Spiritual Application
My original intent was to use the language to read New Testament, and I think I will maintain that. But, currently with the Rosetta Stone demo, I have a genuine interest in speaking a little as well. I could always go to seminary and take elementary Greek, but then I'd have a schedule and due dates and the desire might fade. Also, I'm still of the opinion that not everyone who wants to go to seminary should go to seminary. We have enough "not quite Christian" Christian pastors out there as it is without adding more false shepherds to the pool. I still feel it would be a calling to pursue that route and thus far, God hasn't had anything to say to me on it. I'm open to it, but we'll have to see.

In the end, I will pursue this as long as my interest holds, and hopefully next time people see me I can speak some Greek and hear them say, "Sorry Chris, I didn't get that..it was all Greek to me." And I will think, "yes...yes it was."

Here is a sample of my current Greek knowledge, though without a Greek keyboard on the blog, they are copy/pasted from Google Translate:

Χρειάζεται βενζίνης - Translated: She needs gasoline. I find that word, "Χρειάζεται" to be my least favorite Greek word so far. It is way too long with an "x (chi)" and a "z (zeta)" and all it means is "need." Hopefully, the rest of the language will be easy. But, either way, it's all Greek to me!

"All Greek to me" Pun Count: 2....figured I'd have more than that by the end of this.

Be blessed friends!

Not of This World

Not of This World

Credit to Dan Lietha http://www.danltoons.com

"If the world hates you, keep in mind, it hated me first." John 15:18

There are some days that I wake up, look through my Facebook feed, and shudder at the incredibly anti-Christian sentiments that permeate the world today. Most of this comes from related articles regarding things happening around the world to various ministries that I follow. It surprises me especially because those who are usually attacking these ministries are the same ones preaching "tolerance" for everyone. Of course the world's view of tolerance is to tolerate everything that is not Christian-related. We are called exclusivist and intolerant often as Christians, but it is really outside groups who are the least tolerant.

Christians are not new to this intolerance of the faith. Christ pointed out that a life of following him would come with the hatred from the world. It is the founder of our faith who preached its exclusivity. Christians simply explain in Biblical context Jesus's teachings on that matter. One ministry in particular who takes a huge amount of attack is Answers in Genesis.

I will start by saying I fully support what Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis are trying to do. From a Christian standpoint, his big point is pushing for the authority of God's word by looking to the creation account. Technically, as Christians, we need to believe in the form of this account that looks to God's ability to create ex-nihilo (out of nothing). Sadly, most Christians these days have adopted the religion of evolution to please man, and while acknowledging God's power in other things, refuse to believe He could have created the world in six literal days. 

Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, seek to provide info to educate people on how this was possible, and how much of the scientific data out there these days is manipulated to fit into the environment that supports evolution. 

My point here is not to debate that (as I will dedicate a full blog to it when I do), but simply to say that people really lay into that guy. Atheists obviously consider his teaching of literal creation to children as child abuse. This is a huge exaggeration, and it is really more abusive to a child to deny them teaching about their Creator. Still, they pursue his ministry like rabid dogs, pouncing on every word he says. 

Ken started the "Creation Museum" located in the Kentucky area (http://www.creationmuseum.org), and is currently working on building a full scale version of Noah's Ark (http://www.arkencounter.com) which is a great idea for teaching and spreading God's truth. The misconception of the size of the ark and its purpose is commonly represented in all secular (and some Christian) references to it today.

What bothers me lately; however, is not so much the secular attacks, as it is the inside attacks. If a Christian wants to immediately alienate his or her Christian brethren, they need only suggest that God could have literally created the earth in 6 days. They need only suggest that, Biblically, man and all land animals dwelt together pre-flood (Dinosaurs). They need only mention that vegetation was man's primary food until after the flood as well. Genesis 9:1-3 records the first mention of God giving animals to man for food. If God said creation was very good, then there couldn't have been millions of years of death prior to the statement. We see the first real "death" when God sacrifice an animal to clothe Adam and Eve after they sin (a picture of Christ's ultimate sacrifice that would come later). These statements light a fire under people who have been trained to believe evolution as fact for the past few hundred years. Logically, information from a man a few hundred years ago, compared to divinely inspired information thousands of years old, presents what should be an obvious choice to the Christian (hint: It's not Darwin). 

Now, as Ken Ham points out, it is not a salvation issue to believe in evolution, or in an old earth. It is an authority issue. If we compromise on the age of the earth as recorded in Genesis, how can we trust anything else the Bible represents? We are talking about book 1, chapter 1, verse 1 being denied. If we throw out the intro, how will the rest make sense? We take many other things on faith, and God's word, why not this? If God couldn't create the earth in six literal days, doesn't that detract from his power? Do we believe ourselves so superior to God that we assign to him our ideas about the age of the earth? Clearly, many do.

I am all for not being legalistic, and not getting hung up on non-salvation issues. But even Christ has statements throughout his ministry that indicate the Genesis accounts to be true. One example is in the acknowledgment of Noah's flood as a real event. 

"But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." Matthew 24:37-39

An acknowledgment from the founder of our faith should be enough to take the Biblical account as true. Sadly, even those professing a relationship with Christ, love to ignore his statements on things that don't align with their particular worldview. This is where it becomes an authority issue. If Christ is our representation of who we as Christians are to imitate, would we not imitate his teachings during his time on earth? He certainly acknowledged Noah's Flood, Satan, Sin's hold on the world, Hell, and other important doctrines that get disputed within the faith all of the time.

The world has everything backwards, and Christians are usually the ones most aware of this. Lately, based on news and social media, it seems Christians are much happier to just go with the flow instead of standing against it. We applaud the gay athletes while condemning and mocking those willing to stand for God. We cry foul to ministries that promote creation, while believing that somehow God used our scientific theories to create His universe. We constantly put ourselves above God. When Christians begin to look like the picture in Romans 1:21, there is something wrong.

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore, God gave the mover in the sinful desires of tehir hearts to sexual impurity for degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worhsipped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen." Romans 1:21-25 (emphasis mine)

Christians should not be exchanging God's truth for man's lies. We should be looking to please God, not man. In doing so, we set ourselves up for the persecution and hate about which Christ taught, but we align ourselves with the one who has sovereign control. 

Aligning ourselves is what I want for my Christian brethren and myself. Too many people (including myself on certain issues) will ride the fence too often. Christians are called apart. We are different, and we think differently (or should). Our children should be raised with different values and concepts than what the world finds important. We must live in this society, yes, but we do not have to accept its creations as truth. We accept the word of our Savior and Creator. We do not bow to those like Dawkins and Maher because they can command a following. We do not give in to pressure to avoid clearly taught doctrines in favor of pleasing everyone. We seek to please God first, not man.

Our pastor mentioned some differences this past week about Biblical truth, spiritual conviction and personal preference. If I understand correctly it is something like this. A Biblical truth is that Christ was resurrected, or that adultery is always wrong. That is essential for all people. Juliet has a spiritual conviction against celebrating Halloween. It is essential for her, and she bases it on the conviction in her heart, but it may not be essential to all people. This represents a spiritual conviction. I am with her on it now, though I was reluctant at first. We should not force or argue with other Christians based on their decisions regarding our spiritual convictions. Finally, it is our personal preference to attend worship services that have contemporary worship music. The type of music we like to hear within the church is non-essential, and based on personal preference of those attending or listening. A better way of putting that might be that it is a personal preference for every Christian to only listen to Christian music. It is certainly helpful, but there is no real scriptural basis specifically mentioning musical styles. It is based on preferences, and maybe for some, a spiritual conviction. The point is that there are distinctions, but that Biblical truths are not debatable within the faith. There are some things that cannot be argued against based on personal preference. If God says it, it stands. 

 It is Biblical truth that God created the heavens and the earth, that is not just my spiritual conviction (Genesis 1:1). I feel spiritually convicted to accept that as fact and trust God's authority on the matter, and think other Christians should as well. It shouldn't have to be just a conviction for me, but for now it is. My heart goes out to ministries like Answers in Genesis, who do their best to get the message of the authority of the Bible and of God to the public, and to Christians who have discarded it. Ken Ham takes a ton of hate for his conviction and purpose in spreading the message of God's word as found beginning in Genesis and running throughout all of scripture. 

I use Answers in Genesis as a primary example because they are one of the most hated ministries out there right now. Their desire for children to put faith in Christ, not Darwin, is met with all kinds of attacks. Thankfully, their Ark project has been given the go ahead by their state and areas, so with God's help, more people can visit and learn about Biblical creation truth. 

The attack campaigns from various groups who are admittedly against some Christian values continue daily. Their soapbox is held above any plea by Christian organizations for fair treatment. Pastors who take a stand on Biblical issues lose privilege among our nation's elite, and are traded for more "liberal" theologians. 

It isn't just the Creation issue, but it does start there. If we cannot even take God's authority in the first part of scripture, why should we take his word on anything after that? This leads to some dangerous conclusions about the faith, and ultimately takes away from Christ. When we trade God's word for man's, we cannot grow in our faith. If we are to be professing Christians, should we really be working ourselves against Christ?