A new article that has been written to show that Bible is neither outdated nor incorrect has been included in the 'Olive and Lamp' tab.
Excellent video added at the end of the 'Videos' page,
New article in the 'Olive and Lamp' section.
New link www.questionsatheistsask.com added
Copied from an email.
In 1932, 30-year-old Gladys Aylward arrived in China as a missionary. On her arrival in Yangcheng, Gladys worked with an older missionary, Jeannie Lawson, to found The Inn of the Eight Happinesses. For a time she served as an assistant to the Chinese government as a "foot inspector" by touring the countryside to enforce the new law against foot binding young Chinese girls.
She became a Chinese citizen in 1936 and was a revered figure among the people, taking in orphans and adopting several of them, intervening in a volatile prison riot and advocating prison reform, risking her life many times to help those in need. In 1938, Japanese forces invaded the region, and Gladys led over 100 orphans to safety over the mountains, despite being wounded.
Years later, Gladys led another harrowing journey out of war-torn Yang Chen during the Communist take-over. One morning, fear gripped her and she had no apparent hope of reaching safety. A 13-year old girl tried to comfort her by saying, "Don’t forget what you told us about Moses in the wilderness," to which Gladys replied, "Yes, my dear, but I am not Moses." The young girl replied, "Yes, but God is still God."
Those who trust in Christ have a living Hope who does not disappoint. Today in prayer, praise the Lord that your hope in Him has given you eternal life.
I had written in big letters on the wall behind my chair in my office a quote of George Müller (?) “If God fails me this time, it will be the first time.” It comforted me many times when I was not sure – though I had a very few unanswered prayer of healing of a dear one but every time he protected me, and supplied my needs.
A new Video showing some archaeological proofs for the Bible has been added. It's at the end of the page as we scroll down.
A new article has been added to the Messages tab
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
First, let us accept the fact that God is too big and our brains too small for God to conform to our understanding of Him.
Second, let us remember that whenever God uses the word 'one' for Himself in Hebrew of the Old Testament, it is a 'united one', like we say in English 'a family' or 'a group' and not a singular one as used in 'one pen' or 'one shirt'.
WHY DO WE WORSHIP JESUS?
1. He is God
2. He is Son of God
3. He accepted worship and did not stop anyone from worshipping Him.
Why do we say He is God?
Zechariah 11:4,12,13 - Thus says the Lord God.., give Me My price..30 silver coins. (Mat.27:3-7)
Zechariah 12:10 - they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced and mourn for Him.. (Jhn. 19)
Here God is referring to Himself (uses Me) but they happen to Jesus, Jesus' price was 30 pieces of silver and Jesus was the one who was pierced. God = Jesus
Ps. 110:1 - the Lord said to my Lord (Mat. 22:42-45) Here David calls 'Son of David' as Lord. Jesus was addressed as Son of David multiple times and He accepted that. David calls Jesus 'my Lord'. David's Lord = Jesus
Isa 43:25 - that blots out your transgressions (Mar 2:5)
God says that He Himself blots out our sins, Jesus publicly forgives sins of many. God = Jesus
Ps. 45:6,7 - God on throne,.. God, thy God,..(Heb. 1:8)
Here God is on a throne forever, and God has a God who anoints Him, we His bride/queen is asked to worship Him in verse 11 of the same psalm.
Job 9:8 - Who alone spreads heavens and walks on the waves of the sea (Mar 6:49)
Jesus walks on waves of sea of Galilee.
Deuteronomy 32:4 - God is without sin (John 8:29, 46)
Isaiah 53:9 - The chapter prophecies about Jesus (read it) and says that He was spotless.
Jesus always does what is pleasing to God and also asks who shall convict Him of sin.
Jesus Himself says the following
Jhn 14:7,9 - know Me, know Father, you have known Him and seen Him
Jesus = God
Jhn 12:45 - See Me , saw Father
Jesus = God
Mar 9:37 - receive child in My Name receives Me .. receives Father
Jhn 15:23 - hate Me, hate My Father
Isaiah 9:6 - a child is born, a Son is given. His Name shall be called the Everlasting Father, mighty God
He is Jesus
Why do we say He is Son of God? (or Messiah)
Jhn 10:36 - ...because I said that I am the Son of God
Jesus plainly states that He said that He is Son of God ansd in next two verses He asks people to believe Him.
Daniel 7:13 - Messiah ( referred here as Son of Man) comes in clouds and given dominion and power. (Mat. 24:30)
Jesus refers to Himself coming in clouds with great power and glory
Ps. 2:7 - I will call Him My Son
Ps2:12 - Blessed are they that put their trust in Him.
God Himself calls Jesus as His Son and asks us to trust in Him see Jhn 14:1
Lev. 25:25 - A relative (brother) has authority to redeem us.
Jesus calls Himself as Son of Man, hence our relative and redeems us
Matthew 16:15-16 - Peter calls Him Son of the Living God.
Jesus says that He is correct
Mat. 26:63,64 - Chief Priest asks whether He is the Son of God
Jesus replies ...You said it, next time you will see me sitting on the right hand of power, coming in clouds
Jhn 14:1 - Believe Me , Believe Him (Father sent the Son)
Jesus asks us to believe in Himself also just as we believe in God
John 5:23 - honour Son, honour Father
Jesus calls Himself as Son of God, His Father
Luk 1:35 - He shall be called Son of God
Angel tells that Jesus shall be called as Son of God
John 5:18,19 - People accuse Him of calling God His Father and making Himself equal to God
Jesus says that it is correct by elaborating repeating that God is His Father and He does many things which God does.
He accepted worship
Mat. 14:33 - They worshipped Him and call Him Son of God.
He accepts and does not rebuke them unlike Peter, John, Barnabas, Paul or the angel in revelation
Mat. 21:9 - 'Hosanna to the Son of David'
Jesus accepts their adoration and calls it as praise in verse 16.
Mt. 28:9 - They took hold of His feet and worshipped Him.
Luk 24:52 - People worshipped Him when he ascended to heaven.
Jhn. 20:28 - My Lord and My God
Jesus accepts this from Thomas.There is not a single record of Jesus ever refusing worship
Multiple references to His deity and worship in the rest of the New Testament but not included.
God bless you
Another article titled 'A Chick Tract' has been added
This article was taken from
When creationists suggest to the average person that evolution is not scientifically viable, a common response is: “How can all those scientists be wrong?”
This is understandable. Most popular books, magazines, TV programs, movies and even ordinary conversation seem constantly to confirm that the big bang, the natural origin of life from primeval ooze, and the evolution of all living things from some original organism, are simply accepted by the scientists. It is believed that the only people to question these things are religious fanatics or the scientifically illiterate. So, can “all those scientists” be wrong? History certainly says they can.
Note that, without confirming data from experiment, or attempts at falsifying a scientific theory by antagonists’ observations and alternative theories, a scientist’s ideas can be strongly coloured by philosophical bias.1 This is especially so with interpretations of ‘evidence’ rather than direct observation of phenomena in the present, and applies particularly to theories about historical events such as the concept of evolution. Indeed, as we will see, not only one, but a whole body of scientists can see the world through a paradigm that is wrong at its root. That is because a scientist is like any other person in that one can hold a belief very strongly even in the face of strongly opposing evidence.2
A scientist is like any other person in that one can hold a belief very strongly even in the face of strongly opposing evidence.
Example: AstronomyPerhaps the best known scientists who went ‘against the trend’ are Galileo and Copernicus. The ‘majority of scientists’, who were their contemporaries, believed the earth was the centre of the universe, and all the heavenly bodies revolved around it. As with modern scientists and evolution, their belief was based on a philosophical idea, not observation. And they were wrong.
Galileo’s famous ‘fight’ with the church was not with the Bible, but with church leaders who followed what the scientists of their day held as scientific truth, and thus with the scientific community as a whole.3 Scientists held this belief even though continuously improving observations and calculations showed that there must be a flaw in the universally-accepted idea of ‘epicycles’ (heavenly bodies moving in circles within circles). It took a long time, and much published observational evidence from the newly-developed telescopes before the scientific community began to accept that they had believed in a faulty system—the earth was not the absolute rotational centre of the heavenly bodies.
Further observation through improved telescopes dismantled another universally-held belief of the time: that the heavenly bodies were perfect spheres, and moved in perfect circles. Irregularities were observed on the moon, indicating it was not a perfect sphere. Alarm! The earth’s orbit around the sun was an ellipse. More horror! “All those scientists” had been wrong. The very basis of their view of the universe was false.
Today scientists tell us that our universe burst into existence from nothing for no reason with a big bang. Is it not possible that all those scientists could also have a false view of our universe and its origin?
Example: Chemistry‘Phlogiston’ was used in the late 17th and early 18th centuries to explain how substances burned or rusted. It was believed (by ‘most scientists’) to be a substance contained in combustible materials, which came out when the object burned. It took the persistent work of several leading scientists of the day, including Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier, to demonstrate that burning was a chemical reaction, usually with oxygen. Substances that burned usually got heavier because of the added oxygen, rather than lighter from losing phlogiston. The majority were wrong.4 Later, Lavoisier was executed during the fanatically anti-Christian ‘reign of terror’ in France. One story goes that the sentencing judge said, “The Republic needs neither scientists nor chemists.”
Today most scientists believe that the basic chemicals of life (such as proteins) put themselves together in defiance of experimentally established chemical probabilities. Is it possible these scientists may also be wrong?
Alchemy5 is the idea that base metals (such as lead) could be turned into gold. This concept persisted for hundreds of years, and, although experiments directed at this goal led to the discovery of many interesting chemical substances, proper experiment proved it impossible (by chemical methods). Much money and time (and whole careers) were wasted on this wrong scientific idea, which blinded so many to other, more useful, possibilities.
Is it possible that scientists searching natural phenomena for the origin and variety of life are also wasting their time and energy on a futile exercise?
Example: MedicineThat wrong ideas can persist pervasively for hundreds of years is evident in the theory of ‘humours’.6 The basic concept goes all the way back to Aristotle (384–322 BC), but was clarified and popularized by the famous physician, Hippocrates (who originated the code of practice incorporating the ‘Hippocratic oath’ traditionally sworn by beginning doctors).
Actually, a major reason most scientists believe in evolution is that most scientists believe in evolution!
The concept was that the body has four basic fluids—bile (Greek chole), phlegm, black bile (Greekmelanchole), and blood (Latin sanguis). These were supposed to correspond to four traditional temperaments: choleric, phlegmatic, melancholic, and sanguine. Under the theory, these four must be kept in balance for good health.
Mostly the recommended treatment for imbalance involved good diet and exercise, but sometimes laxatives and enemas were administered to help purge the unwanted ‘humour’ from the body. Similarly, if one had a fever, it was put down to an excess of blood, so the ‘cure’ was ‘bleeding’ of the patient (commonly by leeches), called bloodletting. Obviously, this ‘cure’ was often worse than the disease. Nevertheless, doctors persisted with it through the Middle Ages because no one was prepared to question Galen, the first-century physician, writer and philosopher who publicized the idea in his popular and authoritative writings. In spite of Galen’s example and teaching of observation and experiment, and mounting evidence that there was something wrong, it was common medical practice up to the late 19th century.
Again, they were wrong! Their whole view of the cause of disease was wrong, and all because they believed another scientist’s theories without question. This is like many scientists today who believe in evolution for no better reason than that other trusted scientists believe it.
Example: BiologyWhere do vermin come from? Do cockroaches, rats, and maggots just ‘appear’ out of rotting vegetable matter and animal waste, or even from rocks? For a long time it was believed that they did, even by famous thinkers such as Aristotle (4th century BC). The idea was called ‘spontaneous generation’ and regarded as a fact into the mid-19th century.1 It took a creationist scientist, Louis Pasteur (1822–1895), to prove that life comes only from life, a process called ‘biogenesis’. Those who believed in spontaneous generation were wrong.
Today, in spite of Pasteur’s proof, and our continuing observations, many scientists still believe in abiogenesis (that all life has come from non-living chemicals). How that could happen is called (by evolutionists) a ‘mystery’, because it defies chemistry, but they still believe it. Why?
Science is not decided by majority vote!Actually, a major reason most scientists believe in evolution is that most scientists believe in evolution! This is a type of ‘confirmation bias’: the alleged scientific consensus was reached by counting heads, which themselves reached their conclusion by counting heads. If most of them were asked for actual evidence, they would likely give very weak answers outside their field of expertise.
For example, one of the world’s leading experts on fossil birds—and a staunch critic of the dino-to-bird dogma, is Dr Alan Feduccia, Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina. He remains an evolutionist, however, yet when challenged, his prime ‘proof’ was corn changing into corn!8
As the famous author Michael Crichton (1942–2008), who had a previous career in medicine and science, said:
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”9
Nevertheless, like the believers in epicycles, and phlogiston, and humours, and spontaneous generation, many scientists today believe in evolution. Can so many be wrong? History says ‘yes’. Mounting evidence in genetics, molecular biology, information theory, cosmology and other areas all say ‘yes’. These scientists believe in the dominant paradigm, naturalism, in spite of the evidence against it. They don’t wish to confront the idea of a Creator, but, as in the past, honest appraisal of the evidence of operational science will prove them wrong; the Creator will be vindicated (Romans 1:18–22).
References and notes
I am pasting this from an email sent out by Pastor P. G. Vargis
“because I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist him. The man who was dying blessed me; I made the widow's heart sing.” – Job 29:11-12
In 1990, at age 76, Lois Prater, a widow from Seattle, did a short term mission trip in the Philippines. While on the trip, a poorly dressed man came up to her after a church service and offered to sell his baby to her for $40.
"That impacted my soul so deeply I knew I had to do something," she said.
So, she returned to the United States and sold her home for $65,000. She sold everything she had, determined to build an orphanage. Though she never had worked in an orphanage, she knew the Lord was calling her to a new work.
Lois admitted selling her home wasn't easy.
"I struggled, but I knew that what I was trying to do was something much more important than hanging onto my faded couch," she said.
In 1991, Lois, with her own money, bought 12 acres of land covered with mango and coconut trees near Orion, a small town in the Philippines. Three years later, the doors would open to King's Garden Children's Home, a 2,000-square-foot, white stucco building, giving orphaned children from infants to teens new hope. Over the years, King's Garden tripled in size and launched a school. An average of about 60 children lived at the orphanage.
Lois ministered there for 13 years until she was 90 years old, when she turned over the operations to a capable director.
"All along, I've just trusted in God, and He's answered my prayers," said Lois. "I did what I could do, and God did the rest."
Have a heart for orphans and do something to love them. Today in prayer, ask the Lord how you can help some of the orphans in this world.
“What does love look like? It has the hands to help others. It has the feet to hasten to the poor and needy. It has the eyes to see misery and want. It has the ears to hear the sighs and sorrows of men. That is what love looks like.” - Augustine
God’s Word: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” – James 1:27
I have taken this article in an email sent top me by a friend.
6 Church Killers That (Unfortunately) Have Stood the Test of Time
by Cary Schmidt
It seems that Satan was neutralizing local churches 300 years ago in the same way he is today.
I recently came across a powerful quote from an 18th-century English pastor named Job Orton. Ironically, he wrote to the ministers of his day about doctrinal compromise. The struggles of churches nearly 300 years ago are the struggles of churches today. Read what he says:
“I have long since found (and every year that I live increases my conviction of it), that when ministers entertain their people with lively and pretty things, confine themselves to general harangues, insist principally on moral duties, without enforcing them warmly and affectionately by evangelical motives; while they neglect the peculiars of the gospel, never or seldom display the grace of God, and the love of Christ in our redemption; the necessity of regeneration and sanctification by a constant dependence on the Holy Spirit of God for assistance and strength in the duties of the Christian life, their congregations are in a wretched state; some are dwindling to nothing, as is the case with several in this neighbourhood, where there are now not as many scores as there were hundreds in their meeting-places, fifty years ago. ... There is a fatal deadness spread over the congregation. They run in ‘the course of this world,’ follow every fashionable folly, and family and personal godliness seems in general to be lost among them. There is scarcely any appearance of life and zeal.”
It seems that Satan was neutralizing local churches 300 years ago in the same way he is today. Notice the ways churches decline, according to Orton:
1. Create an Entertainment-Driven Ministry—Orton writes “when ministers entertain their people with lively and pretty things.” I’ve seen two extremes in entertainment-driven ministry. Both are simply different manifestations of the same false assumptions and bad values.
The first bad model I saw was a contest-driven, circus-style, promotion-based ministry model. It was a model that bribed people to attend church, entertained them once they came, and attempted to “sneak up” on them with the gospel. It worked to get people to church, but it was weak in producing devoted disciples and rooted believers.
The second bad model I’ve seen is a concert-style, party-atmosphere ministry complete with loud rock music, smoke machines, laser lights and a lot of entertainment. Again, it works to get people to attend, but it lulls them into nonparticipation, nonworship and lethargic, carnal Christianity.
Both models fail because of two false assumptions. The first false assumption is that Jesus and His Word are boring and unattractive. The second false assumption is that people won’t respond to simple, biblical love and grace. These methods attempt to DISGUISE the gospel to “make it attractive.” The false assumption being, it’s not attractive unless we disguise it! This is REALLY BAD theology! Entertainment-driven ministry is a broken road.
2. Focus on “General Harangues”—Orton mentions leaders who “confine themselves to general harangues.” This is a church-family focused on debate and theological inspection over Spirit-led obedience and unified practice. The Word of God is like a window, and some people prefer to spend more time looking AT the window rather than looking THROUGH the window. Paul wrote to Titus, “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.” (Titus 3:9)
An honest Bible student is comfortable accepting God’s Word where it is clear and where it is unclear. An unhealthy church is content to “look AT the window”—to inspect and debate foolish questions that generate strife and contention. A healthy church is only content to practice what IS clear in God’s Word.
Unbelievers rarely come to these churches, and when they do, they rarely come back. Focusing on pointless debates, personal disputes and biblical conjecture is a broken road.
3. Teach Behaviorism Absent Love and Worship—Orton writes “insist principally on moral duties, without enforcing them warmly and affectionately by evangelical motives”—external duty without internal love as a motive. External conformity or performance-based acceptance generates a church family that looks good but is not motivated by true love and worship of Jesus. Enough badgering from the pulpit will manipulate many Christians into a manmade mold. But eventually those same Christians become disillusioned and hurt by man-centered leadership tactics.
The only biblical, viable, sustainable motivation for doing anything as a Christian is the pure love of Jesus Christ. Being pushed into a set of standards, a weekly structure or an outward appearance always leads to resentment of those who pushed or manipulated me. That Christianity eventually falls apart. Being led by the Spirit and motivated by love will produce a pure-hearted, sustainable, joyful, nonoppressive Christian walk.
4. Neglect the Pure Gospel—Orton writes “while they neglect the peculiars of the gospel.” The gospel of Jesus Christ is not only how we are saved, it is also how we grow, how we live, how we endure and how we enjoy our walk with Jesus. The more you study and examine the gospel, the bigger it becomes. It’s inexhaustible.
Healthy churches always keep the gospel front and center. Their message is hopeful. They magnify Jesus. They preach Christ crucified. They reveal Jesus to be more than a free ticket to Heaven, but in truth a Savior in every aspect of life. If a church family KNOWS their unsaved guest will hear the gospel and not just a “general harangue” on Sunday morning—they are EAGER, EXCITED and HAPPY to invite their lost friends and family.
Something tells me that’s exactly what happened in the books of Acts!
5. Neglect the Display of Love and Grace—Again Orton says “never or seldom display the grace of God, and the love of Christ in our redemption.” How do we miss this? How do churches become so “ungracious” and “unloving”? How do churches melt down into factious, divisive communities of self-focus? How do they become so inward and unwelcoming? They lost sight of the massive volume of New Testament teaching on love, unity, forgiveness, forbearance and grace toward others.
If your gospel message is clear but your dispositional display of the gospel is carnal, you are doing the gospel a grave disservice. Churches die because love and grace died in their midst. Ever more in a darkened, hopeless secular America, a loving church stands in huge contrast to anything else in culture.
6. Neglect a Strong Emphasis on Dependence Upon the Holy Spirit—Orton goes on, “the necessity of regeneration and sanctification by a constant dependence on the Holy Spirit of God for assistance and strength in the duties of the Christian life.” Dying churches, somewhere along the way, began to subtly and perhaps imperceptibly quench, grieve or usurp the Holy Spirit of God. They took matters into their own hands.
How often a pastor is tempted to usurp the work of God’s Spirit—we all want our church family to manifest spiritual maturity, so we attempt to manufacture a quick conformity to outward appearances rather than patiently allowing God’s Spirit to cultivate an internal, organic growth.
It’s easy to set up outward, measurable standards of appearance and performance. We like to do this because it validates us, makes us feel successful as Christians and leaders. Yet the outward conformity COULD be merely a cover for the absence of inward dependence. Healthy churches emphasize the gradual, growing work of God’s Spirit within the believer, over the work of quick, manmade, external conformity.
Orton describes these six things as a “fatal deadness” that spreads over the entire congregation. I think he was hitting the target—for the 1700s and for today! The local church of Jesus Christ is designed to flourish with life, health and joy. While dying or dead churches are a dime a dozen, may God stir up a new generation of churches that defy death and embrace the life and health that only His grace and His Spirit can produce!
The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound;