By Eric Lyons, M.Min.



Christians in the 21st century think too little about God’s creation; consequently, we think too little about God. We are so enamored with ourselves—our schedules, our work, our technology, our extracurricular activities, etc., that we often fail to see the stars and smell the roses. Today, perhaps more than any time in history, man misses the apparently simple things in life that should cause us to meditate continually upon the greatness of the Creator. Of course, nothing is more important for Christians to meditate on than God’s Word (Psalm 1:2; see Lyons, 2011), but in conjunction with God’s special revelation (His Word), we ought to ponder about how God’s amazing natural revelation testifies to His infinite power, intelligence, and care.

Time and again, Holy Writ points to God’s creation as proof of His greatness. Since the time of Job, Noah, and going as far back as Adam, man has learned some wonderful things about God by considering His amazing creation. Paul wrote: “Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead” (Romans 1:20, emp. added).

By Wayne Jackson

Liberal theologians have long sought to recast the Genesis record of origins by a variety of exegetical manipulations. One of these is the theory that the Mosaic narrative in Genesis 1 and 2 is not a document of prose-oriented “history.” Instead, it is alleged to be “poetry.”

It is contended that “history narrative” as a discipline did not exist before the era of the Greeks. Instead, historical information was conveyed through various genres, one of which was poetry.

These scholars labor under the illusion that a “poetical” interpretation relieves the Mosaic record of its conflict with modern “science,” especially in the matter of the earth’s age in contrast to that of human history.

The fact is, however, numerous portions of sacred scripture are framed in poetic language, and yet are anchored in genuine history (cf., Numbers 24; Psalm 148; 1 Timothy 3:16b). Yet such are acknowledged as documents that are divine in origin and authoritative in force (cf. Psalm 82:6; John 10:34). The poetic segments of the Bible are as “inspired,” as are “law” narratives, or those commonly recognized as “historical” testimony.

Poetry is merely a literary form. On its own, it has nothing to do with “history” — pro or con. It may or may not reflect a historical background.

Dr. Oswald Allis, cofounder and longtime Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, noted that “it has been clearly shown that the dividing line between prose and poetry is not fixed and sharply defined but that elevated or impassioned prose may approximate very closely to poetry, especially that it is often marked by that basic characteristic of Hebrew poetry, balanced repetition or parallelism” (1974, 109).

by Brian Thomas, M.S. | Aug. 30, 2011

http://www.icr.org/articles/type/9/

According to the Bible, God introduced different human languages at Babel about 4,000 years ago.¹ This brought about a dispersal and migration of the people assembled there, in accord with His original command to fill the earth.² In contrast, evolutionary linguists believe that all languages developed over the last 12,000 years.

If the creation model of recent migration is true, one might expect to find regional languages that obviously came from the same language families initiated at Babel. And there should be less than 4,000 years' worth of differences between them—differences that inevitably happen as things such as words or pronunciation change between generations. A new study concludes that two language families from central Siberia and North America come from the same ancestral language, implying that they share a common and recent origin—just as the Bible relates.

UCLA's Jared Diamond wrote an article in Nature titled "Linguistics: Deep relationships between languages," in which he summarized the work of Edward Vajda.³ Vajda, whose works appear in the 2010 issue of the Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska, found a very significant statistical link between the grammatical construction of the Yeniseian language family—represented by Ket, which is spoken by about 200 people in Siberia—and the North American Na-Dene language family, represented by Navajo and similar languages.

It is clear that all the languages within these two families were once one language. But one of the "questions that most trouble linguists," wrote Diamond, is "why do Yeniseian and Na-Dene languages still show such a strong relationship if they diverged 12,000 years ago, when other languages diverge beyond recognition after 5,000–10,000 years ago?"³

By Wayne Jackson

Original article

The practice apparently has its origin in the youth-devotional phenomenon of a few years back, but now is
gaining some mainline defense. It is argued that “clapping,” as a rhythmic form of accompaniment to
singing in Christian worship, is not an “addition” to the singing (as is a mechanical instrument); it merely
is an “aid” – comparable to a song book.

Aid or Addition

This is the argument the Christian Church has made for years regarding a tuning fork or pitch pipe.
These folks contend that the musical instrument is equivalent to the pitch pipe – just an aid; thus,
both are permissible in the worship.

In essence, N.B. Hardeman responded to the rationalization in this fashion. The pitch pipe is not parallel
to the piano because the pitch pipe has “enough sense to shut its mouth” before the singing begins; the
piano “blabs” all the way through the song!

A pitch pipe “aids” in obtaining the pitch, but it does not add a new element to the worship. Similarly, a
song book adds no accompanying sound; clapping does. When one uses a song book in praise, he is
doing nothing but singing. When he begins clapping, he is no longer just singing; he is singing and clapping.
Clapping is not an aid; it is an addition – just as an instrument is.

If clapping, as an accompaniment to singing, is just an aid, how does this noise “aid” the singing?
Does it convey the praise more clearly and emphatically to God? Does it somehow enhance the reciprocal
(“one to another”) “teaching” and “admonition” that the song’s words are intended to convey
(Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16)? It is imperative that Christians study carefully and think critically
as to how one discerns the difference between an “aid” and an “addition.” This is a crucial matter
upon which many issues hang.

I have an issue with the reporting of the new strain of e coli. Specifically things like this: "it is not uncommon for bacteria to evolve".

This is NOT evolution! It is STILL a bacteria. It hasnt made any evolutionary leaps to become a worm.

This is merely varation within an existing kind.

An interesting article on this subject

http://creation.com/superbugs-not-super-after-all

Superbugs not super after all

by Carl Wieland

After over 12 years as a medical practitioner, I suddenly found myself an avid consumer, rather than a provider, of medical care. Involved in a serious road accident in 1986, I spent many months in hospital, including weeks in an intensive care unit.

While in intensive care, I became infected with one of the varieties of so-called ‘supergerms’, which are the scourge of modern hospitals. These are strains of bacteria which are resistant to almost every (and in some cases every) type of antibiotic known to man.

Several others in the same unit with me died as a result of infection by the same bacterial strain. The germs overwhelmed their immune systems and invaded their bloodstream, untouched by the most expensive and sophisticated antibiotics available.

This ‘supergerm’ problem¹ is an increasingly serious concern in Western countries. It strikes precisely those hospitals which are more ‘high-tech’, and handle more serious illnesses. Applying more disinfectant is not the answer; some strains of germs have actually been found thriving in bottles of hospital disinfectant! The more antibacterial chemical ‘weapons’ are being used, the more bacteria are becoming resistant to them.

The reality of increasing bacterial resistance seems at first to be an obvious example of onwards and upwards evolution. But the facts, when carefully examined, show otherwise.