Join Chris as he takes a closer look at how evolution aligns with Genesis. We review the phrasing used by God during the creation process, and we examine some of the Hebrew used as well. If the earth brought forth all of the living creatures, as Genesis states it did, how is this different from evolution?
All knowledge begins with God. Without God, all that can result is foolishness. This may seem counterintuitive, especially if you do not believe in God, because we are taught to rely exclusively on our own senses, or our own comprehension and understanding when we think about the world. However, if we take a moment to really think about it, we have created fields of study dedicated to answering the very questions that the Bible addresses outright and these fields of study haven’t been very successful.
cient Hebrew words for day, evening, and morning, examining how their definitions and context effect their meaning. Does a day necessarily refer to a 24 hour period when used in Genesis 1? Listen now to find out!
I recently encountered a question on Quora where someone wanted me to defend various aspects of Leviticus from a moral perspective. Of course, this is not the question which I set out to answer, it was originally a question about God's existence and quickly transitioned to a debate about morality. In my experience thus far, this seems to be the usual. Conversations that start out as a debate about God's existence move away from proving God and into a position where we are expected to defend God. Fortunately for me, God does not need me to defend Him. The situation, however, caused me to step back and evaluate the real question at hand. Can we find objective reasons to disagree with God's moral actions or decisions?
Modern science certainly seems to have drifted quite far from the creation account found in Genesis, but is that really the case? Does the big bang theory really contradict Genesis? How could plants grow before the sun existed? Listen in as Chris Tain explores Genesis chapter 1 from a more... unconventional point of view.
If humanity as a whole has become adept at one thing, it must be the judgement and condemnation of one another. I believe this to be true in all circles, and sadly, perhaps it is most true among Christians. We condemn one another publicly and privately, we question someone's ability to be a Christian if they are homosexual, or if they have tattoos, or if we catch them in a lie. We condemn those that smoke tobacco or weed (which was burn on Jewish alters before God), or drink alcohol (Christ is know to have imbibed), or a myriad of other offenses. We are so concerned with what a Christian should not do, that we are losing focus on what Christians should be doing.
We all know what parables are. Those little stories that teach us moral or spiritual lessons like The Goose Who Laid The Golden Egg, The Tortoise and the Hare, or any number of Aesop's Fables. Many times, these fables, or parables, demonstrate lessons by using real world examples, like The Ant and the Grasshopper. You know, the one where the grasshopper pokes fun at the ant, who is working hard storing up food for the winter, only to have to beg that same ant for food once the seasons change. These stories impart valuable wisdom to us, but the most valuable parables come from God Himself.
In Psalm 73, the psalmist tell us that he had been behaving like a "brute beast" before the Lord. What does this mean exactly? To be savage, uncontrollable, lacking intelligence, sensitivity, and compassion, this is a brute beast and describes the unrepentant sinner perfectly. Not to say that the unbeliever is unintelligent, but rather ignorant of that which would benefit them the most. They are not completely without sensitivity or compassion, but their sensitivity is limited to that which they deem worthy of their compassion. They are not out of control, but refuse to yield control of their lives to a cause greater than themselves and their own desires. Psalm 73 looks at the relationship that an unbeliever might have with the Lord, and juxtaposes it against that of the believer.
Hell has been imagined in various forms over the years. These descriptions almost always involve the eternal fiery torment of those lost souls who have been judged and found deserving of such punishment. There are some descriptions, however, that reject the physical agony of Hell and instead presume that those souls that have been found undeserving of heaven will find themselves eternally separated from God. So what is hell? How can we have so many variations describing the ultimate punishment for the rejection of the one true God? How can we separate fact from fiction on this subject?
I think we have all seen how exorcisms are portrayed on television and in other media. Typically, there are two priests, and lots of holy water, screaming, and projectile vomiting. Have you ever wondered how these situations compare to the exorcisms that Jesus performed in the New Testament? Was Christ splashing holy water onto people in order to cast out demons? Reading from scripture? I don't think so. Perhaps we should take some time and examine why there is such a radical difference between how we perceive exorcism, and how it was actually performed by Christ.