C.H. Spurgeon

Sinners, let me address you with words of life; Jesus wants nothing from you, nothing whatsoever, nothing done, nothing felt; he gives both work and feeling. Ragged, penniless, just as you are, lost, forsaken, desolate, with no good feelings, and no good hopes, still Jesus comes to you, and in these words of pity he addresses you, "Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out."

Comment Policy: No profanity or blasphemy will be posted. You do not have to agree, but if you would like your comment posted, you will have to adhere to the policy.

Thursday, May 31, 2007

"Is Christianity Good for the World?"

“Theologian Douglas Wilson and atheist Christopher Hitchens, authors whose books are already part of a larger debate on whether religion is pernicious, agreed to discuss their views on whether Christianity itself has benefited the world.”

View the May 2007 debate:

Christianity Today
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Whose Doing All The Preaching Anyway

Interesting article:

Pop Culture Prophets and Media Messiahs

I Say It But Don’t Believe It

I was pondering this thought the other day, so I figured I would post it here.

I was wondering how secure people are in their thoughts of God, Scripture, Christianity, and what they believe. I realize as Christians we do not know everything concerning these topics, but I am speaking of the things that each individuals claims to know and believe.

Are people merely hypocrites meaning they say they believe something but in the quietness when they are alone they really ponder the thoughts that they in fact do not believe things they tell others they do?

My belief is that if you do not believe something, question it, admit you don’t believe it, and do some study to find out why you should or should not believe it. I don’t think that we should say we believe something simply because of pressure from others that do believe it and/or fear that you will be hackled for believing or not believing something. Most likely you will find people on both sides of every issue.

It does a person no good to claim that they are a Christian, love God, love the Bible, love the church people, etc. if when they are alone or with other friends it is obvious that their claims are hollow.

Sure as Christians we may have doubts of certain things, so admit it, pray about it, talk to someone about it, study the issue, don’t just put on an outward secure look while on the inside you are confused, doubtful, and still searching.

Understood, you may have to find someone you can trust that simply won’t hackle or pressure you into “saying” you believe something simply because they cannot accept that you currently do not believe what they believe or understand something in the same light as they do.

Just be honest with yourself and others. Search to find the answers from God by prayer and study of His Word and from other Christians. If you are unclear or undecided on issues and people do not accept that, just move on to someone that does and that you can discuss things with.

As Christians we will never know everything, but there is no reason to claim that which we do not believe simply to save face or to fit in.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Moral Behavior Encoded Into Humanity

Science may again be catching up with the Word of God.

Scriptures declares that everyman has a conscience.
John 1:9, That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

The conscience is: the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action.

Scriptures declares that this conscience can be corrupted into not working correctly.
1 Timothy 4:2, Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

In a recent article from the Washingtonpost.com, the claim is “If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural”.

“Grafman and others are using brain imaging and psychological experiments to study whether the brain has a built-in moral compass. The results -- many of them published just in recent months -- are showing, unexpectedly, that many aspects of morality appear to be hard-wired in the brain, most likely the result of evolutionary processes that began in other species.”

Notice the “most likely the result of evolutionary processes that began in other species” is not proven by the study but simply an out to reframe from acknowledgment of a Creator and that it has come from the very Creator Himself as He created us.

The study also shows as any person can attest to that some questions are simply to answer yes or no whereas some take more thought. The examples they give are:

1] “Simple moral decisions -- is killing a child right or wrong?”

2] “Greene asked volunteers to imagine that they were hiding in a cellar of a village as enemy soldiers came looking to kill all the inhabitants. If a baby was crying in the cellar, Greene asked, was it right to smother the child to keep the soldiers from discovering the cellar and killing everyone?”

Just as some of the moral and spiritual dilemmas we have each day, we need that personal relationship with Christ to help guide us to the right actions in our lives. Through prayer, reading and studying the Bible, fasting, and knowing the things that affect us we can make better decisions than we can simply by relying on ourselves and how we perceive the current situation without any external knowledge.

Of course science falls short in acknowledging the depravity of fallen mankind in that there is always a search for a reason as to why people should not be punished for immoral acts simply because “they can’t help themselves”.

“While one implication of such findings is that people with certain kinds of brain damage may do bad things they cannot be held responsible for, the new research could also expand the boundaries of moral responsibility.”

So now when someone sins they can blame it on a “bad moral sensor” that evolution has given them. I can see that being the next line of defense in murder cases now.

Man has been given a conscience and man is a sinner. We choose to do right or do wrong, and are ultimately accountable to God, the Creator who has built that internal moral meter in each one of us.

Have you seared yours?

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Creatures Desire To Be The Creator

Science (are at least the article writer) has almost gotten it right about creation in a recent article talking about making synthetic humans for the future.

“It last happened about 3.6 billion years ago a tiny living cell emerged from the dust of the Earth. It replicated itself, and its progeny replicated themselves, and so on, with genetic twists and turns down through billions of generations. Today every living organism—every person, plant, animal and microbe—can trace its heritage back to that first cell.”

The reason I said “almost gotten it right about creation” is because they do admit that creation came from the “dust of the Earth”. Scripture teaches, “the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” [Genesis 2:7]

Where they miss it is that it was not just “a tiny living cell” that emerged all by itself, but entire fully developed mature creations by God.

It is no wonder that DNA is similar throughout humans and animals, for God was our Creator.

The fall of mankind came when they saw the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden, which it gave them the desire to make one wise and to become as gods knowing good and evil.

Not really much has changed today, for man is still plagued with three basic issues [1 John 2:16]:

1 - the lust of the flesh
2 - the lust of the eyes
3 - the pride of life

Man still wants to deny there is any God, but self.

The next step is the desire to produce a synthetic “species” so that science can say, “We are your god”.

“Scientists in the last couple of years have been trying to create novel forms of life from scratch. They've forged chemicals into synthetic DNA, the DNA into genes, genes into genomes, and built the molecular machinery of completely new organisms in the lab—organisms that are nothing like anything nature has produced.”

So forget God, forget Mother Nature, forget evolution, man says “I will create life! - Well, by using what I can find around the lab, because I haven’t figured out how God did it in the beginning yet.”

Cheated By Evolution

An article located at msnbc.com has claimed that there has been found a type of lizard that has no limbs like a snake.

“While modern snakes and lizards are derived from a common evolutionary ancestor, they belong today to two entirely separate groups of animals, or orders. Snakes, over millenia, gradually lost their limbs and developed their characteristic forms of locomotion. But modern limbless lizards are not snakes, Dutta said.”

“The other limbless lizards belonging to different families have been found in India's Nicobar island, in the northeast, and in Orissa and Andhra Pradesh states, he said.”

So apparently what we have is over millions of years a single species developed into two separate species namely snakes and lizards. Then over millions of years lizards kept their limbs, where the snakes lost them (of course scripture says snakes were cursed and lost them). Now we find that some lizards have lost their limbs.

I just wonder how they feel about Mother Nature doing that to them after all these millions of years.

I also wonder why macroevolution would consider just a mouth more “survival of the fittest” than a mouth and limbs. Hmmm….

I also find it interesting that they claim there are limbless lizards, but as for this new one found, they say it is a “new species”. So we have already found limbless lizards before, but we find 1 (one) new limbless lizard and instantly it is a “new species”. Maybe it is just a genetic abnormality.

Friday, May 25, 2007

Do We Practice Discriminatory Witnessing

As Christians, how is our burdening for the lost world? I mean really deep down inside of us. Are we discriminatory in our witnessing? You might ask what do I mean by discriminatory in our witnessing.

What I mean is this. What are your initial thoughts of the gospel of Jesus Christ unto salvation and your desire and/or action of witnessing when you see a “hot” looking guy/girl, what about an “ugly” looking guy/girl, what about a “clean cut” looking guy/girl, and what about a “heathen” looking guy/girl?

When we see a person do we find ourselves instinctively without thought placing people into different categories based on preconceived ideas we have already generated in our minds? Does this affect our desire and how we witness or whether we witness to them?

Take the “War on Terror” of today, can we see a Middle Eastern person today and witness to them the same way we witness to an American of our own racial, ethnic background? We should, but do we?

Are we consciously or subconsciously practicing Discriminatory Witnessing in deciding who receives the gospel of Jesus Christ and who does not right here in America?

Greek Mythical gods Brought To Life

Apparently the UK is going to allow animal-human hybrids. The article claims “THE government yesterday bowed to pressure from scientists to allow the creation of hybrid animal-human embryos for stem-cell research.”

National Review Online had an article in 2002 speaking of this same issue of the mixing of human and animal DNA which it labeled as “transhumanism: a nascent and explicitly eugenic philosophy that advocates taking control of human evolution through gene modification.”. Some of their beliefs presented are “they hope will eventually lead to public acceptance of genetic manipulation — not just to improve health, but to change our very natures.” And “They claim humans should not merely be allowed to metamorphose themselves through surgery, cybertechnology, and the like, but should have the right to control the destiny of their genes by means of progeny design and fabrication.”

In 2005 there is an article by the Associated Press of MSNBC speaking of “a flock of about 50 smelly sheep, many of them possessing partially human livers, hearts, brains and other organs.” It is said “In the past two years, scientists have created pigs with human blood, fused rabbit eggs with human DNA and injected human stem cells to make paralyzed mice walk.” They do have worries though, as such: “Particularly worrisome to some scientists are the nightmare scenarios that could arise from the mixing of brain cells: What if a human mind somehow got trapped inside a sheep’s head?” But they must not be too scared for “In January, an informal ethics committee at Stanford University endorsed a proposal to create mice with brains nearly completely made of human brain cells.”

Apparently this bill in the UK asks for two things:

1] “allows scientists to create "cytoplasmic" hybrid embryos, which are 99.9 per cent human and 0.1 per cent animal, such as cow or rabbit.”

2] “allows human embryos to be altered by the introduction of animal DNA.”

Of course, “True hybrids - creatures created by the fusion of sperm and eggs - remain outlawed. In all cases, it remains illegal to allow hybrid embryos to grow for more than 14 days or for them to be implanted in a womb.”

Will we one day see movies made by real actors playing the parts of Greek gods instead of costumes and special effects? Hmmm…

Will scientists then use their creations to “prove” the macroevolution process of species to species jump is real?

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Do We Want To Abstain From Abstinence Classes

Abstinence education as defined in Section 510 of Title V of the Social Security Act:

"an educational or motivational program that:

A. Has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
B. Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;
C. Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
D. Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
E. Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
F. Teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;
G. Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and
H. Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity."

According to this article this Title V will expire on June 30th of this year unless renewed, and the fear is that “one of the major consequences will be a change in the language required by the government in discussing sexual abstinence with U.S. students.”

There are those that oppose (or should I say believe is a waist of money) abstinence programs. They claim they are not working and do not work. According to the article, “a conference hosted by HHS in Baltimore in March which included 30 positive evaluations of abstinence education programs.”

Also, “A list of nine specific abstinence education studies compiled by NAEA and posted on their website confirm that abstinence education has substantially contributed to the decrease in teen pregnancy, reduces the likelihood that participants will initiate sexual activity, reduces the prevalence of casual sex among sexually experienced students and is effective with at-risk students and inner-city students.”

It is reported, “78 percent of parents think sex education classes in public schools should place more emphasis on promoting abstinence than on condom and other contraceptive use.”

In what percentage do you stand the 22 or 78? Why?

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

What Do We Know Of Religious Persecution

Here in American we have a lot of religious freedoms that around the world do not have.

In an article from www.bpnews.net it reminds us of some of the things people actually sometimes go through because of religion preference.

In Pakistan there is a draft of a new bill being brought before a committee.

Pakistan's National Assembly would require men who leave Islam to be put to death. Women convicted of "apostasy" would be sentenced to life in prison.”

Under the Apostasy Act 2006, the testimony of two adults that another person has left the Muslim religion –- or a confession by the accused -– is all that would be needed for conviction if the bill is adopted into law. The accused would be given up to 30 days to renounce the decision and return to Islam, yet even then still could be punished by up to two years in prison. All property belonging to an offender would be forfeited to Muslim relatives as well as custody of their children.”

The article continues with other persecutions of Christians.

What do we here in America know of true persecution for being a Christians? Sure there are things that happen, things that are allowed, things that are not allowed, etc. that we do not agree with, but as for persecution I just don’t believe the majority of us have an idea of what that is all about.

Maybe I am wrong. Has anyone dealt with persecution because one is a Christian whether personally or known someone here in America?

According to scripture it is coming. Are you spiritually prepared?

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Your Great Great Granny Was A Chimp

I was recently sent an article Chimps are human, gene study implies (2003) that claimed “The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes.”

Did you read that? I mean really read it? “of the most critical DNA sites” – This does not mean 99.4 percent when totally comparing all of man’s DNA with chimps DNA.

Of course, conveniently I ran across another article Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more (2003) stating that the number has dropped to only 95 percent. And remember this is not matching 100 percent of human DNA to 100 percent chimp DNA.

The following is from the article:

The 98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared.

Specific examples of these differences include:

1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.

2. At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7

3. While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.

4. The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.1

5. Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’3

In one of the most extensive studies comparing human and chimp DNA,3 the researchers compared >19.8 million bases. While this sounds like a lot, it still represents slightly less than 1% of the genome.

Will evolution be called into question now that the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA has been reduced from >98.5% to ~95%? Probably not. Regardless of whether the similarity was reduced even below 90%, evolutionists would still believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Moreover, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Evolution: Bunches Of Micros Equal A Macro?

On an older posts concerning macro and micro evolution I received a new comment I thought interesting. I figured I would created a new post since most probably do not revisit old posts including myself.

I was told:

Under most circumstances, evolution of species is a long, painstaking process. Of course, occasionally, genetic mutations in animals and plants (microbes mutate much faster) may give rise to inherently newer, related species, but generally speaking, the simplest microevolution requires decades, which is a pretty long time.

For a new species to develop, a few scenarios is possible: Cross breeding of similar breeds (Liger = Male Lion parent & Female Tiger parent), subtle, random mutations in the general population which favor natural selection, and possibly a genetic random mutation that suddenly emerges in a general population.

The truth is, evolution does not guarantee immunity from extinction. Nor does it automatically throw in raw species to make up the numbers.

And another thing. Macroevolution is not difficult to understand. Just think of it as a summation of all those minute changes in microevolution.

Under most circumstances, evolution of species is a long, painstaking process… generally speaking, the simplest microevolution requires decades, which is a pretty long time. - What about macroevolution? Has man ever actually physically seen macroevolution take place?

Cross breeding of similar breeds - I have seen the turkin and beefalope in Alabama, but that is not a proof of evolution by no means. It is a proof of science playing God by taking species and crossing them with similar species. Now a turkalope, that would be interesting to see.

possibly a genetic random mutation that suddenly emerges in a general population. - Interestingly in the world of comics mutations are seen as a superior being to human, whereas in the medical field of the real world the majority are not.

possibly a genetic random mutation that suddenly emerges in a general population - Why would evolution see the beginning or initial mutation as a good thing to keep instead of removing?

Macroevolution is not difficult to understand. Just think of it as a summation of all those minute changes in microevolution. - I do not follow the logic or reasoning behind this statement. If microevolution is the minor change within a species and macroevolution is the major change from one species to a higher species, how is it that a bunch of in species changes can equal a species jump?

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Prayer Time Interrupted

58 year old woman stabs 44 year old man in neck with pen as he breaks up her prayer time at church.

Friday, May 18, 2007

No Need For Church Building If You Have An Automobile

Thanks to an article posted on another blog, I saw this interesting thought.

You’ve heard of drive-in movies, well what about a drive-in church?

In Florida they have a new kind of “appeal to a different kind of person who doesn't want that traditional feeling.”

Think you may want to visit? Here you go.

I just wonder who the lucky person is to take up the offering when it is pouring down rain.

Girls Gone Wild In The Church

I don’t know if you have ever heard of Girls Gone Wild, but with the television ads and news reports concerning it you may have. If you haven't, it does not contain Christian behavior.

I was recently speaking with a pastor I know and he mentioned that there was a church he knew of (not sure if present or if where he had once been pastor) that a group of older women named themselves Chicks Gone Wild.

Granted I can see where these women may have thought it fun to use such a title, but, honestly, for the cause of Christ?

What are we Christians thinking when we use worldly titles and expressions and bring them into the church for spiritual awareness? Do we honestly think it pleases God to take a known thing (name, etc.) of sin and try to tweak it slightly and add a Christian connotation to it? Let’s face it – that just isn’t right.

Proverbs 14:9, Fools make a mock at sin

Is this what we are doing?

No wonder an unsaved person can feel comfortable at church and never have a desire to trust Christ as their Savior.

God help us!

Thursday, May 17, 2007

So Mark, Did You Leave Us Hanging Or Not?

Check out:

Scholars tussle over end of Mark's Gospel

Bible Inappropriate For Under 18?

A recent article from Yahoo! News claims the following:

HONG KONG (Reuters) - More than 800 Hong Kong residents have called on authorities to reclassify the Bible as "indecent" due to its sexual and violent content, following an uproar over a sex column in a university student journal.

What in the world (or Hong Kong) is going on?

Apparently a new website entitled http://www.truthbible.net/ (which I found NOT in English so good luck reading it), said (according to the report) the following:

the holy book "made one tremble" given its sexual and violent content, including rape and incest.

the Bible's sexual content "far exceeds" that of a recent sex column published in the Chinese University's "Student Press" magazine, which had asked readers whether they'd ever fantasised about incest or bestiality.

What’s the big deal you say? According to the article:

If the Bible is similarly classified as "indecent" by authorities, only those over 18 could buy the holy book and it would need to be sealed in a wrapper with a statutory warning notice.

I believe any honest person would concede that the Bible does not condone or promote any immoral acts of sex, since it CLEARLY deems any fornication as sin.


For some reason this week only a few of the comments to my blog are being emailed to me. I haven't changed anything so I don't know what is going on. Even my own comments do not get emailed to me even though I have it set up to do so.

Because of this, if you leave a comment on a post and I do not respond, this may be the cause. When they are emailed to me I know there is a comment, the only other way is to search through every post every day, and I just don't have the time to do that.

If it is really important, you can always email me here.


Share Your Book Knowledge

I am currently trying my hand at writing a fictional book. I have looked a little around on the internet to see what is available, but I am hoping someone has some good insight they don’t mind sharing.

I have spoken to two people that have used www.lulu.com, a self publishing company, and I have been reading through their Faq pages. It looks pretty good. I have purchased one book both to read and to also check out the quality, which appears to be just as nice as other books I have purchased in stores.

They offer the sale of your book for 20% of your profit, the PDF download of your book from their website for free (which you can charge for), and you can purchase an ISBN for your book to have it listed at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and some other books stores.

Does anyone know of other self publishing companies or know of any pros or cons of going this route?

It just seems like finding a publishing company to publish your work is most likely a little more difficult than the self publishing.

What about an Editor? I spoke to one person that said they usually charge $1.50 a page.

Any advice is good advice, whether positive or negative, I would really like to hear about personally experiences and opinions that may help me decide what is best for me to do.

I would appreciate all and any input from everyone.


Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Hate Speech For Hate Speech : Pleasure In Death

As you may already know Jerry Falwell fell asleep for the last time Wednesday May 15, 2007.

I am honestly not sure what all of Falwell’s personal convictions and teachings were. I am not a Falwell-ite or a Falwell follower so I really don’t know if I personally agree or disagree with all that he stood for and voiced.

With that said, I find it interesting that those who claim he was full of “hate speech” have such “hate speech” against him. I think it is somewhat interesting for one to condemn a person of “hate speech” by using “hate speech”. [see here]

What does this say about individual character? Almost like kids – “They did it first!”

Really I don’t want to focus on the bashing of the “friendly” non-theists here, but us Christians. How do we handle this when we are placed in the same condition?

When the Taliban strikes with hate do we desire justice or do we spue speech like “Just kill them all” meaning all Muslims? I’ve heard a preacher say from the pulpit that we should kill all the “rag heads”. Was it worse that he said such or worse that there were “Amen’s” from the congregation? I’ll let you decide.

While all the screaming of “kill him”, about Sadam, did anyone spend the time to ask God to convict his heart, grant him repentance, and open his eyes to the truth of salvation found in Christ? We are told to [Ezekiel 3; 33].

Sure he deserved to pay for his sins (as we all do), but did you rejoice in your belief of him descending to hell or did it bother you at all even in the slightest of what he may endure for all of eternity? Is it because you are “better” than he?

Let’s take a look at Ezekiel 18:

23, Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

32, For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

And Ezekiel 33:

11, Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

The Lord GOD says He has “no pleasure in the death of the wicked”, do we?

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Posing Questions From An Atheist

From a comment here, from a post here, come these questions at their request here:

My thoughts are in green.

What is the "something" of a god? The God said I AM THAT I AM and scripture says He is a Spirit.

What is the energy that god or gods used to create "something"? The God used His voice to speak things into existence.

Is matter part of a god? Is energy? If so, what kind? Both matter and energy are creations of The God, for by him all things consist.

To repeat, what is the nature of the "something" that supposedly created another "something"? The God’s nature is holy.

Logic only applies to the real world and a certain quality that has developed in the evolution to human beings. To propose a non-naturalistic cause takes you outside of the system. You are correct. The God is outside of the natural system He created, He is supernatural.

Mitt Romney recently said, “I’m not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design,” he said. “But I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body.” I disagree with evolution.

This begs the question of what is meant by "intelligent"? What does it mean to say that a god is "intelligent"? The God fully understands all of creation for it was He who has thought and spoke it into existence.

Where did this "intelligence" come from and what is its nature? It comes from The God Himself for before creation there was nothing but God Himself.

In fact, "intelligence" also only has meaning in the real natural universe and simply defines a quality now found in a certain level of evolved beings. "Intelligence" could not exist outside this framework. This is an assumption based on human intelligence. The God is all knowing, so you could claim He is above “created” intelligence if you must.

If "intelligence" has always existed, as in a supernatural proposition such as a god, then human beings must be as gods. The serpent claimed mankind can be as gods knowing good and evil, but not as The God knowing all things. There are gods and lords but one True God.

If a god has a superior "intelligence", it would know all about the past, present, and future. So why would it trouble itself about how humans act? Why not? For His purpose.

For that matter, if a god has such intelligence, why would it bother with such a roundabout system as evolution, as Romney claims, instead of creating everything immediately as it wanted? In this case, the young earth creationists make more sense than Romney. He did create as He wanted.

But even that doesn't make sense. The further question would be, "Why did an "intelligent" god create anything at all? What "interest" would there be for it to create such inferior beings as us and the other animals, or plants, or non-sentient matter and energy? Can a god even have "interests"? The problem is that you cannot understand the mind of God, for you have said yourself “The God is outside of the natural system He created, He is supernatural” meaning the creature cannot and is not smarter or more intelligent than their Creator.

FAITH A Four Letter Word

Hebrews 11:1: the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Encarta.com: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
Dictionary.com: confidence or trust in a person or thing, belief that is not based on proof

It appears some believe faith to be a four letter word that they will have no part of. So today, I am questioning faith with the idea of, can anyone actually live life without such? I am not narrowing my idea of faith to only saving faith or even religious faith, but simply faith as it stands in anything.

Does every person at least have some type of faith in something or someone, even if they deny such? I believe the answer is yes.

Is there not a sense of faith in believing that ones mother and father are actually their biological parents? Unless there is a DNA test that proves undeniable evidence that such are, is it not based on trust in a person without actual proof? One may say that the evidence points to that, ah, but the evidence though may point to such may only be leading one away from the truth.

I know children that look like their parents, but their parents are not their biological parents. There are cases that children do not even know they have been adopted till their teen years when they are told of such. Men have signed birth certificates stating they are the father when they are not the biological father. Yet all these children do not simply “think” these people are their parents, they “believe” and have “faith” that these are their parents without requiring or requesting logical evidence or proof.

Theists are often criticized for having faith that indeed a Creator (whom we call God) created this universe. We are often scoffed by saying we have no evidence and it leaves too many unanswered questions.

On the flip side, when questions as to the origination of the Big Bang, of what set all this in motion, we are given answers like “We don’t know yet” or “Maybe matter and energy has always existed”. Some may claim evidence to the “after effects” of the Big Bang, but not the “start” or the “cause” of the Big Bang. Does this not fall in line with the Biblical definition of faith? “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” No one saw the Big Bang, but there is hope and they believe evidence of that not seen exist to prove it happened.

There could be many more examples, but I just don’t see where it is possible for anyone to live life without some type of faith whether small or great in someone or something without requiring or demanded “show me the evidence first”.

Monday, May 14, 2007

Lukewarm Spue

The Scripture: Revelation 3:15-16

15 - I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 - So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

These verses are concerning the works of “the church of the Laodiceans”.

I have heard two teachings concerning these verses, but both agree that being lukewarm is not where one who claims to be a Christian should find themselves.

[1] I have heard it said (summarized to my understanding) to be [hot] is to be on fire for God with a witnessing testimony, to be [cold] is to basically act as a lost person with no testimony, and to be [lukewarm] is to be wishy-washy with a hypocrite testimony that neither helps other Christians nor leads the lost world to Christ. The objection (I have heard) to this is that why would God want a Christian to be cold, as the phrase “I would thou wert cold or hot” is used in verse 15.

[2] I have heard it said (summarized to my understanding) to be [hot] or [cold] is to be useful to God (as water is useful in both states) as a good testimony. To be [lukewarm] again is to be no good for service but to bring reproach to the name of Christ.

How are we in the sight of God with our prayer, study, witness, and living?

How do we see ourselves today, right now: hot, cold, or lukewarm

Sunday, May 13, 2007

A Quick Happy Mother's Day.

Just a quick note to tell all you mother's out there Happy Mothers Day!
I pray that you have a wonderful day and enjoy your family.

Please remember those that have lost children and that may be unable to have children. While the church may spend this morning promoting those that have children, there may be some among you that are unable to. Let's not forget them, for they are no less a lady or lesser in God's eyes.

And remember Father's Day is around the corner. Hint. Hint.

Friday, May 11, 2007

Graduation to Deviation

The school year is almost over and thousands of young adults will be graduating high school across the United States. Many will go to college, numerous to the military, others to jobs, and some haven’t really decided what to do yet.

As a child grows the parents have/had the responsibility to instruct, discipline, and love that child to the best of their ability. Some are/were able to do a better job than others do to different circumstances, but all should be/have focused on preparing their child to face the trials, pitfalls, and enjoyments of adult life.

My fear is the deviation of the young adults from the wise instruction of the parents as they become “free” to do as they please as adults. I realize that everything one may get from their parents is not correct, but hopefully the good out ways the bad by this time. Neither the parents nor the young are perfect, but the greater responsibility lies on the parents from God Himself.

I fear that while we as Christian parents make sure our child is in Sunday school and church, we fail to create a lifestyle of Christianity. What I mean is that while we believe it is right (by tradition or conviction) that our children should learn the Bible verses and stories, we ourselves do not feel it necessary to study the Scriptures or live as though we honestly believe them.

A child and young person can clearly see hypocrisy. We as adults cannot hide it from them. We often brag about such when we say things as “Because I am the daddy” or “Do as I say” when we are questioned with “Why can you do it” after we tell them it is not right for them to do.

While we ensure that they learn the things of God are we creating a distaste of Him and His Word to our children by not living what we preach? Do they hold the things of Scripture in their minds no different than that of secular learning without it sinking into their hearts?

Do we ensure their learning of spiritual things of God only one day a week for seventeen or eighteen years to only have then reject and deviate from such because we have failed in a lifestyle that is pleasing to God and a godly example to what we want them to learn? They will learn more from our example than simple text book knowledge without responsibility.

Shall the teachings of Christianity perish from them as those things which they have learned in school that they dislike or fail to use in everyday life? If not in their hearts, I fear it may very well happen.

At graduation day we are a little late to recapture the years that we should have done better when we had the time and ability to do so. Yet all is not lost, for through prayer and lifestyle we can hopeful keep them mindful of the things of God that they have learned while growing up. It is too late the force them into subjection to the authority of God after graduation for it will only create rebellion. We must live the Christian talk as we should always (from before they were born or our conversion till now), be compassionate, and trust that God’s Word will not return void.

To a young adult reading this that may be thinking that the Christian things they were taught as a child are not true or you feel a desire to rebellion against them because of hypocrisy you have seen, I ask that you ponder the Word of God in your heart and see that Christ is the example that we must follow. Our parents may faultier and those we look up to may disappoint us, yet no one is without sin but our Savior Jesus Christ. Regardless of the ones around you whether “good” or “bad” Christians, I pray that you have a desire to trust and follow Christ as Lord and Savior, and live the way you believe a Christian should.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Jesus Wept. Why?

The shortest verse in the Bible is John 11:35, Jesus wept.

My question to the reader today is - Why?

1] Was it because Lazarus died?

2] Was it because the people were crying?

3] Was it because of the unbelief of the people?

What Do Theists and Atheists Have In Common?

I believe I have found what atheists, theists, and any other 'ists' seem to have in common.

None of us very much like our beliefs/thoughts/ideas/convictions questioned, and we don't mind telling the offender so.

I wonder if there is really such a thing as "agree to disagree".
I doubt we could agree there is such.

Sure we say, "We will just not talk to the other side", yet we still spend our time talking about the other side. So we really haven't agreed to disagree, but have decided to disagree behind their back so we don't have to listen to their point. This way we get to talk and make fun of them without any recourse or test of what we are saying. This helps us to feel free to sling railing accusations without actual support or facts to back up our claims.


Side/their/them - simply meaning anyone we personally disagree with.

Just a tid-bit to think about.

update: Hmmm... What about an agnostic? I have never spoken to one that I know of. Would they hold this common that us 'ists' do?

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

A “Jesus” Returns Wearing 666?

A mere (apparently unregenerate) mortal man by the name of Dr. Jose Luis De Jesus Miranda, 61 years old, banned in 3 countries, showed up in Orlando claiming to be Jesus Christ reincarnated.

You can view the article here.

His Claims:

Miranda said millions of people worldwide have tattooed their bodies with "666" in recognition that the second-coming of Christ has taken place, according to the report.

Miranda said he is known as God in at least 30 countries.

News Claims:

Local 6 reported that he was born in Puerto Rico and admits to being a recovering heroin addict. He also spent times in prison on drug and petty theft charges.

Miranda is the founder of the Miami-based Growing in Grace Ministry.

I am not sure which is worse: The claim or the following.

Evangelical Atheist – Say What?

Recently in my last post the term “evangelical atheist” was mentioned by a commenter.

Personally I don’t like the use of “evangelical” and “atheist” together, but I didn’t coin the phrase and people will say what they want to say. Of course, I don’t go around calling myself an “evangelical Christian” either. I simply use Christian or Baptist.

I tried to do a little surfing to find the term to see what I could come up with. The reason is because it is most often heard from atheists that they want Christians to keep religion to the church, their homes, and themselves and to reframe from proselytizing (their word). So I found the term “evangelical atheist” interesting because in it carries the meaning that they are indeed atheists which go about to proselytize/convert theists to atheists; which would go against what atheists are telling Christians to stop doing.

Here is the article and a small bit from it:

None of this means, however, that there aren't some atheists who really do want to convert theists. What everyone must remember is that this does not indicate that such atheists are just trying to convince themselves. There are many Christian evangelists who spread all over the world to convert people to Christianity, but are they all trying to convince themselves as well? I doubt many Christians would accept such a conclusion, but if so then they shouldn’t claim that it's true about atheists.

In fact, some atheists think that theism, or at least religion, causes a great deal of harm in society, so they try to get people to change their minds. This isn't much different from someone having strong political convictions and trying to get others to change their minds and agree with them. An advocate for laws against abortion or gun control isn't trying to simply "convince themselves" — they are, instead, trying to improve society by promoting particular ideas and/or arguing against others. An evangelical atheist who argues against theism and/or religion is doing much the same.

So two things:

1] Before atheists scream at the Christian for obeying the Word of God and witnessing to every creature, please call off your own from witnessing that God does not exist; or simply except both exist and when a Christian knocks on your door simply say I am not interested.

2] As a Christian take into account that some people may not want to hear the gospel message. I am not saying don’t witness, I am saying when they say they are not interested, don’t cram it down their throats. We don’t convert people, God does, we simple present the gospel message to those that may accept or reject it.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Christians vs. Atheists – Does God Exist – Debate

Apparently on May 5, 2007 at debate between Christians Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and Atheists Brian Sapient and "Kelly" (who apparently did not want to give her real name) took place at Calvary Baptist Church in New York City.

The debate is to air on ABC News Now tomorrow afternoon and Nightline tomorrow night on Wednesday, May 9, 2007.

Informing articles:


I haven’t seen the debate, but according to the link above, “Kelly” had a “wardrobe malfunction” that was most inappropriate for such a place (church) and situation (intellectual debate).

Interestingly it seems that this Brian Sapient and “Kelly” are a part of the following:

“The Rational Response Squad challenges people to take the Blasphemy Challenge in which they make videos of themselves denouncing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and then post them on YouTube.”

In my opinion, it is one thing to claim to be an atheist by which you believe there is no God, but to coherence teens (or anyone) into “denouncing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit” – which an atheist claims not to believe exist – there must be a deeper agenda. Yes, I believe, an underlying purpose must exist for such a motivation to move a group.

Tune-in and let’s see what we can glean from this.

What Heaven Is That : Genesis 1:1

I was recently in a discussion, actually a different topic and it moved to a discussion about Genesis 1 and heaven. I mentioned I believe Genesis 1:1 is talking about the creation of heaven where God is and earth where we are.

I was told “You really need to find a good commentary brother. You have apassion for God, but you need some help in how to interpret the Bible”, which is fine, but the majority of things I believe have come from books, preachers, and/or teachers of the Baptist type. So, there is probably only a small portion of ideas I may hold that originated out of thin air (for a better quote) from reading the Bible without any previous knowledge of such from another person.

I have been told that “the heaven” in verse 1 is “the deep dark expanse of outer space...where the stars, the moon, the planets, the solar systems, etc., are located”. Also that “the firmament” of day 2 “was the area which held the water described on day 2”.

I was also given this:
Extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
Expanse (flat as base, support)
Firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
Considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above
It does not exist to day, because it's part of what God used in the flood, later in Genesis.

Let me say that I do believe the firmament separated water above and below itself as scripture claims in Genesis 1:7 and I do believe that the waters above the firmament were used in the flood of Noah’s day. YET, scripture does not say the firmament held the water, but that the water was “above” and “below” the firmament.

I was also asked “you think the birds fly in the same firmament as the one where you’ll find the sun, moon and stars? I take it you never studied astronomy andthe different ‘spheres.’”

Here is my reply:

This is why I am being confused by what is being said.

In verse 1 it is said that God created the heaven and the earth; therefore they come into existence. So, at the beginning, we have "the heaven" and "the earth".

In verse 6 God creates a firmament between the waters and calls this firmament "Heaven" (8).

So now we have "the heaven", "the earth", and "firmament" (called heaven).

In this same firmament now called heaven (8) (not the original in vs. 1, for vs. 1 was already created in the beginning) he places the sun, moon, stars, etc. (14-18). In this same firmament we see fowl flying (20).

I am unclear as to how one can say the firmament can be removed without removing also the sun, moon, stars, etc. that God placed there. In vs. 14-18 God clearly puts the sun, moon, stars, etc. in the firmament that is created on day 2, not in the heaven created "in the beginning".

I also fail to see how the firmament created in verse 8 can be the same heaven in verse 1, whereas we don't take the mention of earth in vs. 1 and then in vs. 2 as two different earth's being created.

The closet thing I can pull is as it says "the firmament in the heaven" meaning the firmament (called heaven) is in the midst of the heaven He created "in the beginning".

So I pose the question here to the reader:

Is the heaven created in Genesis 1:1 where God lives or not? In your opinion, of course.

Monday, May 07, 2007

Do You Believe In Evolution?

A Transcript of: The Republican Presidential Candidates Debate (May 3, 2007) from nytimes.com gives the recall of the debate if you missed it (which I did).

The question: “I’m curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree -- believe in evolution?

Three of the ten hands went up:
Senator Brownback, Mr. Huckabee, Representative Tancredo

Senator McCain added: "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."

Mr. Huckabee said: “he is not opposed to teaching Darwin's theory” later, here.

Me, personally, I was amazed that only three hands were raised, but hey, I really don’t know these guys.

What about America?

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 28-29, 2007. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which one of the following statements come closest to your views about the origin and development of human beings? Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. OR, Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. OR, God created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."
God Guided, 30%
God, No Part, 13%
Created, Present Form, 48%
Other/Unsure, 9%

"Do you think the scientific theory of evolution is well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community?"
Yes, 48%
No, 39%
Unsure, 13%

My questions are for the “God Guided” above with the question, “Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process”.

If God is the Creator, why would it take Him over millions of years to guide a process from less advanced forms of life? How can you trust in a God that you believe cannot even create what we see today but can only produce less forms of life and guide them as they grow themselves? Would that not mean that the creature is equal or greater than the Creator that could not create it in the state by which it has come now on its own? What purpose would (did) it serve?

Is this coming from Christians? From Christians that believe the Word of God?

Sorry, but am I the only one that finds this strange?

Friday, May 04, 2007

Thoughts Opposing Homosexuality = Hate Crime?

In a recent article at BPNews.net, here, the House just passed a law, by a vote of 237-180, for the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It appears that the Senate believes it will pass when brought to them, but Bush has the power to veto.


Current hate crimes law protects traits such as race, religion and national origin, but the bill's opponents say the new legislation would grant protection based on lifestyle. They also say it would move federal law toward punishing thoughts and beliefs, since the motivation of a person charged with a hate crime would have to be evaluated. In addition, some critics warn it eventually could result in suppression of speech that describes homosexual behavior as sinful.

Two concerns I have:

1] “protection based on lifestyle
If indeed protection is granted on the basis of lifestyle, where would it stop? Would there then be protection for bestiality also in the near future? Are we as Americans really ready to protect every lifestyle there is?

2] “punishing thoughts and beliefs
If this comes about, not only Christians, but anyone not in line with the law makers would suffer. It would be as easy as one saying, “You think homosexuality is wrong, well then you have the potential of harming them so we must lock you up.”

Scripture is clearly against homosexuality. There is no doubt for anyone that believes the Bible that homosexuality is immoral and a sin according to God [Leviticus 20; Romans 1]. BUT I AM NOT PROMOTING THE HARMING OF ONE.

I am not speaking about whether a homosexual can/will get saved; I may on a different post.

Here I am talking about the preaching, teaching, and thinking opposed to homosexuality. Is it really to be considered a hate crime? I believe it can be used as such, but not limited to always.

There are those that use the Bible teaching against homosexuality but go to extremes by taunting them, physically or emotionally hurting them, etc., but by enlarge it is not real Christians or what Christianity is all about.

Brothers and Sisters in Christ, if the government limits the free speech of proclaiming the Scriptures concerning homosexuality (as in some countries), be sure the message of the gospel will soon bring forth persecution also, as maybe a “hate-crime” against atheists and agnostics.

Does Pro-Life = Christianity?

Over at my neighborhood atheist blog vjack posted a topic entitled: Christian Terrorism: Alive and Well.

The post is from an article, here, which speaks of a bomb found outside an abortion clinic in Austin. The bomb was found and disarmed and no one was hurt, but the claim from the blog is that this is Christian Terrorism because it was at an abortion (i.e. pro-choice) establishment.

A later posted article, here, by a commenter gives the name of the person and where they are from:

Paul Ross Evans, 27, of Austin is charged with three federal crimes that accuse him of using weapons of mass destruction, attempting to damage a building used in interstate commerce and attempting to damage a facility because it provides reproductive health services.

In 2003, Evans was sentenced to 15 years in prison for an aggravated robbery at a Lufkin Whataburger.

To me it looks like this guy has more issues than claiming to be a pro-life Christian being called to terrorize abortion clinics with the use of bombs.

My point is this: Does Pro-Life = Christianity?

What I mean by this is just because a person claims to be pro-life (meaning the life of the child be saved) and not pro-choice (meaning the choice of the mother take precedence over the life of the child) does that automatically mean that person is a Christian? I personally do not believe the two words to be synonymous. I believe a person can be pro-life without being a Christian, for there are people who claim to be Christian that are pro-choice.

Also, if one nut decides to place a bomb at a building, whether they claim pro-life or Christianity, should that be Christian Terrorism? I fail to see the logic in such name calling. Yes Christians (more than not) believe that abortion is wrong, but we do not find scriptural support to disobey the law and plant bombs to kill the doctors, women, and babies (which we claim pro-life) to die.

By this I believe Pro-Life does not equal Christianity, nor does an act of terrorism by an individual equal Christian Terrorism.

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Wedding Crashers

I recently saw a show on television called The Wedding Crashers. No, I’m not talking about the movie, which I did not see, but a show with real weddings and real brides and grooms which ask these people to really crash their weddings so they will be remembered.

This post will mostly be for a stimulus of some verses in Scripture I find most interesting.

9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:

12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I believe most consider this to be the marriage supper of the Lamb, which is only for the saved people, hence the wedding garments. I have heard it said that “Friend” could refer to Judas since Christ called him “Friend” when he betrayed Him.

Granted there are two ways to look at these verses:

1] As a parable, but then I ask what exactly does this “Friend” signify?

2] As literal, but then I ask who exactly is this “Friend”?

Anyone got a clue?

Sure this isn’t necessary knowledge for salvation, but can’t we enjoy the Bible?

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Trustworthy Siblings? (Vaticanus & Sinaiticus)

Believed to have been written in the 4th century, it appeared in the Vatican Library in its earliest catalog of 1475.

Believed to have been written in the 4th century, it was found (shown to) by Constantin von Tischendorf the Monastery of Saint Catherine, at the foot of Mount Sinai in Egypt, in 1859.

Both of these Codexes are part of the Alexandrian text-type family, also called Neutral or Egyptian. Westcott and Hort used this family and relied heavily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for their 1881 The New Testament in the Original Greek.

Before Karl Lachmann first in 1850, and Westcott and Hort’s Greek, the Byzantine text-type was used, as through the Reformation with Tyndale and the Bibles which followed.

Interestingly virtually all modern translations, since the Kings James Bible, have come from the Alexandrian text-type family. Or I don’t know of any from the Byzantine text-type.

I have heard countless times in reading the phrase “oldest and best manuscripts” by the lovers of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. What exactly does that mean anyway?

Things that I think need to be taken into consideration:

[1] Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written on vellum, whereas the Byzantine text-type was papyrus, which could explain why they have found earlier “dated” copies.

[2] Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were not used for over a thousand years, whereas the Byzantine text-type has been used through clearly visible times of God moving.

[3] Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are believed to be from in Egypt (where scripture claims for God’s people not to go), whereas the Byzantine text-type is believed to be from Antioch (where we see the first use of Christians).

If virtually all modern translations use the Alexandrian text-type, which are supposedly the “oldest and best manuscripts”, why is it that they vary (some more than others) more often than the Byzantine text-type translations (within themselves), they have not caused such great awakenings such as found with the Byzantine text-type, they claim to have made it easier to read and understand but the churches nor its people (as a whole) have come closer to God with a richer understanding and love for the things of God?

Why is it that no new translation wants to touch the Byzantine text-type when history has proven it has done wonders for the cause of Christ?

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Three Cheers for William Tyndale

Just a little history, for I really don’t know much at all. Just ask anyone that knows me.

Raise your hand if you have heard the name William Tyndale? Well, if you use a Bible, which I hope you do, you should know the name.

Tyndale is known for his translation of the Bible which was the first in English translation from the Hebrew and Greek Texts. John Wycliffe’s “morning star of the Reformation” translation was from the Latin Vulgate in the 1380s.

Tyndale’s New Testament from the Greek was printed in 1526 and fourteen of the Old Testament books were translated from Hebrew into English by the 1530’s; which assumingly made him the first to translate Hebrew into English.

Myles Coverdale, a close friend of Tyndale, translates the rest of the Old Testament Tyndale was unable to complete, relying mostly on Tyndale’s earlier drafts, and publishes the first complete English Bible, the Coverdale Bible, in 1535. Tyndale was in prison for 15 months, ending in his strangling and burning at the stake on October 6.

John Rogers in 1537 published the Mathew Bible, under the name Thomas Matthew, which was made of Tyndale’s Old Testament and New Testament (1534-1535), Coverdale’s Bible, and a small amount of Rogers’ own translations.

Thomas Cranmer in 1539 commissions Coverdale to publish a large pulpit Bible thus introduced the Great Bible, also based highly on Tyndale’s work, chained to every pulpit in every church.

It is claimed that over 85% (some state 2/3 to 90%) of the 1611 King James Bible’s New Testament and first half of the Old Testament is taken directly or related to Tyndale’s translation work. Claims have been made that the Geneva Bible translated in 1560 (first verse divisions) holds even closer to Tyndale’s work than the King James Bible does.

Some distinctions from Tyndale and the KJV translators are the words:
Tyndale - congregation - elders - love
KJV - church - bishops - charity

To God be all honor, praise, and glory for using a man of His choosing to translate His very Words from the Hebrew and Greek into our English language that we may know Him through the Scriptures.

John Bunyan

To be saved is to be preserved in the faith to the end. 'He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.' (Mt. 24:13) Not that perseverance is an accident in Christianity, or a thing performed by human industry; they that are saved 'are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation.' (1 Pet. 1: 3-6) But perseverance is absolutely necessary to the complete saving of the soul…. He that goeth to sea with a purpose to arrive at Spain, cannot arrive there if he be drowned by the way; wherefore perseverance is absolutely necessary to the saving of the soul.