Labels

Evolution (13) DNA (6) Bible prophecies (5) Blood Moon (4) prophecies (4) Blind faith (3) Book of Daniel (3) Eve (3) God (3) God's fingerprints (3) Intelligent Design (3) Only way (3) Star of Bethlehem (3) Trinity (3) mtDNA (3) origin of life (3) Adam & Eve (2) Allah (2) Analogy of Trinity (2) Ashley Madison (2) Bible reliability (2) Common Ancestor (2) Exodus (2) Hawking (2) Herod (2) Islam (2) Jericho dispute (2) Jesus (2) Moses (2) Muslims. (2) Nicky Cruz (2) Pharaohs (2) Plagues (2) RNA (2) Torah (2) atheism (2) fun story (2) genocide (2) iron teeth monster (2) leap of faith (2) magi (2) rationality (2) science & faith (2) science updates (2) serpent (2) skeptics (2) sufferings (2) truth (2) virgin birth (2) AI (1) Abraham's test. 自導自演 (1) Acts (1) Adam (1) Andrew Chan (1) Ape DNA (1) Armageddon Book of Joel (1) Astrology (1) Astronomy (1) Atheists (1) Ave Maria (1) Balaam (1) Baphomet (1) Beheadings (1) Bethlehem babies (1) Bethlehem star (1) Bible (1) Bible & Phi (1) Bible & Science (1) Bible scurtiny (1) Big Bang (1) Book of Luke (1) Bryant Wood (1) Buddhism (1) Canaan Conquest. (1) Carbon 14 tests (1) Constantine (1) Council of Nicaea (1) Da Vinci Code (1) Dan Brown (1) David Wood (1) Dead Sea Scrolls (1) Doom sayings (1) Evolution,Darwinism (1) Fibonacci number (1) Forgiveness (1) Garden of Eden (1) Genome comparison (1) Goat statue (1) God delusion (1) God is cruel? (1) God's glory (1) God's grace (1) God/man dual nature (1) Golden Angels Choir (1) Golden ratio (1) Gravity Wave (1) He will carry you. 4 You tube songs (1) Holocaust (1) Hominid Hype (1) Homo Naledi (1) ISIS (1) Information (1) Isaiah 53 (1) Jericho (1) Jericho walls (1) Jesus & Gospels (1) Jesus' Deity (1) Jesus' tomb (1) Jesus' youth (1) John the Baptist (1) Joseph's scheme (1) Karma (1) Killing God (1) Mary promotions (1) Michael Brown (1) Musical chords (1) Nabeel Qureshi (1) Nikolas Cruz (1) OT Bible (1) Paul's conversion (1) Phi (1) Prophecies.. (1) Prophecies.Bk of Daniel (1) Quran (1) Richard Dawkins (1) Roman Empire (1) Satan (1) Sh'khinah (1) Son of God (1) Suicide (1) Ted Bunny (1) The Cross & guillotines (1) Tree of Knowledge (1) Trinity analogy (1) Wisemen (1) Y DNA (1) absurdity of life (1) acoustic resonance (1) animal migrations (1) apologetics (1) atheist Pro (1) chicken or eggs (1) comet (1) comparisons of religions (1) creation (1) dialogue with M (1) doubting Thomas, (1) earthquake (1) emperor's cloth (1) empty tomb (1) evil (1) executions (1) fabrication (1) falling down (1) fine tuning of universe (1) free will (1) goodness (1) hallucination (1) hell (1) history (1) human hibernation. suspended animation (1) justice (1) life is short (1) logic (1) meaning of life (1) movie (1) multiverse (1) nature's laws (1) objections fr Jews (1) original sin. Bible out of context (1) original sin. temptations (1) pains (1) philosophy. (1) philosophy. Big Bang (1) popes (1) porn addiction (1) probabilities (1) reality check (1) reincarnation (1) relationship (1) restoration (1) resurrection (1) sanke handler (1) science & God (1) self disclosure (1) short skit (1) sin (1) sins (1) snake (1) songs (1) stumbling blocks (1) the Star of Bethlehm (1) theology (1) unusual birth (1) who made God (1) why. love letters (1) wise men (1) 人類的起源, 進化論 (1)

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

'Is Islam a Religion of Peace?


Interview: Former Muslim Nabeel Qureshi on 'Is Islam a Religion of Peace?' (Part 2)

Julie Roys

In part one of my interview with former Muslim Nabeel Qureshi, he explains the theological problems with asserting that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. In part two, the itinerant speaker with Ravi Zacharias International Ministries discusses Islam's link to violence. He also discusses why Muslims today are especially open to the Gospel.
Julie Roys: Let's talk a little bit about terrorism and its link to Islam. On one hand, we hear President Obama saying that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamic extremism represents only a tiny fraction of Muslims. On the other hand, I read a Pew poll that found that 63 million Muslims in 11 countries support ISIS. And, if you take into account all of those who are undecided about ISIS, the number grows to about 224 million. So, is Islam a religion of peace — or does it in fact promote violence?

Nabeel Qureshi is the author of the new book (Photo: McClure/Muntsinger)Nabeel Qureshi is the author of the new book "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus."
Nabeel Qureshi: That is a question that requires defining our terms. How do we define Islam? . . . Do we define Islam how Muslims, people who self-proclaim as Muslims, how they practice Islam. ...? Is that what Islam is? Or, is Islam that which Muḥammad, the prophet of Islam, left before he died — that religion, that sociopolitical-religio system that Muhammad left? Is that Islam historically?
Now, people from more Protestant backgrounds tend to go back to the original. That's what we do with our faith. We want to go to the New Testament. We want to see what Jesus said and what the disciples say in the New Testament. . . . Perhaps because I'm a Protestant — I think Islam should be defined as that religion which Muhammad left . . . That is what Islam is.
If we understand that to be Islam, then there's no question that Islam has violence in its original form. Muhammad used violence to accomplish his ends. Now, I don't want to sound like this is Nabeel Qureshi making a judgment call. We can just quote the words of Muhammad. If we go to Sahih Bukhari, for example, this is the volume of Muhammad's traditions that is understood to be the most trustworthy . . . What (Muhammad) says is, "I have come to fight those who do not say, 'La ilaha illallah Muhammadur Rasulullah.'" In other words, "I have come to fight those who do not proclaim Islam, and if they do not say this, their persons and their property are not safe from me."
Very clearly, in the most trustworthy collection of traditions, he has come to fight non-Muslims. Until they become Muslim, their persons and their property are not safe from him. In Sahih Muslim, the next most trustworthy book, this is hadith number 30, he says, "I will expel all the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims." . . .
If Muhammad is, according to these traditions, using violence to accomplish his ends, I simply cannot see how we can call it a religion of peace. . . .
Julie Roys: How many Muslims around the world practice and actually believe Islam in the way you just described, in its original form as Muhammad passed it down?
Nabeel Qureshi: A very astute question, Julie. When I was a Muslim, I didn't know any of this. I had been taught that Muhammad was the most peaceful man who ever lived. I had been taught that he would only defend the community. If he ever took to arms, it was just for self-defense — never offensively.
It wasn't until 9/11 happened that I was forced to deal with a whole group of Muslims who disagree, and I had to see why. It was when I started looking into the sources that I realized what the evidence said. I think in the West at least, the vast majority of Muslims do understand Islam to be religion of peace. When they say, "Islam is a religion of peace," they are simply saying what they've been taught, what they've understood, how they've known their religion from birth. And, so they believe it, just like I did.
I'm not sure that's the case for Muslims in the rest of the world. Honestly, when I've talked to people from Saudi, when I've talked to people from the Levant, I've asked them how they've understood Islam. Generally speaking, Muslims from those countries are okay with violence. They don't have the same issues that Westerners do, and they've understood that Islam has used violence.
We have to nuance our understanding of Muslims because they do range from California all the way to Indonesia. Muslims have different sorts of different understandings. In the West, I think they think Islam is peaceful. In the rest of the world, I think they know better.
When Muhammad first started preaching, he was preaching a message of peace. He had no battles, no wars for 13 years of his 23-year ministry. Once that 13th year hit, he fought battles every single year. The battles only increased, and so it starts peaceful and becomes violent. . . .
The final marching orders of Islam, chapter nine of the Quran, is the most violent chapter of the Quran. When you see, "Slay the infidel where you find them, lay siege to them and take them captive," that's chapter nine verse five. . . .
The most violent passages in the Quran are in the last chapter of the Quran. What does that tell you? That tells you that Islam went from peaceful to violent during the time of Muhammad. The last marching orders he gave his people were to spread Islam by the sword . . .

Listen to the full interview with Nabeel Qureshi in Episode One of the podcast, Seeking Truth with Julie Roys.
On Saturday, January 16, Nabeel Qureshi will debate Miroslav Volf, a key proponent of the view that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. The debate will air on Up For Debate, a live program on Moody Radio featuring host Julie Roys.

Saturday, December 26, 2015

Don't You Want Everlasting Life?


Everlasting Life Under the Christmas Tree

Man is on a quest, and it goes far beyond the fictional fantasy of "Star Wars." I am talking about something real and eternal. And everybody wants it.
Tech billionaires are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in their pursuit to extend life. This includes Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, Facebook CEO Mark Zukerberg, and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel. The ultimate goal of their expensive research is to find the holy grail of life extension, namely, immortality.
It makes sense. After all, everyone wants to live forever, right? There is something inside each of us that longs for everlasting life. Ecclesiastes 3:11 explains why we have this longing: "God has set eternity in the human heart."
No wonder we crave immortality. As oxygen is to the body, eternal life is to the soul.
And while certain billionaires attempt to discover the secret of life extension, God's Word connects the dots. It's all right there in Scripture. And so Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Mark 4:9)

This is no joke. Nor is it "pie in the sky" daydreaming. It's reality. And if it wasn't for the blinding nature of sin in man's heart, everyone would see it. Sin is a terrible thing. It corrupts man's motives, and even worse, it blinds man from seeing how to obtain everlasting life in paradise.

How bad is this blindness you ask? Well, think of it this way.

Imagine yourself roaming around blindfolded out in the desert. Needless to say, your thirst would be extreme. Imagine there being a spring of water located 5 miles away, and a tall tree standing right next to the spring. Your obvious challenge would be to find the spring.

So how does this relate to Christmas? It's simple. Just connect the dots.

Man's sin had left him without spiritual water. Jesus was born into a world of thirsty human beings, and a fountain sprang up right there in Bethlehem. When Christ died on the cross, a tree was created at the spring. And ever since the Holy Spirit came into the world at Pentecost, streams of living water have been gushing forth continuously under the tree.

Meanwhile, man remains thirsty today. All of us entered this world with a blindfold covering the eyes of our soul. Man simply doesn't see why Jesus and Bethlehem and Christmas are that big of a deal. And yet he pursues whatever he thinks will satisfy him.

A famous rock star once said, "I've got everything a man could want — a beautiful home, a beautiful girlfriend, wonderful children, and money to enjoy life, and yet there's something missing."

Obviously, those things couldn't satisfy his spiritual thirst.

Thankfully, God provided a healing stream which soothes the soul and calms the spirit. It quenches man's deepest thirst, and it's right there under the tree. This is the exact spot where man accepts Christ into his life to be his Lord and Savior.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) There is only one oasis where man can be forgiven and quench his thirst for truth, meaning, and life everlasting.

The moment a sinner drinks from God's spring, eternal life is granted. God's living water is truly miraculous. Make no mistake about it. Christmas delivers an everlasting gift which God gave to the world. And like all gifts, it only benefits the one who opens it.

Follow the clues, just like the wise men followed the star. Follow the prophecies about the Messiah. Follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. And allow the grace of God to fill your soul and quench your spiritual thirst as you trust Jesus to deliver your soul from sin and death.

Drink up. It doesn't get any better than this.

You really can live forever. And you don't have to be a billionaire to discover the secret. In fact, you won't discover it through expensive research. You will only understand it and believe it when the blindfold is off and your eyes see Bethlehem, the tree, and the spring.

Will this be your Christmas to finally grasp what the celebration is all about?

Jesus told a Samaritan woman at the well, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked Him and He would have given you living water." (John 4:10)

Jesus went on to tell her, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become a spring of water welling up to eternal life." (John 4:13,14)

So be bold in your response to Christ's claim. Either believe it with all of your heart, or reject it with all of your heart. But just remember. You won't find another spring in this desert that can give you everlasting life. That's because no other spring exists.

So much for "Star Wars." Movies can give you a temporary emotional buzz, but paradise in heaven is the gift that keeps on giving.

It really boils down to whether or not you want to live forever in paradise. If so, then go to Bethlehem. Trust in the cross. Believe in the Lord's empty tomb(* and His Resurrection). 
Connect the dots, and receive the gift of everlasting life.

It has your name on it, and it's under the Christmas tree right now. Simply open it up through faith.
Go ahead. Take off the blindfold. Do you see your Christmas gift from God, or are you still walking in spiritual darkness?

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Where Is the Philosopher of This Age?

Dear friends:

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!



A few emails have been posted below by the permission of the writers.
It is a partial email dialogue between our outstanding philosopher friend Martin and a couple of us,
 Dio & BH

You are very welcome to join our dialogue. God bless! BH
Also for further thinking, click the following links.

Hi Martin,

So, your new favorite "theology" is the Postmodern kind.

In tolerating all religions, the postmodernist denies the uniqueness of every religion.
In being all-inclusive, the postmodernist discredits all thoughts other than his own.
In claiming "There is no absolute objective truth", he claims that alone is the absolute truth.
In acknowledging God's existence, the postmodernist proceeds to fashion God in his own image.
In embracing Postmodernism, the postmodernist embraces none but himself.

Is it less disturbing for me to study theology? I did my due diligence in studying Christian theologies of various schools. (But I don't claim to be a scholar in theology) I enjoy very much thinking through them and find myself greatly edified by them. I just don't waste my time with empty gibberish... and I make sure I spend more time with the Bible itself than with books about it. That way, I have a standard to measure what I'm reading.

You keep saying that the Bible is filled with myths, and yet you refuse to examine any historical and literary evidences to the contrary. I wonder why? Is it less disturbing for you if the Bible is only a collection of myths instead of truth statements of God? Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" But he never had the ear to hear Him nor the eyes to see Him who was the Truth Himself.

Yes, the blind can only touch parts of the elephant, and therefore do not have the full view of it. This parable makes sense to us because there is such an object called an elephant.  The Postmodernist says you can make the elephant any shape you want it to be and he thinks his fingers are more observant than someone else's eyes. Thank God that the Creator of the elephant is in the business of open the eyes of the blind.

You say, "Just to be immersed in the Biblical stories is salvation by itself." ???

The Word of God says, " For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." (Rom 10:10)

Beware of the man who analyses the restaurant menu but never eats the food there!

Dio

Dear Martin,

I'm glad you have taken our dialogues and checked them with others with views similar and different from your own. Please understand that my goal of carrying on these dialogues with you is not to win an argument ( because I am no match to a learned scholar like you), but to help you understand that while Christianity has historically tested and intellectually upheld doctrines and theology, it is the eternal life in Jesus that matters at the end.

We, your old Christian classmates, have this one common prayer of salvation for you. I think Marian expressed it best for all of us in her emails.

If there is one thing clear in the Bible, that would be that Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind. There really is no room for the mindset of "whatever God means".

Dio

Dear Martin:

You said in your email:"...But by being dogmatic, exclusive and

absolutist you have missed out much of what God creates (whatever God means)."



So we have missed out much of what God creates? And you can't even define what "God" you are talking about?
Can God be " whatever God means"? Or to put it down to earth, can "you" be whatever our email pals and former college friends define?
I agree with Diothere is no room of calling our Creator God undefined as  "whatever God means".

Being growing up in a Presbyterian background, I do know quite a few relatives, friends who used to be enthusiastic Christians going to seminary in order to serve God better and to spread the Gospel; however, at the end of their seminary studies, unfortunately, they lost their faith and enthusiasm to spread the Gospel, or they spread another secular or more liberated gospel. That surely is a great pity! 

All those scholars, theologians, liberals who were lost in the theological and philosophical thickets, should ask themselves, are they better off after they were supposedly liberated from their original faith with a loving God who sent His Son to die for our sins. They could find they are actually enslaved with a new worldly or cultural ...god, whatever that god means to them. ( or they may not even be aware of their current conditions.)

Dear Martin, your Christian friends are not burying their heads in the sand like an Ostrich. We are just not counting on the spirit of the world, nor the wisdom of the world alone.

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1 Corinthians 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.22For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,…1 Corinthians 2:12
What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.

Dear Martin, Please be aware that human wisdom may prevent you from seeing the Kingdom of God, let alone getting into God's kingdom.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.(insight) (ESV)( Proverb 9:10)

The Bereans Search the Scriptures( Acts 17)( this is also what Dio said that he examines various theologies by scriptures. )

10 As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas off to Berea. On arrival, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 The people here were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, since they welcomed the message with eagerness and examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12 Consequently, many of them believed, including a number of the prominent Greek women as well as men.

BH

Monday, December 21, 2015

Why Don't More Jews Believe in Jesus?

Dear friends:

There are at least 5 of this series of General Objections. This one is the 2nd one in the series I have just watched and listened to. Give it a try.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pojOjFE2Lrw
Click the link above then click the other 4 in the series for more understanding..Also you may move on to historical objections and other Jewish objections series.

Saturday, December 19, 2015

Did Moses See God Face to Face?


l 



Question: "If Moses met face to face with God, why, later, was he not allowed to see God’s face?"

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-Moses-face-to-face.htm

Answer: 
Before the official tabernacle was built, “Moses used to take a tent and pitch it outside the camp some distance away, calling it the ‘tent of meeting.’ Anyone inquiring of the Lord would go to the tent of meeting outside the camp” (Exodus 33:7). As Moses visited this tent of meeting to intercede for the people of Israel, “the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the Lord spoke with Moses” (verse 9). Moses’ position of favor with God is evident in the fact that “the Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend” (verse 11).

However, later in the same chapter, Moses requests to see God’s glory, and God replies, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. . . . But . . . you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (Exodus 33:19–20). To protect Moses, God put him “in a cleft in the rock” and covered him with His hand as He passed by (verse 22). “Then,” God promised, “I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen” (verse 23).

This passage prompts several questions. Does God really have a “hand,” “face,” and “back”? Why could Moses speak to God “face to face” in verse 11 but could not see God’s “face” in verse 23? What is fatal about seeing God’s “face”?

We know from Scripture (e.g., John 4:24) that God is spirit. Spirits do not possess physical attributes. So, when Moses spoke “face to face” with God in Exodus 33:11, there are only two possible ways to understand it: either Moses was speaking to the pre-incarnate Son of God (a Christophany); or the passage is using a figure of speech called anthropomorphism, in which human qualities are applied to God. While a Christophany is certainly possible, it is probably better to view the chapter as using figures of speech. The terms facehand, and back in Exodus 33should not be taken literally, and face to face, being idiomatic, is also metaphorical.

In verse 11 the idiom face to face can be simply understood to mean “intimately.” Moses spoke with God familiarly, as a man speaks to a friend. In verses 20 and 23, face and back are in reference to God’s “glory” and “goodness” (verses 18–19). Since God is spirit, and since glory and goodness are both intangibles, we can take face and backto signify varying “degrees” of glory. God’s hand (verse 22) is an obvious reference to God’s “protection.”

In the Bible, God often communicates using terms easily understood in the human experience. God’s use of anthropomorphism(
擬人化 )in Exodus 33 was a perfect way to describe what was happening. As humans, we know the importance of one’s face. To readily identify someone, we study his or her face. It is also the face of a person that reveals the most information about his or her character, mood, and personality. However, if all we catch is a glimpse of a person from behind, we are left without a lot of valuable information. It is difficult to identify a person from behind; we know very little about a person if all we can see is a back view.
When God told Moses, “You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (Exodus 33:20), He was saying that truly seeing God as He is, in the fullness of His glory, is more than mortal man can tolerate (cf. Isaiah 6:5). Therefore, to protect Moses, God was only going to reveal that portion of His majesty and power that was humanly possible to absorb. God communicated this plan to Moses in a way we can all understand: “You cannot look Me full in the face [it is impossible for you to know everything about Me], but I will allow you to see my back [I will reveal to you a small portion of My nature so as not to overwhelm you].”

All of this makes Jesus’ words to Philip all the more amazing: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). When Jesus walked this earth, His glory veiled, we could look Him in the face. “In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). On one brief occasion, Jesus’ glory was revealed in this world, at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:2). Interestingly, Moses was there, speaking to the glorified Lord, face to face (Matthew 17:3).
Recommended Resources: Knowing God by J.I. Packer and Logos Bible Software.

See also the link below:
https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/has-anyone-seen-god-or-not

Has anyone seen God or not?


...It is evident above that God was seen. But, considering the "can't-see-God" verses, some would understandably argue that there would be a contradiction. One explanation offered is that the people were seeing visions, or dreams, or the Angel of the LORD (Num. 22:22-26Judges 13:1-21) and not really God Himself. But the problem is that the verses cited above do not say vision, dream, or Angel of the LORD. They say that people saw God (Exodus 24:9-11), God was seen and that He appeared as God Almighty (Exodus 6:2-3).
At first, this is difficult to understand. God Almighty was seen (Exodus 6:2-3), which means it was not the Angel of the Lord, for an angel is not God Almighty. And at least Moses saw God and not in a vision or dream--as the LORD Himself attests in Num. 12:6-8. If these verses mean what they say, then we naturally assume we have a contradiction. Actually, the contradiction exists in our understanding--not in the Bible, which is always the case with alleged Biblical contradictions.
The solution is simple. All you need to do is accept what the Bible says. If the people of the OT were seeing God, the Almighty God, and Jesus said that no one has ever seen the Father (John 6:46), then they were seeing God Almighty but not the Father. It was someone else in the Godhead. I suggest that they were seeing the Word before He became incarnate. In other words, they were seeing Jesus.
If God is a Trinity, then John 1:18 is not a problem either because in John, chapter one, John writes about the Word (Jesus) and God (the Father). In verse 14, it says that the Word became flesh. In verse 18, it says that no one has seen God. Since Jesus is the Word, God, then, refers to the Father. This is typically how John writes of God: as a reference to the Father. We see this verified in Jesus' own words in John 6:46 where He said that no one has ever seen the Father. Therefore, Almighty God was seen but not the Father. It was Jesus before His incarnation. There is more than one person in the Godhead, and the doctrine of the Trinity must be true.


Thursday, December 17, 2015

Peace on Earth While All Become Vegetarians


The Millennial Kingdom Reign of Jesus Christ

...Animals Become Peaceful

Now regarding the character of the Millennial kingdom, the book of Isaiah is rich with kingdom prophecies. In Isaiah 11:6-9 it is revealed that "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea."
First of all, we see that animals that are presently carnivorous, will begin to eat vegetation only, so that the animals will not fear one another or harm people. Many have taken this passage and tried to spiritualize (allegorically interpret) the truth away from it, saying it is not literal. However, not only will all animals literally be herbivores in the future, but all animals once were herbivores, since neither man nor beast ate animal flesh prior to the great flood.
Genesis 1:29-30 "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so."

 Notice that the beasts are neither given for Adam's food, nor for one another's food. Both Adam and the beasts are given the herbs and fruits to eat. So man and beast were all vegetarian. However, God changed things after the great flood.

In Genesis 9:2-3 God says to Noah, "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."
So the animals began to fear man, because man was given permission to eat the animals. This is also when many animals became carnivorous. Further scriptural evidence of animals becoming peaceful in the kingdom will be provided in the next section.
The world we live in today is filled with people who deny the deity of Jesus Christ, including many who even deny the existence of God. But that will not be the case in the kingdom. Isaiah 11:9, quoted above, states that, "... the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea."
Life Spans Increased
Here is another passage which is loaded with information. Isaiah 65:20-25 says, "There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD."
There are many key statements in this passage. We see a great increase in life spans. Like the previously mentioned Isaiah 11 passage which says that "... the leopard shall lie down with the kid ...", many have taken what this passage says about the long life spans and tried to spiritualize (allegorically interpret) the truth away from it, saying it is not literal. However, not only will life spans literally be longer, but this too was this way before the great flood.
In the genealogy from Adam to Noah given in Genesis 5 and 9:29, there are extremely long life spans. When we exclude Enoch who was taken by God (Genesis 5:24) at the age of 365 years and Lamech who died at the age of 777 years, we find that all of the other eight lived between 895 and 969 years. After the great flood, there was a rapid drop in life span to a little over 400 years. Around the time of the tower of Babel, life spans dropped to a little over 200 years. Then they began to slowly decrease to more modern life spans over a period of hundreds of years.
Of course many will say that the idea of humans having lived for more than 900 years is ridiculous. However, the following factors produced great changes in man's environment and/or lifestyle. Without speculating on the positive or negative effects these factors may have had on life span, some of them are: (1) Prior to the flood it did not rain on the earth, rather the earth was watered by mist that came up from the ground (Genesis 2:5-6). (2) As previously mentioned, it was after the great flood that man began to eat meat for the first time (Genesis 9:3). (3) The removal of the vast layer of waters above the firmament (Genesis 1:7 and 7:11) may have effected the sun's rays, the earth's magnetic field, or the air pressure. (4) After the flood, the human race was replenished through only eight people (Genesis 6:18) which required the marriage of some near relatives. These factors and others not contemplated here may have had a tremendous effect on human life. We are not capable of determining what all of the effects might be, except to say that the ramifications would be great. So we should take God at his Word (something we should do anyway) when He tells us about the life spans of those who lived before the flood and those who will live in the coming kingdom.
In the Isaiah 65:20-25 passage we also see normal, everyday life taking place. 
This passage also provides further evidence of carnivorous animals becoming herbivores, which we have already discussed.,

To read the original post, click the link below.
The Millennial Kingdom Reign of Jesus Christ

Father of 7 Believes He's a 6-Year-Old Girl


What if I told you that there was a married man with 7 children who left his wife and kids and now lives with another family where he believes he is a 6-year-old girl? Would you say that he had serious mental and emotional issues and needed professional help?
That would be the expected reaction, but today, we must expect the unexpected. And so, we are now told that this man is both transgender and transager. Some people are even celebrating this madness.
I kid you not.
So, we have Bruce Jenner, woman of the year, the world's most famous example of transgender identity.
We have Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who identifies as black, a prominent example of being transracial.
Then there's Jewel Shuping, who blinded herself so her mind could be in harmony with her body, now a poster woman for being transabled.
There's also Gary Matthews, aka "Boomer," who believes he's a dog, apparently an example of being trans-species.
And now there's Paul Woscht, known today as Stefonkee, who "thinks he is actually a six year-old girl — not just a woman, but a six year-old girl — stuck in the body of a 50-something man."
As reported by Ashley Rae Goldenberg, "At age 46, Wolscht deserted his wife and his seven children to live his 'true' life."
As he explains, "I can't deny I was married. I can't deny I have children. But I've moved forward now and I've gone back to being a child. I don't want to be an adult right now and I just live my life like I couldn't when I was in school."
I wonder if his ex-wife thinks that her former husband has "moved forward"? I wonder if his children think their father has "moved forward"?
Woscht now has a new family, with, he says, an "adopted mummy and daddy who are totally comfortable with me being a little girl. And their children, and their grandchildren, are totally supportive ... We have a great time. We color, we do kids stuff. It's called play therapy. No medication, no suicide thoughts. And I just get to play."
This man needs serious help, not just "play therapy" that affirms his confusion. And to the extent that he willfully abandoned his family, he needs to repent and seek forgiveness.





How has the transgender community related to this latest example of what must be dubbed "transanity" (a term I have used several times before)?
Well, one group, the Transgender Project, based in Canada, made a full-length documentary about Wolscht, explaining that, "We met Stefonkee Wolscht first in the documentary 'Paul Wears Dresses.' . . . Like a large percentage of the transgender population, Stefonkee Wolscht knows first hand what it's like to be homeless, unemployed, and in fear for her personal safety."
To repeat: This poor man needs serious, professional help — either spiritual, emotional, mental, or all three — and it is love, not hate, that motivates me to write this since I do not mock "Stefonkee," I pity him.
Really now, is there no point at which transadvocates will admit that there is a problem, that, rather than affirm someone's perceived identify they should question it? Is there no limit?
It's bad enough to believe that Paul is a woman trapped in a man's body (from all we know, this is entirely a matter of his own perception and has nothing to do with biology or chromosomes). But it's even crazier to believe that he is a little girl trapped in a middle-aged man's body.
Based on what empirical data? Based on what verifiable facts, rather than on his own distorted feelings? Will anyone dare argue that he actually has the brain of a little girl?
To give you an idea of how far these things go, there are academic studies on "Species Identity Disorder" (what I referred to earlier as being "trans-species"), including articles like, "Furries and the Limits of Species Identity Disorder: A Response to Gerbasi et al.," by Fiona Probyn-Rapsey of the University of Sydney, published in the scholarly journal Society & Animals 19 (2011), pp. 294-301.
Yes, "furries" are people who identify as animals, and as noted in the abstract to the article, "Species identity disorder is modeled on gender identity disorder, itself a highly controversial diagnosis that has been criticized for pathologizing homosexuality and transgendered people."
I'm certainly not putting all these people into the exact same category (it seems apparent that Rachel Dolezal's issues are very different than those of Paul Wolscht), but what's clear is that all these people have something in common, from "Boomer" who believes he's a dog to "Stefonkee" who believes he's a little girl, and from "Caitlyn" who believes he's a woman to Jewel who believes she should be blind.
They all have some deep psychological issues, and rather than celebrating them we should pray for them as well as pray for professionals to help them find wholeness.
I'm sure Wolscht must have been deeply conflicted and troubled in order to abandon his family and live in denial of his past.
And there's obviously something terribly tragic about the thought of a grown man wearing a dress and playing with little children all day while his own children have lost their dad and his wife has lost her soulmate.
So, to repeat, I am not here to mock him but to pity him.
Yet I am here to expose the insanity of affirming people's perceptions, whatever those perceptions might be.
The transgender movement is about to hit a wall called reality, and the crash will be painful indeed.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/father-of-7-believes-hes-a-6-year-old-girl-152472/#2uzuviGFAqsrY75O.99



Father of 7 Believes He's a 6-Year-Old Girl


Michael Brown
What if I told you that there was a married man with 7 children who left his wife and kids and now lives with another family where he believes he is a 6-year-old girl? Would you say that he had serious mental and emotional issues and needed professional help?
That would be the expected reaction, but today, we must expect the unexpected. And so, we are now told that this man is both transgender and transager. Some people are even celebrating this madness.
I kid you not.
So, we have Bruce Jenner, woman of the year, the world's most famous example of transgender identity.
We have Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who identifies as black, a prominent example of being transracial.
Then there's Jewel Shuping, who blinded herself so her mind could be in harmony with her body, now a poster woman for being transabled.
There's also Gary Matthews, aka "Boomer," who believes he's a dog, apparently an example of being trans-species.
And now there's Paul Woscht, known today as Stefonkee, who "thinks he is actually a six year-old girl — not just a woman, but a six year-old girl — stuck in the body of a 50-something man."
As reported by Ashley Rae Goldenberg, "At age 46, Wolscht deserted his wife and his seven children to live his 'true' life."
As he explains, "I can't deny I was married. I can't deny I have children. But I've moved forward now and I've gone back to being a child. I don't want to be an adult right now and I just live my life like I couldn't when I was in school."
I wonder if his ex-wife thinks that her former husband has "moved forward"? I wonder if his children think their father has "moved forward"?
Woscht now has a new family, with, he says, an "adopted mummy and daddy who are totally comfortable with me being a little girl. And their children, and their grandchildren, are totally supportive ... We have a great time. We color, we do kids stuff. It's called play therapy. No medication, no suicide thoughts. And I just get to play."
This man needs serious help, not just "play therapy" that affirms his confusion. And to the extent that he willfully abandoned his family, he needs to repent and seek forgiveness.
How has the transgender community related to this latest example of what must be dubbed "transanity" (a term I have used several times before)?
Well, one group, the Transgender Project, based in Canada, made a full-length documentary about Wolscht, explaining that, "We met Stefonkee Wolscht first in the documentary 'Paul Wears Dresses.' . . . Like a large percentage of the transgender population, Stefonkee Wolscht knows first hand what it's like to be homeless, unemployed, and in fear for her personal safety."
To repeat: This poor man needs serious, professional help — either spiritual, emotional, mental, or all three — and it is love, not hate, that motivates me to write this since I do not mock "Stefonkee," I pity him.
Really now, is there no point at which transadvocates will admit that there is a problem, that, rather than affirm someone's perceived identify they should question it? Is there no limit?
It's bad enough to believe that Paul is a woman trapped in a man's body (from all we know, this is entirely a matter of his own perception and has nothing to do with biology or chromosomes). But it's even crazier to believe that he is a little girl trapped in a middle-aged man's body.
Based on what empirical data? Based on what verifiable facts, rather than on his own distorted feelings? Will anyone dare argue that he actually has the brain of a little girl?
To give you an idea of how far these things go, there are academic studies on "Species Identity Disorder" (what I referred to earlier as being "trans-species"), including articles like, "Furries and the Limits of Species Identity Disorder: A Response to Gerbasi et al.," by Fiona Probyn-Rapsey of the University of Sydney, published in the scholarly journal Society & Animals 19 (2011), pp. 294-301.
Yes, "furries" are people who identify as animals, and as noted in the abstract to the article, "Species identity disorder is modeled on gender identity disorder, itself a highly controversial diagnosis that has been criticized for pathologizing homosexuality and transgendered people."
I'm certainly not putting all these people into the exact same category (it seems apparent that Rachel Dolezal's issues are very different than those of Paul Wolscht), but what's clear is that all these people have something in common, from "Boomer" who believes he's a dog to "Stefonkee" who believes he's a little girl, and from "Caitlyn" who believes he's a woman to Jewel who believes she should be blind.
They all have some deep psychological issues, and rather than celebrating them we should pray for them as well as pray for professionals to help them find wholeness.
I'm sure Wolscht must have been deeply conflicted and troubled in order to abandon his family and live in denial of his past.
And there's obviously something terribly tragic about the thought of a grown man wearing a dress and playing with little children all day while his own children have lost their dad and his wife has lost her soulmate.
So, to repeat, I am not here to mock him but to pity him.
Yet I am here to expose the insanity of affirming people's perceptions, whatever those perceptions might be.
The transgender movement is about to hit a wall called reality, and the crash will be painful indeed.


And now there's Paul Woscht, known today as Stefonkee, who "thinks he is actually a six year-old girl — not just a woman, but a six year-old girl — stuck in the body of a 50-something man."
As reported by Ashley Rae Goldenberg, "At age 46, Wolscht deserted his wife and his seven children to live his 'true' life."
As he explains, "I can't deny I was married. I can't deny I have children. But I've moved forward now and I've gone back to being a child. I don't want to be an adult right now and I just live my life like I couldn't when I was in school."
I wonder if his ex-wife thinks that her former husband has "moved forward"? I wonder if his children think their father has "moved forward"?
Woscht now has a new family, with, he says, an "adopted mummy and daddy who are totally comfortable with me being a little girl. And their children, and their grandchildren, are totally supportive ... We have a great time. We color, we do kids stuff. It's called play therapy. No medication, no suicide thoughts. And I just get to play."
This man needs serious help, not just "play therapy" that affirms his confusion. And to the extent that he willfully abandoned his family, he needs to repent and seek forgiveness.


How has the transgender community related to this latest example of what must be dubbed "transanity" (a term I have used several times before)?
Well, one group, the Transgender Project, based in Canada, made a full-length documentary about Wolscht, explaining that, "We met Stefonkee Wolscht first in the documentary 'Paul Wears Dresses.' . . . Like a large percentage of the transgender population, Stefonkee Wolscht knows first hand what it's like to be homeless, unemployed, and in fear for her personal safety."
To repeat: This poor man needs serious, professional help — either spiritual, emotional, mental, or all three — and it is love, not hate, that motivates me to write this since I do not mock "Stefonkee," I pity him.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/father-of-7-believes-hes-a-6-year-old-girl-152472/#UIgeTSvmjuxSdedq.99




That would be the expected reaction, but today, we must expect the unexpected. And so, we are now told that this man is both transgender and transager. Some people are even celebrating this madness.
I kid you not.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/father-of-7-believes-hes-a-6-year-old-girl-152472/#UIgeTSvmjuxSdedq.99