Sydney Atheists Take Nose-Dive - New Poll Suggests

What a foul blow was struck to the Sydney Atheist group at the Global Atheists Convention in Melbourne last week.

A couple of years ago, Sydney Atheists, mustering all the ingenuity they could call upon, came up with the catchphrase "Good Without God" to promote themselves to the public. They have since emblazoned their promotional material with that refrain.

However, it must have been galling for them to see how some of their Atheist heroes such as Richard Dawkins, Robyn Williams, Ian Robinson and Catherine Deveny have been perceived by at least one journalist.

Andrew Bolt, journalist with the Melbourne Herald Sun, Sydney Daily Telegraph and Adelaide Advertiser is Agnostic yet he was taken aback by the venom delivered up at the Convention by the aforesaid 'heroes of Atheism'. Bolt commented, in the Sydney Daily Telegraph at least, "The Global Atheists Convention last weekend worked a miracle on me. After three days of its venom, I've never felt more like believing in God. Especially the Christian one."

Bolt went on "My near-conversion occurred because three of the convention's speakers managed to confirm my worst fear. No, my fear is not that God may actually exist, after all, and be very cross that I doubt his Almightiness. It's that if the Christian God really is dead, then there's not much to stop people in our society from behaving like barbarians."

Oh Dear! All that money spent by Sydney Atheists in literature and trinkets embossed with their new catchphrase has been urinated (could have used another word but, you know, I'm Christian) up against the wall in one disastrous weekend. In Melbourne, the Atheists exposed - full frontal - what they will deliver to the world if allowed the world stage. Andrew Bolt now realises this and has commented eloquently on it after learning what keynote Atheist speakers had to say.

Hoping for light but being delivered darkness Bolt commented "I'd have hoped that the Atheists Convention's headline speakers would have reassured me, not just in fine words but by finer example, that a godless society will nevertheless be a good one." He then went on to cite comments of keynotes speakers which brought him to his present conclusion. I won't repeat them here.

Andrew Bolt ended his article with "So why do leading atheists, so sure of their superior morality, feel licensed to be meaner than leading Christians? Is this what morally superior people inevitably revert to when they're sure God has gone? Bring God back, in that case. I just don't feel so safe any more without him."

My hearty congratulations to Richard Dawkins, you have worked a miracle in Andrew Bolt. Commiserations to Sydney Atheists, you'll have to hit student's union funds again for new promotional material.

Neil

The Descent of Evolution

A helpful survey of the state of the evolutionary/long age Primary Axiom can be found at
creation

Worthwhile for Theistic Evolutionists to take a look at what they are putting their faith in.

Sam Drucker

Leupold Genesis part 28 verses 1-2 together

Before we examine v. 2 by itself it is necessary to see how v. 1-3 stand related to one another. There would be no occasion for giving attention to this matter if the familiar English versions (King James or A. R. V.) and the German are followed, for these very correctly indicate that the sequence of clauses is as natural as it can be. But two translations, diverging from the familiar form, have thrust themselves to the forefront, leaning for support on eminent Hebrew scholars. As representative of the one may count what Meek submits (The Old Testament, An American Translation): "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth being a desolate waste, with darkness covering the abyss and the spirit of God hovering over the waters, then God said: `Let there be light.'" This translation makes v. 2 a parenthesis, or it would practically have it set off by dashes and makes of v. i the protasis and of v. 3 the apodosis. The second makes v. 1 protasis and v. 2 apodosis, thus: "When God created the heavens and the earth, then the earth was, etc. ... and God said, etc." (Raschi et al.). A third might be listed here, although it has been disposed of above. It is that which makes v. 1 the heading and then proceeds with v. 2 and 3 as follows: Now as the earth lay there, a waste and empty mass--and darkness, etc. --then God said, etc., (Procksch). The last mentioned having been refuted, we shall dispose of the details involved in the first two as we examine v. 2 and v. 3 more fully. For a summary refutation let the following points be noted, Grammatically such translations as Meek and Raschi offer are possible but in this case highly improbable. The Hebrew does co-ordinate clauses where we prefer subordination. Longer sentences of involved structure are found also in (Ge 5:1) and (Nu 5:12-15; Jos 3:14-16) and in many other instances. But a chapter marked throughout by very simple sentence structure would never begin with so complicated a structure as any of the ones noted above. Besides, against the first combination it must be noticed that the first word of v. 2 could hardly be ha'arets but would have to be wattehi, in spite of occasional exceptions noted here and there for emphasis' sake. Wellhausen's dictum in regard to this modern translation is worthy of being preserved; he called it a "desperately insipid construction" (verzweifelt geschmacklose Construction).

Seeing Light

News reached me in the past few days of an incident at a church in Sydney last Sunday. There was an old lady who had been attending the church for many years. She has been in declining health and unable to get to church by herself. For the past two years her son has been taking her to church. He is an Atheist and only took his mother out of love. He has been known to say "I don't believe this stuff, I just bring my mother."

Last Sunday was a new experience. The church had asked a Biblical Creationist speaker to speak on the credibility of the creation/fall/redemption message. After the message the Atheist said to an elder of the church, words to the effect of, "As a result that man's message today I am now seriously considering becoming a Christian."

This is not an isolated incident. I have read several testimonies of former Atheists being challenged by the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ presented through a Biblical Creationist presentation and they later became a Christian.

Those within the Sydney Anglican Diocese who dismiss Biblical Creationism as a side issue make a serious error. They exclude a means God chooses to honour for the saving of people to eternal life.

Neil

A Critical Perspective

I, Neil Moore, attended a Christian Meeting last Thursday and a friend shared a message I thought worthy of publication.

Based on an essay by David Coppedge in Crev.info – Feb-06

The religious elite vs persecuted minority: same old story continues
Anyone who has read the Bible from cover to cover has undoubtedly noted a recurring theme: those who fear God and trust His word are often a persecuted minority, even within the sphere of “religious” people.

In the Old Testament, “true Israel” (those committed to God’s word) was a small subset of “political Israel”. In the remarkable chapter 9 of Romans, Paul reminds us: “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel”.

In the New Testament, false teachers and heresies quickly emerged, just as Paul predicted. By the late middle ages, the “church” was burning at the stake saints who wanted to distribute the word of God to the common people.

So the most influencial opponents of God and his will on earth are often not the rabid atheists or pagans: it is the corrupt religious leaders: the progressives who call themselves followers of God but take liberal liberties with God’s word:

* After the Exodus, there were the elders who made a golden calf in the name of Jehovah, trying to show that there was no dichotomy between the Lord and the gods of Egypt.

* There was Jeroboam – the first king of Israel after the split from Judah – guided by apostate priests, setting up two golden calves, spin-doctoring this blatant idolatry as being performed in honor of Jehovah with: “Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt”.

* There were the false prophets who opposed Jeremiah (Jer. 23), to whom God said: “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture…. These lying prophets prophesy the delusions of their own minds… they do not benefit (my) people in the least”.

… And in Ezekiel (Eze. 13), there were the “foolish prophets” who supposedly spoke in the name of the Lord but again spoke out of the imagination of their own hearts and in doing so even fooled themselves – listen to this!: “They say ‘The Lord declares’ when the Lord has not sent them; yet they expect their words to be fulfilled.”

The most telling example of all is how the religious elite treated Jesus Christ himself. Here was the Messiah, the Son of God, the LORD incarnate standing in front of them… and look who stood in His way. Who opposed him and accused him of getting his power from the devil, and ultimately crucified him? The scholars – the learned class, the elitists – the scribes and Pharisees against whom He leveled the most biting accusations: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” (Matt. 23).

What do you think was the root evil corrupting these people? I think it was pride. Rather than humbling themselves before the word of God, they elevated their own reason, tradition or status as more important than understanding and obeying God’s will as expressed in his word. (In the Pharisees’ case, though they almost ‘worshiped’ the Torah, they took liberties with the meaning and added profusely their own rules and traditions with the end result of contradicting the clear meaning of the text. In the Sadducees’ case, their love of power and prestige led them to either ignore the word of God or take a more “progressive” interpretation guaranteed to preserve their status and political power.)

Firstly, these historical lessons remind us that there’s “nothing new under the sun” when it comes to a minority of people being true to the faith while the many others persecute them (it’s a spiritual battle after all!).

Secondly, it reminds us that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”, as Solomon said. I’m sure we all have that fear of the Lord, if not we wouldn’t be here tonight. Let us never fear man and his fashionable idolatries more than we fear God!

By the way, isn’t it encouraging to hear of eminent Christian Bible scholars who are willing to change their minds on the creation issue, and thus risk criticism from men? Del Tackett and R.C.Sproul come to mind as folks willing to change their minds on this issue.

So let’s pray that the Holy Spirit convicts more and more people of the need to submit to God and his word.

I, Neil Moore, wonder what traces of the Pharisaic attitude "though they almost ‘worshiped’ the Torah, they took liberties with the meaning and added profusely their own rules and traditions with the end result of contradicting the clear meaning of the text." have manifestation in the Sydney Anglican Diocese today concerning Genesis 1.

Neil

Leupold Genesis part 27 Elohim

Before dropping this verse we should take issue with the question: "Does the term 'Elohim, being a plural, embody a reference to the Holy Trinity?" Two extremes must be guarded against in submitting an answer. He goes too far who sees in this plural a direct and explicit reference to the Holy Trinity. The plural is a potential plural (K. S. 263 a-c) indicating the wealth of the potentialities of the divine being, chiefly in so far as God by His very nature and being kindles man's deepest reverence. However, what all the wealth of this reverence-inspiring Being is, is not fully revealed in all detail by the Old Testament, least of all in the time of Moses. The term 'Elohim, however, allows for all that which the fuller unfolding of the same old truth brings in the course of the development of God's Kingdom. When, then, ultimately the truth concerning the Trinity has been revealed, the fullest resources of the term 'Elohim have been explored, as far as man needs to know them. Consequently, he who would claim that the term can have no connection with the truth of the Holy Trinity goes too far. Nor dare it be forgotten, as we shall show in connection with v. 2 and 3, that the text itself introduces references to the persons of the Trinity without definitely indicating, of course, that they are distinct persons in the Godhead. In that connection certain New Testament words will be seen to have bearing upon the case. Consequently Luther's statement, made in reference to v. 2, is quite in order when he says: "Consequently the Christian Church on this point displays a strong unity that in this description is to be founds the mystery of the Holy Trinity." Even a second statement of Luther's may be accepted, if it be construed in the sense of the first: "But we have clear testimony that Moses aimed to indicate the Trinity or the three persons in the one divine nature."