simon peter sutherland
Singer-songwriter, Christian theologian and independent documentary maker. https://simonpetersutherland.com/ http://shimeon.co.uk/
Homepage: http://enjoyingtheology.wordpress.com
CNN: Noah’s Ark discovery in the British Museum 2014
Posted in Biblical archaeology, The Bible on January 31, 2014
In an article on CCN, it is reported that Irving Finkel, a British Scholar has discovered a 4,000-year old tablet from Iraq which contains an account similar to the Mosaic account of Noah’s Ark.
Link to CNN article; http://newday.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/28/noahs-ark-discovery-raises-flood-of-questions/
Revelation TV. Predestination debate: James White & Michael Brown
Posted in Biblical Scholarship on January 24, 2014
On Friday 24th January from 9pm, Revelation TV, Dr James White and Dr Michael Brown will be in debate concerning the most excellent topic of Predestination.
This debate has raged primarily since the 16th century through the interpretation of predestination by John Calvin and still continues to this day. However, in any debate it is important for the listener, reader, or viewer to understand the doctrine first and to listen carefully to both sides of the argument.
I am presently writing a book on this very subject, so I am very interested in the subject.
It may be helpful firstly to recognize some points before joining the debate;
- The doctrine of ‘Predestination’ is an interpretation of Biblical texts which claims that God has predetermined the salvation of particular people whom He has revealed to be His elect. That through the cross of Christ, God has chosen and effectively redeemed a people for Himself. A people of whom their effectual salvation does not depend upon the ‘free choice’ of man, but the elective purposes of God. In other words, the elect are not elect because they believe, they believe because they are elect.
- The Bible communicates ‘Predestination’ as something predetermined by God.
- The early Church fathers (1st -3rd centuries) upheld the freedom of human choice.
- St Augustine (354-430 AD) was probably one of the earliest Theologians to deny the doctrine of ‘Free Will’.
- During the 16th century reformation, most reformers denied the doctrine of ‘Free Will’. This was affirmed by Martin Luther and also the ’39 articles’ of the Church of England.
- The Calvinistic interpretation of ‘Predestination’ is generally associated with the Theological position and scriptural interpretation of John Calvin (1509-1564).
- The Arminian interpretation of ‘Predestination’ is generally associated with the Theological position and scriptural interpretation of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609).
- If the Calvinistic doctrine of ‘Predestination’ is true, the doctrine of ‘Free Will’ must be seen as untrue or denied.
- If the Arminian doctrine of ‘Predestination’ is true, the doctrine of ‘Free Will’ or ‘Free Choice’ must be upheld.
I personally regard John Calvin as one of the finest Theologians known to church history. I also find Jacobus Arminus’s works of great worth. However, I also recognize that people are only human and the Bible is like a piece of wax, it can be interpreted or molded this way or that.
The question remains; are these positions true or important? If they are true, then surely they are most important. If they are wrong, then surely it is important to show why. What do you think?
Were the four Gospels eye witness testimony?
Posted in Biblical archaeology, Biblical Scholarship, The Bible on January 13, 2014
Ancient handwriting
© 2014 Simon Peter Sutherland
One common notion people are presented with today is the claim that scholars now know the four Gospels of the New Testament were not written by eye witnesses or people who actually knew Jesus of Nazareth.
This type of claim is quite a common place today. We read it in books, hear it on the BBC radio, see and hear it on television and in countless documentaries. Likewise within the world of scholarship I continuously run into a head on collision with this argument by people who, when it is all said and done, know more about this argument than the narratives themselves.
One problem I see is that many of the people who make these claims do not make them off their own back, neither did they originate them. The claims themselves go back quite a while to the dawn of modern scholarship and one can easily find the early church disputing who wrote the Gospels.
In the 19th century, a fine Biblical commentator and Anglican Bishop of Liverpool J. C. Ryle wrote concerning this issue in his exposition of John 5: 2 and said the following;
“These words, it is thought, show that Jerusalem was yet standing, and not taken and destroyed by the Romans, when John wrote his Gospel. Otherwise, it is argued, he would have said, “There was at Jerusalem.”. J. C. Ryle. (Expository Thoughts on the Gospels. Volume 3. P 269)
At the time when Ryle wrote this there was no evidence for the exact location of this pool, but it was discovered in the 19th century and now sits within the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem. Thus, demonstrating that although evidence for this pool had not been found until around nineteen hundred years or so after the text was written, the Bible was correct all along. And today it is widely recognised and visitors to Jerusalem can visit the site.
The text of John 5: 2 reads like so; “Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market (or pool) a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Beth-es-da, having five porches”.
In this text John is clearly communicating that, not only was John writing for Gentiles and not Jews, which confirms the position of Eusebius in his ecclesiastical history that John wrote this Gospel from Ephesus to expand on things not previously written by Matthew and Mark, but that he wrote in the way that is communicating that Jerusalem was still standing at the time.
There is ample evidence that John had already read Matthew, Mark and Luke by the time he was to write his Gospel and noticed that there was other points concerning Jesus’ life that the Synoptic writers did not mention. For this reason, John wrote concerning the final year of Jesus’ ministry. This is just one of many reasons to claim historically and textually that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses and based upon eye witness testimonies.
Eusebius claimed Irenaeus wrote in Against Heresies, 111.1.2 that Matthew published his Gospel first in the Hebrew tongue and Mark recorded the words of Peter from his preaching. He connects Luke’s Gospel to Paul, which could be confirmed by Luke’s opening passage in his Gospel. (Eusubius. The History of the Church. 8)
Thus, if Eusebius was correct, then this places the date of authorship for Matthew and Mark to well before AD 50’s and not anywhere the proposed dates that modern academic communities claim.
Simon Peter Sutherland at Ephesus
© 2013 Simon Peter Sutherland
From my own research into the Gospels, I have found them to date no later than this era, even as early as AD 30’s for Matthew and as late as AD 60 for Luke. The problem is that modern scholars claim that Matthew could not have been written prior to the events of AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem, since they think it not plausible that Jesus could have prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem as He did. Thus, the Gospel of Matthew must have been written after these events. The problem then grows because people would rather believe the negative suggestion rather than think and research for themselves. People are often fooled into thinking that they are researching something when in reality all they are doing is reading other peoples opinions.
Thus, John 5: 2 is just one of many Biblical texts which leave me wondering what on earth so many of these modern scholars are thinking when they date the gospels? What are they up to? I suspect it is a legal game like those in a court of law who look for contradictions in eye witness accounts, thus if they find them, they argue the texts as void.
But I have not found contradictions in the Gospels, the only contradictions I find are the interpretations of those passages by Western thinkers. The Gospels and the entire Bible was written by Jewish people, and when it is all said and done, the critics for the most part, know very little of ancient Judaism.
But concerning John 5: 2, the problem with the academic communities dating methods for the Gospels is that they are not consistent when one understands that John was here stating the sheep gate or market was still standing at the time of his composition. But the problem is, if this text was written when these scholars claim it was then to anyone who knows what the text claims, it is impossible to believe them. The reason being that the sheep gate or market in Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 by prince Titus. Thus, internal evidence from John’s Gospel gives us a composition date of AD 50’s at the very latest. And examples like this can be found throughout the Gospels and the New Testament.
Thus, concerning John’s Gospel, J. C. Ryle was certainly correct and he was not afraid or fooled into believing that because scholars say so, it must be true. He had the character and strength enough to disagree with what scholars and critics of his day claimed. Ryle let the text speak for itself and then explored it, that is what makes his expository thoughts on the Gospels so good. But the problem which happens today is that scholars such as Francesca Stravrakopoulou often make wild assumptions concerning the Bible and then publishes what she thinks the text is saying and then judges it according to that thinking. But Francesca Stravrakopoulou is not original in her thinking and neither is she convincing, in fact she in a long line of scholars who often leave both myself and others baffled at their claims.
People are swift to believe the documentary hypothesis of modern scholars, yet they are not so swift to research the actual text for themselves. If they were, the world would be full of people who do not agree with the speculative claims of the academic communities.
In this, I never fail to tire at hearing them, especially when the single minded media barons give those people all the air time. not singularly as an issue of truth or the quest for truth, but something far more earthly and possessive. We are living in a time where all but the sinful depraved nature of man is uncertain. Our age lacks identity and absolutes. Scientists are single minded in presenting their ideas alongside Theology and history, as though everything should be judged scientifically. Regardless of the fact that science merely means ‘knowledge’ people think of science as some kind of test tube analysis, which when it is all said and done is not a method used to judge history.
A person cannot put a historical document in a test tube and measure it according the that method, you have to find some other way of testing things. Each method is an interpretation only and not factual.
The Gospel of John in Greek
© 2014 Simon Peter Sutherland
For example, if I were to measure the Gospels, I would look at them internally and measure their claims. I would never go along with what state education claims, but would measure the claims according to what I know. For this reason, I absolutely disagree with many claims made by modern scholars who take a text, a verse, a claim, a science, a majority vote and so one and measure the texts through those eyes. Thus, whatever one makes of that, it is certainly not the method used by the early church through to the reformation and beyond, where devotion and Theological insight must first be established in order to see the text clearly. In other words, a person cannot measure a text and judge it if they have failed to understand what the text is saying.
Let us take Biblical archaeology for example; if I go to Jerusalem, I can find plenty of evidence for the Bible there, the reason being, because that is the central location for the majority of Biblical events. So if I go and search for evidence of King Solomon’s temple in Babylon, I’m not going to find very much, but if I first look at what the text says, interpret it correctly, then see where the Biblical narrative is leading me, I will find it. I suppose what I am saying is that people should first find out what the Bible is saying before they critique it.
Steven Weinberg and the scientific agenda to destroy religion
Posted in new atheism, Science and evolution on January 9, 2014
“I think the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief; and anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization” Steven Weinberg.
(Beyond belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival. 5 November 2006)
Bible trodden under foot
© 2014 Simon Peter Sutherland
The above words, can and do display a form of scientific totalitarianism. I say this because any attempt to destroy some system of belief or choice of persons, is a denial of rights. I do not want religion to be weakened or destroyed. Many of us like religion and the things it represents and I for one am not going to be told whether or not I can live in a world that has no beliefs in providence, design or meaning.
Perhaps it is strange that Weinberg’s words are wrapped up in a claim of ‘Reason’ when it is nothing of the kind! If it were a claim to reason, he would not try to inspire people to go out into the world and weaken religion. Even Jesus in His great commission never inspired other systems of thought to be destroyed but merely left alone, that is if the hearers rejected His Truth.
I think Weinberg’s words clearly present manifestations of an organised agenda to replace ‘religion’ with some form of ‘science’ or so called science, at least the familiar science which people lay hold of ‘evolution Theory’. Using it, to replace God or Church.
I think secularism is just another word for bigotry against Christianity.
It is a historical fact that the Christian church or at least the Roman Catholic church has many enemies from the past. There is a certain branch of ‘science’ that has been at war with the Christian church since the 16th century. In that context, science is at war with religion. And as each century has passed, each generation has manifested this war in different forms.
Today we have this undercurrent movement which is covertly using Darwin’s theory to destroy the Christian church, primarily true Christians who believe the Word of God which these people tread upon. When I say true Christians I mean those who believe everything that Jesus and His Word communicate. It is they whom these so-called scientists hate.
I have no doubt whatsoever that this huge organisation (which may have no name) has an agenda to destroy Christianity. I have no doubt either that they are using every medium possible, every critical line of scholarship, archaeology, entertainment and every celebrity face they can conjure up to do this dirty work.
Evidence in their eyes is just another way of saying ‘we have proven you wrong’. But the problem is that when an agenda is presented before evidence or ‘science’ whatever that term may define, then it puts the finds of this certain ‘science’ in question? For example; when an artifact is discovered, it must be interpreted, but when three or four scholars explore the artifact, one can fine that they rarely agree on its interpretation.
But this is not the case with evolutionary scientists. They agree with each other and stand together like sheep going to be sheered. It reminds me of Nazi Germany or some other totalitarian movement which covertly gains power yet turns when it has it . It is a suspect movement to say the least, rather like a verbal war. Especially when certain establishments within ‘science’ or a scientific community are so clearly at war with religion?
A point I think that is worthy of consideration is that science is not at war with religion or the Bible, but rather it is the successors of the 19th century evolutionists through to the modern 21st century evolutionary scientists who are both openly and covertly at war with God and His book. They are the ones who are treading upon the Bible with their muddy boots and are using the dirt of the earth in their smear campaign.
However, the facts themselves prove that ‘science’ should not be at war with religion or Christianity in any way and that outside of Dawkins’ theories of the retina and so forth, life itself spells out intelligent design. Thus, the facts are on our side, but not when the facts are in the hands of modern orthodox evolutionary scientists and their hypothetical theories.
It is suspect and cultish to say the least when any organisation agrees consistently with itself and its teachers and when any person from within begins to disagree with them or progresses into theism or Creationism by seeing the evidence of God scientifically, they are excommunicated from the so-called academic or scientific community and denied the role of being a scientist, thus, the followers of these communities are preprogrammed or brainwashed against them.
But so many arguments presented, including Richard Dawkins’ retina argument, are designed, presented and researched with the aim of refuting ‘Creationism’. Which when it is all said and done, any of us could assemble the matter of fact and twist the facts according to that agenda. People begin to twist facts to suite theories and not theories to suite facts.
Thus, when an agenda is manifested and people are in the lab, what could happen when DNA is at the hands of evolutionary scientists who have set themselves up to “weaken religion”. No one can contradict them, even within the scientific community, since, I reiterate if anyone moves away from evolutionary science and sees evidence of creation, that person is told to reject that notion and if they do not, their funding is shut off and they are cast out of that establishment.
Thus, beyond the surface and public face of evolutionary science, the witnesses and facts only point to one thing; evolutionary science is not open even remotely to the concept of creation and neither does it remotely consider the possibility that Moses got it right. It is clear that they have brainwashed a generation of young and middle age people into thinking as they want them to think. They have made their creed and allegiance and if anyone rejects it, they are no longer part of that community.
The question is; do these people really believe that their fantasies of destroying Christianity will make the world a better place? That if they succeed in reducing the prominence of the Christian church, that a fundamentalist intolerant religion will not step in its place and reap the rewards?
Do they really believe that men in their depraved hearts will walk hand in hand in peace? If so, then they are the ones guilty of believing in fairy tales.
“Martyr George Marsh” Internet premier on YouTube
Posted in Documentaries, Martyr George Marsh on November 5, 2013
Watch it now from 5Th November 2013
And so this is ‘Reformation Day’, and what have you done?
Posted in Issues with Christianity in England today, Reform on October 31, 2013
Church cross © 2013 Simon Peter Sutherland
Every Christmas I hear John Lennon’s voice singing “And so this is Christmas, and what have you done…” It saddens me almost every time.
Today, I thought of that line and turned things around a little. I was thinking about this tonight, that today is reformation day, 31st October 2013, the religious holiday where some reformed congregations remember that day when Martin Luther posted what is known as “The 95 thesis” on 31st October 1517.
Back then the church was a bit of a mess. People did not believe that salvation was by Gods grace alone, and the essentials of the Christian faith were either not presented or had become muddled up and fuzzy due to the unscriptural claims of church leadership.
Not much has changed. Today in England, 2013, we still see the same old mess and many leaders of the Christian church being the very people who somewhat decronstruct the church and turn it into either a social gathering or a self centred platform for ear pleasing, man made doctrines. The Word of God is so often denied for the word of man.
If it was not for God Himself, His Holy Spirit and His Word of Truth, I would, apart from Christian history, I confess it, be ashamed to be called a Christian and not because of the message or the claims of Christian creeds, but because of what Christianity has become in Britain. And what do Christians do to see things change? Do they even see the need for change? Or are they so busy building their own lives and founding their own careers, being so steeped in that that they see little need for church restoration?
Luther did not nail his thesis to the church door so that this statement could be trodden under foot. Jesus did not say He would build His church so that Christians could sit back and let Him do all the work. No. He said He would build His church upon His chosen people and does that exclude you in this very generation?
If Jesus Christ was truly God and truly man, and He was born of a virgin and truly raised the dead to life and was crucified, dead and buried and rose from the dead, then He is the singularly most important person this world has ever known or will know. And if He said, “I will build my church”then the church is the singular most important establishment on the face of the earth.
Thus, with this in mind, I ask you all, what is more important; your own lives, your own wealth, your own homes and careers or the church of Christ?
Thus, I say it again, and so this is reformation day, and what have you done? Are you going to sit and watch the church fall and fail and say ‘it is not my calling’ and leave the work for other men to do or are you going to do something about it?
The choice is yours, but from this day forwards, you can never again say that you were unaware of this urgent need!
Caesar’s Messiah – Joseph Atwill’s Covert Messiah conspiracy theory
Posted in new atheism on October 11, 2013
“The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from truth and turn aside to myths” 2 Timothy 4: 3-4
So then, here we go again, more nonsense, more heresy. This time the anti Biblical scam comes from America in the form of Joseph Atwill. A so-called Bible scholar who has written a new book, and is doing a tour, which, bless good olde England, the so-called scholar comes to London.
This time we have yet another mocker claiming he has ‘evidence’ that the Biblical account of Jesus is a made up story, a “sophisticated” propaganda tool to pacify subjects of the Roman Empire? As if, Rome need do such a thing? They just slaughtered people rather than pacified them.
These days, especially since the rising of the new atheist movement and the pope of atheism, Richard Dawkins, one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, I am often suspicious of just what it is they get up to in secret. The present masquerade of atheism is to pretend they are out for the good of society and dress themselves up as ‘secularists’. They do this because the new atheist movement has messed up and failed.
Oh dear, a lot of people now say “atheism…that’s boring…that was last year”.
In their coverted response to this, the new atheist covert leaders present the mind seed to their sheep and say, we should now call ourselves secularists.
In doing this we, I have seen many things that these people get up to in the dark. Recently we have heard of scientific attempts to claim that Christianity or religion is a mental illness, something Dawkins touched on in his pathetic excuse for a book, “The God delusion”. Now his myths are covertly propagated further by Katherine Taylor, who claims ‘Religious fundamentalism’ may be categorised as a mental illness.
Here we have some key words to note concerning this man Mr Atwill. The first being the word “sophisticated”. A favourable word of the new atheist movement. Dawkins uses it often despite the fact that Theologians rarely use it. Dawkins does, with his term “Sophisticated Theologians” meaning those who pass the test with him and those inconsistent Theologians who embrace ‘Theistic evolution’. We find this word “sophisticated” involved In this fairy tale theory not only by Mr Atwill but by another so called “Biblical Scholar” and new atheist Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou of Exeter University. A woman who denies that any of the Bible is actually historical, but contains “sophisticated” stories made up by very clever people. Yet when it comes to the Qur’an, she leans somewhat in its favour. Strange that. Very suspect.
I would not be at all surprised just how far this new atheist movement will take things, even to the point of funding people to go into scholarship, media, tv, music, just with the aim of using their voice to destroy peoples faith in the Bible and in God and Jesus.
But this theory by Atwill, does not, as far as I understand it argue that a certain Jesus did exist, since anyone with any knowledge of history knows that reality, but that His story was changed by the Romans and the Jesus of the New Testament was made up? The conspiracy theory claims that His story is similar to Titus. Yet, although Atwill claims this, he clearly has no problem believing what is written about Titus and what is written by Josephus, but not about the Jesus which is consistent with Christianity or the writings of early Christians. Odd. How inconsistent?
This is clearly the stuff that ‘conspiracy theories’ are made up of. Some of them, absolute nonsense!
Anyhow, it seems obvious to me that what is really going on is that there are more than a few enemies of Christianity and Christians out there in the big bad world. Clearly the West is up against Christianity because of the situation in the Middle East. It is not about truth, but agenda. They have a lot going on behind the scenes. They even have a lot of contacts, money, power, media, universities, and so forth through which they propagate their ideas by planting mind seeds and when that fails they employ the medium of ‘covert hypnosis’. Taking the methods of people of old and turning things good, into something bad. That works quite easily, I imagine on upon nations of people who, when its all said and done, sit on the fence concerning ‘Religion’.
This is why Atwill claims that he is not out to destroy Christianity, but that his work will give half-believers a reason to make a clean break. So here, we have an agenda, rather like Dawkins who markets himself towards Christians who either do not really believe what they believe or they sit on the fence.
Atwell is closely linked with British new atheist, Kenneth Humpreys, famous for his “Jesus never existed” fairy tale book and website.
The nutty professor, Richard Dawkins promotes and favours Atwell too. Interesting isn’t it. It is strange is not that I have been saying for a while that Richard Dawkins and his loyal flock use ‘covert hypnosis’ to win people over to their fairy tale arguments and myths. Here we have a nice little attempt to swing things around by reverse psychology by claiming the Biblical account of Jesus is a Roman account employed using ‘covert’ methods. No surprise the modern fairy tale uses the covert hypnosis which they themselves apply by calling the attempt “Covert Messiah”. And guess what, you can even buy tickets. They make a lot of money these people, like St Peter in 2 Peter 2: 3 warned they would.
Anyhow, no one can win this odd debate with these people, since they have sworn allegiance to a higher force, but what can be done is that I, we, you can appeal to each other and let the facts and historical written evidence help you decide which is truly the fairy tale.
We have had secularists using evolution theory against religion and it has not worked. The leaders of the Church of England are smart enough to know that embracing ‘Theistic evolution’ is better option than causing brainwashed people to completely reject the Christian faith, in favour of embracing the apparent facts of ‘major evolutionary change’ by the medium of scientific classroom, college, culture and lectures of persuasion.
We have even had new atheist, British illusionist, mentalist and hypnotist and friend of Dawkins Derren Brown planting mind seeds that suggest God as the ultimate placebo.
They have tried their version of reason and failed to convince learned Christians of their fairy tales, and stumped, so they have to keep on trying new things, mind games and tricks. The facts remain, the Biblical authors have already warned the Elect that these times will come, that people will claim wisdom and in doing so have become fools. The Bible already warns us that the world hates Jesus and His people and they hate the truth. Thus, when great organisations come up against Christianity in an attempt to demolish ‘Church and State’ and especially those ‘Evangelicals and Creationists’ there really is no end of knowing what it is they might do. But whatever they do, there is nothing they can do. We, the children of God are elect and the promise we have been given can never be destroyed, even when Rome itself comes up against us, nothing can separate us from the eternal truth of Jesus Christ. And really, no matter what they say about us and Jesus, they cannot for one moment take away the Truth from the Truth.
With that thought in mind, Roll on ‘Covert Messiah’ roll on ‘Da Vinci Code’. You will be forgotten in time. For, your gun is firing blanks. But my cannon of scripture has enough ammunition in it to blast this nonsense all the way back to America.
Be aware of the Dolwyddelan Dragon
Posted in Christianity, Science and evolution on October 7, 2013
Dolwyddelan Church © 2013 Simon Peter Sutherland
In Wales recently, at the tiny and beautiful village of Dolwyddelan, Gwynedd, I, my wife and sons had been travelling through the Welsh mountains and stopped at the ancient village. This village is stunningly located in those glorious Welsh mountains and even has its own Welsh Calvinistic-Methodist Chapel and also a delightful 500 or so year old Church.While visiting this ancient building known as St Gwyddelan’s Church, I picked up an old legend about a Dragon. I love those old legends.The story goes that a Dragon came up out of the sea and made its way up the river arriving at the village of Dolwyddelan. Apparently the Dragon was so powerful that as it swooped through the valley, diving into the waters it caused a number of floods in the village.The locals knew they needed to do something about the creature but did not want to harm it and decided to lure the beast into the mountains so it could live its days out there. It did so and no harm came to the village again.
Obviously not all legends are true, but we have similar examples of stories like this where people lured Dragons into caves, even amongst the ancient writings of Marco Polo.
Strange isnt it how so many ancient stories can be found throughout the world about people coming up against Dragons and large flying creatures. Yet today, particularly amongst modern evolutionary scientists, many people appear to be under the impression that the discoveries of Dinosaurs are a modern thing, yet the writings of the ancients clearly suggest otherwise.
Calvinistic Methodist Chapel at Dolwyddelan © 2013 Simon Peter Sutherland
The obvious and clear problem when reviewing these ancient legends is that they never use the word ‘Dinosaur’. The answer to this is of course that the word ‘Dinosaur’ had not been invented at the time of the event and the compositions. The word ‘Dinosaur’ or “Dinosauria” was not used to describe the creatures until 1842 when the Lancaster born Sir Richard Owen formally named them. People prior to this time referred to ‘Dinosaurs’ as Dragons, Winged Serpents, Reptiles and so forth. Which is all the word Dinosauria means, terrible reptile or lizzard.We find clear examples of Dinosaurs (Dragons) in ancient writings ranging from the likes of Josephus, the Romans, the Apostle John, Marco Polo and even the likes of ancient myths such as ‘George and the Dragon’.
There is even an ancient tomb in Carlisle Cathedral with the image of a Dinosaur (Dragon) on there.
Strange is it not that so many people today think that the discoveries of Dinosaurs is a modern thing, as though modern evolutionary scientists own ‘Dinosaurs’.
Clearly the ancients would not agree, but would ask them, ‘what took you so long, we knew about these creatures thousands of years ago’.
Richard Dawkins silent concerning ‘Evolution vs God’?
Posted in new atheism on September 23, 2013
On August 6th 2013, YouTube channel ‘The way of the Master’ published the new film ‘Evolution vs God’.
This film challenges the popular theory of Darwinian evolution, primarily the theory of ‘Macroevolution’.
This film has now received 775,695 views on YouTube.
According to the reports, the New Zealand born evangelist Ray Comfort has not yet received any direct response from Atheist activist and Darwinian evolutionist, Richard Dawkins. The apparent silence has come despite repeated offers for an open response.
In the film, Ray Comfort interviews and asks a number of leading evolutionary scientists in America for direct evidence for ‘Macroevolution’. Outside of claims based upon speculative ideas and theories, no evidence could be given.
Perhaps the only main responses Darwinians and atheist activists have offered are a number of criticisms published on YouTube, which are for the most part little more than ‘ad homimen’ posts and re-affirmations of ‘Macraevolution’ with no direct evidence for ‘Macroevolution’.
Perhaps this noisey silence tells us a great deal about the true condition of the theory of evolution and Richard Dawkins? The first being that there is a number of ways defeat can be seen, even without words. One way of responding to someone who you consider stronger than yourself is to say nothing, and merely go one doing as you did before.
Clearly Richard Dawkins is doing that.
Perhaps Darwin’s time is up and maybe it is time for truck loads of Evangelical Christians in England to purchase copies of ‘Evolution vs God’ and spread them across the UK, at the University of Manchester, Cambridge, Oxford, Scotland, Exeter and so forth.
Perhaps even give free copies out to the Liberal bishops within the Church of England? That would be good wouldn’t it. Maybe even David Cameron could receive a copy too?
Signs of Totalitarianism: Christian street preacher arrested for preaching in Scotland
Posted in England issues, Issues with Christianity in England today on September 21, 2013
Simon Peter Sutherland at the Covenanters prison in Edinburgh, Scotland. © 2013 Simon Peter Sutherland
Recent reports have stated that a Christian street preacher was arrested in Scotland this week for simply preaching on the street. He was accused of being “in breach of the peace”.
Reports also suggest that the man was not actually using any amplification yet he was accused of having an MP3 too loud. When the preacher stated he was not using amplification, the police officer stated the noise was not the issue but that a complaint had been made against him.
This is not the only time such an event has taken place recently. This is one of three wrong arrests of this nature which have taken place in three months.
Clearly something is wrong. This is a violation of our ‘Freedom of speech’ and ‘human rights’ and is evidence of Britains growing bad attitude towards Chrisianity and Christians who are willing to spread the faith.
What is clear is that history is repeating itself, since in history it was common place for Protestant Christians to be arrested for preaching. In 1658, John Bunyan was arrested for street preaching yet he was not imprisoned for that. He did however spend many years in prison for his faith.
Clearly Britain is marching back even further, not only into the 17th century but into those glorious days of the 16th century where Protestants were arrested even for believing the truth.
It clearly shows signs of religious intolerance and inconsistency of thinking, since the police officer stated he arrested the man for being in ‘breach of the peace’ yet are the authorities going to arrest street musicians, buskers, street entertainers and all people who take part in noisey street events and festivals also? Since they certainly make a lot of noise! Could it not be argued the preacher caused offence? Yes, but could it not also be argued that many public events and festivals cause offence? Are those partakers too going to be arrested?
I am offended everyday by things I see in Britain. I am offended by attitudes, language, blasphemy, bigotry, prejudice and intolerance, yet do those offences matter? No, clearly not to some people. Or maybe my offences do not matter because I am a Protestant and perhaps, a very loyal one.
Here are a couple of links to articles on this troubling matter.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christian.street.preacher.arrested.in.scotland/34071.htm
Simon Peter Sutherland
-
Simon Peter Sutherland 