Shaun30NotPerfectJust4given's blog: "Blogs for thought"

This is an older blog I wrote that's a bit out of the realm of the subjects I usually write about. But, I wanted to post something fresh so that you all don't think that "Faith" and "God" is all I write about. Although the second half of this blog does deal with the underlying,but, undeniable themes of God and faith in the novel "Frankenstein", which can't be ignored. So I hope you all enjoy it.And, as always, comments are appreciated.God bless:)

I've read the novel countless times(the first time I read it, it took me about 5 hrs straight lol.But, I could not put it down.) It's, by far, my favorite book. To many people, it's just a horror story. But, to those who enjoy exploring the deeper and more obscure meanings in literature and film, it's much more than that.It's a love story(a rather, tumultuous love story between Victor and Elizabeth because of Victor's unhealthy obsession with creating life which causes him to distance himself further and further away from her,his family and closest friends.I think this causes resentment on their part-Understandably so and concern for Victor's health(mentally,physically and spiritually). It's a story about politics, about women's right's in the 18th century, and ethics, among other things. But,above all and, in my opinion, the most significant, it's a moral story about the consequences of playing God and it asks a very good question-who is the REAL monster and who is the man?Most would say "The monster is the Creature,of course!". But, if that is what you think, you've completely missed the entire point. A monster is one who takes it apon himself to play God by attempting to create life. And, when he realizes the abomination he has created, abandons his creation, leaving it to die. Which,of course, it doesn't and ends up teaching his creator the error of his ways by destroying everything he loves most in the world. Not because this creation is evil. But, because he is angry at his creator who abandoned him.Forcing him to wander aimlessly and alone into a world he doesn't understand and that detests him because he,himself, is not understood. So, he does the only thing he knows how to survive- use his self preservation instincts. Which,results in the deaths of many innocent people. But, this is not the Creature's fault. The fault falls on Frankenstein who, instead of taking responsibility for his actions by educating what he has created or destroying it,once he realizes what he's created is capable of if he is allowed to live, he flees in terror . I'd even go as far as to say that Frankenstein is an "allegory":A fictional story intended to teach a moral lesson. And I have yet to see a film that really does it justice. But, this is the closest I have ever seen. And of all the networks to get it right--Hallmark. Go figure, haha! This is the best role I ever seen Luke Goss in(Most of you know him best for his role as "Prince Nuada" in "Hellboy: The Golden Army").He fit the description of the Creature PERFECTLY-his look-His long,jet-black,stringy hair, his translucent skin that appeared to barely cover his muscle structure and tendons. And he even nailed the Creature's personality-In the book,the Creature is very smart,articulate and, even, kind. (in earlier adaptations,he's portrayed as an ignorant mute).It's societies misunderstanding of him because of his appearance that leads him to commit his crimes. Crimes committed out of his own self preservation, rather than malice. Which, adds another element to the story-discrimination.(I think discrimination,in particular is what Shelley wanted people to focus on in her novel. Because,in the time she was living in, women were discriminated against in many ways.She even had to publish her novel under a male pseudonym because she felt that her novel would not be taken seriously if people knew it was written by a woman). 

Anyway,I digress. Unlike most films I've seen in the past that depict the Creature as a remorseless and, even, ignorant monster, Luke Goss shows that the Creature has intelligence,feelings and remorse. Which made it easier to empathize with the Creature than all the other movies because he shows a lot more remorse for his crimes and he commits them accidentally. I used to think that Kenneth Brannaugh's interpretation was the best. But,now, the more I see it, I get more and more disappointed and realize, it's actually an insult to the novel in many ways. It starts off as one of the closest adaptations of the book. That is, until Victor re-animates Elizabeth(talk about "over-kill".Or is that the right term? "over re-animate"? whatever lol) At that point, I think it defeats everything I love about the story and, what I think, was Shelley's moral point of the story.(Which is why I think "Bride of Frankenstein" in 1935 was a disgrace to the novel as well). When Victor Re-animates Elizabeth in Kenneth Brannaughs version, it makes it seem as if Victor didn't learn his lesson the first time. And what happened to Henry at the end of Brannaugh's version? What they should have done was scrap the "re-animating Elizabeth" idea and focus more on Henry's part of the story and what happened to him instead of just having him suddenly disappear at the end because he played a much bigger part in the novel than he did in Kenneth Brannaugh's movie. This movie, however, did the novel the justice it deserves.Too bad it was just a mini-series and not a major motion picture.Because Luke Goss' performance was spot on and definitely Oscar worthy. As was the movie,itself :) 

On a personal note- From a Theological stand-point, I think my favorite thing about this films portrayal of the novel is that, although, the Creature knows very little about God(or anything,for that matter)-only what he learns from listening to the Delacey's- I thought it was very moving how he, frequently, acknowledges God and talks to Him. Some of the most "intelligent" people in the world are, in fact, ignorant by refusing to acknowledge God. Simply because God can't be measured or quantified in our limited,human intellect because it is too finite to comprehend and grasp such an incredible concept. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It just means we haven't discovered a way to prove that to most people without a shadow of a doubt. I believe that it is our inability to understand that notion is OUR handicap. Physical handicaps are trivial because the body wont last forever(I'm in a wheelchair and I am still very intellegent and articulate. No one understands this idea more than people in my situation). The only true handicap is in the heart and spirit because the spirit is what lives on forever. Einstein once made a statement acknowledging the existence of the soul based on the fact that everything is made from energy. And energy never dies. It, simply, changes form. 

I know it sounds like I am getting off subject. But,what I am getting at is that as young as the Creature is(less than a year old),even he appears to understand this. It's like the bible verse that talks about "The faith of a child". The Creature is, essentially, a newborn child. Which is, actually, beneficial to him. Because, everything is new and fascinating to him. It's this innocence that allows him to think freely without any influence from anyone dictating and telling him what to believe and not believe. He chooses for himself. It's ironic that such a young mind can comprehend and show so much insight and, yet,through out history,despite the vast knowledge these men of science have learned about the universe, some STILL refuse to admit that the complexity and design of the universe could not exist without an intelligent designer. For some,it's because they are pressured by the world's growing disbelief in God due to new discoveries that,in their mind, is proof that God doesn't exist and is just a myth. For others, it's just the fear of going against what the world has accepted as "the norm" and they don't have the courage to stand for what they believe to be true. Sadly,this is still the case in society today. We are told what to believe and not believe. And if we challenge what we are taught by practicing our own faith, we are, often mocked for it.Even punished for it. It breaks my heart everytime I hear something on the news of a student being chastised for praying or reading the bible in school.(they are even, legally, punished for it in many cases. Which,in my opinion is a direct violation of the Constitution). Anyway,this is what I, personally, get out of the story.I don't expect everyone to agree with me.Just respect my POV.God bless:)

As I said in my blog "TOTALLY against the 'Hellfire and Brimstone' approach" that talks about how some Christians use the aggressive and, sometimes, judgmental, way of ministering to people about God(please read that blog after this. ), I think the main reason some people are so turned off by Christianity is because of the way SOME Christians use that approach. Many Christians seem to forget to mention that God is the God of "love, compassion AND forgiveness" FIRST,and go straight to being judgmental and saying that God is going to punish them if they don't "Get saved". (which is what this blog addresses) I really hope the following blog helps and encourages those suffering from any kind of guilt or shame from anything they've done in the past and is having trouble forgiving themselves.

People give many reasons and/or excuses not to turn to God that range from- they just don't believe He exists to they are angry at Him for a particular reason. However, the real reason a lot of people (in fact a big majority--But,I'm not saying "All")are hesitant to turn to God is because,deep down, they feel ashamed. They feel that the things they have done were so terrible and so vile that they think they are unforgivable. I know this because I've been there, myself. I've gotten to the point where I've said to myself "Well,I've gone this far. God couldn't possibly love me anymore. So what's the point in asking forgiveness? Might as well just keep living the life I'm living".(I know that none of you would have any reason to listen to a word I'm saying.Unless, I had been through what you've been through or a similar circumstance)Well, I was wrong and those people who think that couldn't be more wrong. You see, God's love and forgiveness is different from ours. Our forgiveness has limits and conditions. God's love and forgiveness, however, doesn't. The one and only condition God's forgiveness requires is that we ACKNOWLEDGE and ACCEPT it. And that forgiveness covers everything-whether it's drugs,alcohol, pornography, whatever.

And unlike asking forgiveness from other people, you don't have to be ashamed to ask forgiveness from God. Because He doesn't hold your past against you, as we tend to do to eachother. When it comes to our forgiveness to eachother, even when we forgive, we don't forget. We might SAY we forget. But we always hold whatever that person did in the back of our minds so we can bring it up the next time we have an argument with that particular person and say "remember that time you did this and this or said this?". We use things like ammunition against eachother. Even our so-called closest friends and family do that. But when God forgives you, the bible says in Isaiah 43:25 "I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions, for My own sake, and remembers your sins no more." And another of my favorite verses is from Matthew 26:28, during the Last Supper, which says "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the REMISSION of sins."  "Remission" means "cancelation". Which basically means that, when God forgives you, He makes it as if what you did never even happened. The Arameic translation is "release." When you confess your sin, God erases it and also "releases" you from the guilt and shame that came with it.

And, for those I mentioned earlier who think that there is something you've done that was so terrible you think they are beyond forgiveness, I'd like you to think about something- God sent Jesus(who was really Himself made into human flesh) to be beaten, spat on, whipped, and then, ultimately die nailed to a cross for EVERYONE and healed and forgiven for EVERYTHING. Whether it's sin or even sickness. So when you tell God that what you did was too terrible to forgive or that your forgiveness for yourself is more important than His forgiveness for you, not only are you unecessarily punishing yourself, but you are also telling God that His sacrifice was not good enough to cover what you did. Really think about that. That's basically a slap in the face to God. Which would probably the worst sin of all if it wasn't for the fact that all sins are equal.

Besides that, what's interesting is that when you go to God for forgiveness, when you think about it, what He's forgiving really isn't your sin. In fact, at that point,God really isn't even focusing on your sin.(because, like I said-every sin is the same. They are equally bad, but equally forgivable) What He is REALLY forgiving is how long it took you to come to Him and ASK forgiveness.What He focuses on is our character and integrity based on how much humility it took us in order to go to Him and admit we messed up. That's what God cares about.

And He doesn't judge us, either. That's what a lot of people are afraid of-That God will judge us based on what we've done. Judgement only comes at the end of our lives and is based on what we DIDN'T confess, not on what we DID. Hence the term "Judgement Day"--No,it's not just a Terminator movie haha lol. (Of course you reap what you sow. Everything you do does have it's consequences. Some people call it "Karma". But, God doesn't JUDGE you for those actions until after death.)

So, to sum it all up, when you are doubting whether or not you think you are worthy of forgiveness or when you are still feeling guilty about something you already asked forgiveness for, just remember - By not accepting that you were already forgiven, you are, like I said, not only unecessarily, punishing yourself. But, you are also undermining God's authority. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to post them. And again, God bless:)

I felt compelled to blog about this because I've always had respect for Lincoln. And this, particular, movie had a great impact on me.(As,I'm sure, Lincoln, himself, did on many people, and still does to this day)This is actually the first movie I've seen about his life. And, I can't see there ever being one better than this.  Daniel-Day Lewis totally nailed his character. I agree with the majority of those who think of him as one of the greatest presidents who ever lived.( I mean,considering what he accomplished in such a short time, how could you not?)And after seeing this movie, my respect for him, his perseverance and integrity jumped to a whole new level. There has never been another president with more wisdom,integrity and insight since Lincoln.

Of course,like most bio-pics,Hollywood took a few liberties and altered some historical facts for dramatic effect.One being that Lincoln never tolerated profanity spoken in his presence. But, in this movie, people cussed around him alot. By today's standards, it was nothing.But, in those days, that kind of language was more serious. Especially in the White House. Because the president was held to a higher standard of morality in those days than he is today.

Anyway, over-all, as far as the really relevant stuff, the movie was as historically accurate as it could be. Considering the fact that no one,today, was actually there. So they really didn't have a choice but to fill in the blanks about things that weren't recorded in the history books. And I think they stayed as true to reality as possible.The things that weren't accurate were pretty trivial. That man endured so much persecution over his beliefs in the 13th Amendment, I'm surprised he didn't die younger,just, from the stress he went through fighting for it. Not to mention, the stress of what was going on within his own family-Losing a son to Typhus, stressing over his wife's mental condition as a result of that loss and having another son rebel against his wishes for him not enlist in the war only to die,himself. His life was surrounded with turmoil and tragedy till the moment of his death. Yet, he managed to accomplish so much in spite of it; leaving a legacy that will never be fogotten.

As great as JFK was, Lincoln tops my list of the greatest presidents of all time. He put an end to, what I believe, was one of the greatest sins this country has ever committed.The cancer of slavery,which, has given birth to racism that still exists today, sort of makes me ashamed of being from the south.

What I didn't understand, until close to the end(warning:spoiler alert!) was why, Thaddus Stephens(a member of the United States House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, one of the leaders of the Radical Republican faction of the Republican Party and Lincoln's closest friend)was only in favor of Negro rights in the courts and not in favor of ALL rights for black people. Then,I realized, he HAD to do it that way. He had to gradually vote for smaller rights,one at a time. Otherwise, like some of the others who voted against the 13th amendment believed, if he had voted for ALL equal rights for ALL black people, all at once, it may have resulted in the freed slaves raising a rebellion, once emancipated. And, he may have suffered the same fate as Lincoln(being assassinated)(at least that's what I got out of why he went about what he did).And I wouldn't blame the slaves if they HAD risen up against their slave owners after being emancipated. I'd be pretty ticked off, myself, and want justice for the hundreds of yrs of slavery and spilled blood of millions of black slaves and what they had to endure.

But, Stephens was patient and did the smart thing. What Lincoln did, may have been too bold. But, that's the kind of man he was. He believed in something stood by it no matter what the cost.(Which is why I admire him so much) Unfortunately, that cost was his own life. And, like I said, Stephens may have suffered the same fate if he had been as bold as Lincoln. 

(Another spoiler alert)My only complaint is that they didn't include a scene of Lincoln reciting his most famous speech,himself-"The Gettysburg Address". Instead, they had a soldier recite it BACK to HIM lol. Then again, I thought having a black soldier recite his speech back to him was more impactful because it showed the impact it had on the people(especially negroes) who heard it. So, in that way,it was a smart way to introduce the speech in the film.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."-Of course, it's  Jefferson who wrote this in the Constitution.However, those words were never TRULY honored until Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclaimation  

And,if I may add. If it wasn't for Lincoln, the doors that have been opened for black people today would have remained closed. Obama owes his presidency to Lincoln. Because if he hadn't done what he did, Obama would have never even been given the opportunity. And,I have to say, Obama's not doing a very good job of honoring that privilage and responsibility he's been given and entrusted with.

Can the believer go beyond the limits of God's Grace? Does once saved mean always saved? Is salvation by Grace alone through faith alone, or is it by grace through faith plus commitment? How much sin would it take to be lost? If a believer became an unbeliever would he forfeit his position in Christ? Is there a sin so great that it can undo all that the Son of God did for the sinner on Calvary's cross? Is the doctrine of Eternal Security an inducement to sin? Or, does God do more for the believer now that he is a believer than He did for the believer when he was a sinner lost in sin? These are the questions that saints and sinners are asking and, thank God, they were all answered clearly by God Himself 2,000 years ago.

Our first consideration, if we would dispel the confusion that characterizes man's thinking today, is to define Grace. In the Greco-Roman world of Christ and Paul, grace meant a gift given without any expectation of return. The Greek gave this gift to a friend or loved one. God gives it to His enemies, something the world cannot, and unfortunately, the church too often will not understand. Using the language of accommodation, we might say that God searched the universe to find a way to save totally lost men and women. Since sinful man can have NO MERIT before an infinitely holy Being, He had to save us by Grace...unmerited favor...undeserved kindness. The only way to offer this absolutely free, Grace salvation to us was through faith (Romans 4:16), because believing is the only thing we can "do" without "doing" anything. FAITH IS A NON-MERITORIOUS ACTIVITY! (Romans 4:4-5) This is why Ephesians 2:8 says, "By Grace you have been saved through faith..." GRACE is God doing ALL of the work...FAITH is our doing NONE of the work. When we believe (faith) in what God has done (Grace), we are truly doing the only thing one can do without doing anything...we are ceasing to "do", and trusting in what Another has done.

God is Savior, not Maxwell Street merchant. He is not offering men a bargain, He is offering men a gift. The objection is raised, "But this is cheap grace!" Grace can never be cheap. Nothing could be "cheap" that cost God the life of His Son! Grace is the most expensive commodity in all of the universe. Nothing in eternity will ever approach, in its expense, the price of your salvation. But, just as Grace can never be "cheap," it can never be less than FREE! It is the nature of Grace to be infinitely expensive. It is also the nature of Grace to be totally free.

NOTHING LESS than the death of Christ could buy our salvation, but, thank God, NOTHING MORE than that is needed!

In man's thinking, sin always exceeds Grace, but in Scripture it is just the other way around. (Romans 5:20) Man chooses to believe either that a certain amount or a certain degree of sinning can cost him his salvation, or that he can stop believing and negate all thirty-six things that God is said to have done for him at Calvary and applied to him at the instant of salvation. Not one of the blessings that accrue to the believer because of the death of God's Son on the cross became ours through merit. They are each works of God, wrought in Grace, for all eternity (Ephesians 2:8-10), and therefore cannot be made to cease to exist because of our demerit.

Far from being an incitement to sin, the pure Grace of God is the greatest impetus to holiness. Simply stated, he loves much to whom much has been forgiven. Paul is the great example of the proper response of the believer to God's infinite generosity...His Grace. Paul voluntarily submitted to a lifetime of danger, deprivation, and pain--not to be saved, or even to stay saved, but because he knew that he HAD BEEN saved freely...instantly, completely, eternally (2 Corinthians 5:14-15).

The real issue in the matter of eternal security is, what did Christ's death accomplish for the believer? Did that death merely "throw the door of Heaven open" so that we now have a chance to "merit" entering through it? Or was that death not only on my behalf but also in my stead? Was it substitutionary and vicarious? Was it MY death that He died and in FULL PAYMENT of the wages of sin? Did it give me a new and eternal relationship with God that nothing in time or eternity can alter?

In answering the question, "Can a saved person ever be lost?" one must first ascertain what the Scripture means by "saved." Salvation, according to God and Paul, is far more than the forgiveness of past sins. It includes many things, such as the new birth. Could one become "un-born again" (spiritually) any more readily than he could become "un-born" physically? Could one who has received eternal life as a present possession (John 5:24) find that life to be only temporal without God becoming a liar? Or, how about the matter of the believer's standing before God? Romans 8:33 points out the impossibility of an accusation being successfully brought against one of God's elect since it is God Himself who has done the justifying (declaring righteous). The next verse shows the impossibility of any of God's elect ever being condemned since it is no less an one than Christ Himself who died for that (sinning) believer and, for that matter, even rose again.

The great objection to pure Grace (could Grace be other than pure?) is, of course, that if God makes the believer perfectly safe in the present time he will abuse his security by living selfishly and not living for Christ. WOULD YOU DO THIS? Is the motive for the Christian life saving one's skin? If my chief aim in life is saving my own skin, am I serving God or self? If the death of the God-man on the cross of Calvary for me is not sufficient motive for life and service, will a less noble, even an ignoble motivation prove sufficient? God and Paul teach otherwise! In 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 we see that the love from Christ displayed at the cross is the one supremely powerful source of motivation for our living unto Him rather than unto ourselves. "For the love from (lit.) Christ constrains us; because we thus judge (conclude), that if one died for all, then all died (lit.): and that He died for all, that they which live should no longer live to themselves, but to Him who died for them, and rose again."

That it is possible to abuse Grace is evident from many passages which exhort the believer not to abuse Grace or to stop the practice of abusing Grace in which the believer is already engaged. In Galatians 5:13 believers are told to STOP [Greek present imperative with a prohibition, forbidding the continuance of an action] exploiting their total freedom from Law with its penalty, by using freedom as an occasion for the flesh. God and Paul offer as an alternative serving (lit. becoming enslaved to ) other believers. Would an all-wise God, who knows the future in advance, go to the trouble of saving someone on Monday whom He knew would only be lost again three years from Thursday? No! "...whom He justifies (declares righteous) THESE HE ALSO GLORIFIES." (Romans 8:30) If you got on at Justification, you will get off at Glorification; the train doesn't make any stops between!

Here are a few more facts about the LDS church that I found myself.If you are a Mormon and you think you are following Christian principles, this may make you have second thoughts.All these facts were personally and thoroughly researched and I am confident in their validity.Feel free to research them yourselves.God bless:)


Overview of the three witnesses:

Most of the witnesses are related by blood.
The three witnesses were all of questionable character
Joseph Smith said Dec 16, 1838, "Such characters as McLellin, John Witmer, David Witmer, Oliver Cowdry, and Martin Harris are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them." History of the Church, Vol 3, p232
Brigham Young said, "Some of the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel." (Journal of Discourses, Vol 7, page 164, 1859, Brigham Young.)
All three witnesses were eventually excommunicated from the Mormon church.
Two of the three witnesses who were excommunicated from the Mormon church later returned to the church after denying their testimony. Imagine if any one of the apostles denied their witness that Jesus rose from the dead, were kicked out of the early church, then returned again. Their testimony would be of no value. Remember that all three denied the Mormon faith at one point, and one never came back to the Mormon church going to his grave denying his testimony, yet Mormons still use his testimony for the book of Mormon. In fact, David Whitmer never returned to the LDS church that he was a witness for, but joined splinter groups that denied the original LDS church he was first a member of.
C. Specific details of the three witnesses:

False Witness #1: Martin Harris:

Was known for being very unstable religiously. Over his whole life he changed his affiliation over 13 times.
Martin Harris was first a Quaker, then a Universalist, next a Restorationist, then a Baptist, next a Presbyterian, and then a Mormon.(Mormonism Unveiled, E. D. Howe, 1834, pp. 260-261)
After Martin Harris’ excommunication in 1837, he changed his religion eight more times, going from the Shakers to one Mormon splinter group to the next, and back to the main group in 1842.(Improvement Era, March 1969, p. 63 and Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 164, Brigham Young)
In 1846, (after his excommunication in 1837) Martin Harris was preaching among the Saints in England for the Apostate James J. Strang. (Church Chronology, Andrew Jensen, 1899, p. 31; Millennial Star, vol. 8, Nov. 15, 1846, pp. 124-128.)
He signed his name to a statement: "Testimony of three witnesses: We Cheerfully certify...The Lord has made it known to me that David Witmer is the man. David was then called forward, and Joseph and his counselors laid hands upon him, and ordained him to his station, to succeed him...He will be prophet, seer, Revelator and Translator before God." Signed Martin Harris, Leonard Rich, Calvin Beebe. Of course this never came to pass as Brigham young became Joseph Smith's successor.
The Mormons stated of Martin Harris and a few other men within the pages of the church's official newspaper at the time, "a lying deceptive spirit attend them...they are of their father, the devil...The very countenance of Harris will show to every spiritual-minded person who sees him, that the wrath of God is upon him." Latter-Day Saint's, Millennial Star, Vol 8 pp124-128.
Phineas Young wrote to his older brother Brigham Young on December 31, 1841, from Kirtland, Ohio: "There are in this place all kinds of teaching; Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was for the Book of Mormon" (Martin Harris - Witness and Benefactor of the Book of Mormon, 1955, p. 52)
Martin Harris testified that his testimony for Shakerism was greater than it was for Mormonism. The Shaker's "Sacred Roll and Book" was also delivered by an angel. (Case Against Mormonism, Tanner, Vol. 2, pp. 50-58; Martin Harris-Witness & Benefactor, BYU 1955 Thesis, Wayne C. Gunnell, p.52.)
In the Elder's Journal for August, 1838, Joseph Smith denounces Martin Harris as "so far beneath contempt that to notice him would be too great a sacrifice for a gentleman to make. The Church exerted some restraint on him, but now he has given loose to all kinds of abominations, lying, cheating, swindling, and all kinds of debauchery."(Gleanings by the Way, J. A. Clark, pp. 256-257)
Like David Whitmer, Martin Harris later testified that he did not see the plates literally with his fleshly eyes: He said he saw the plates with "the eyes of faith and not with the natural eyes". This we believe is the truth but it should eliminate him automatically as a witness none the less. This of course proves Mormonism is a fraud and that the Nephi Plates never existed and no one actually saw them. (The Braden & Kelly Debate, p. 173)
False Witness #2: David Whitmer:

David Whitmer said in 1887: "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints...'" Address to all believers in Christ, p27, 1887
David Whitmer belonged to at least three Mormon splinter groups at different times, but he died still rejecting the LDS Church and its priesthood.
Like Martin Harris, David Whitmer later testified that he did not see the plates literally with his fleshly eyes: He said he saw the plates "by the eye of faith" handled by an angel.(Palmyra Reflector, March 19, 1831)
David Whitmer changed his story about seeing the plates and later told of finding them lying in a field and later still, told Orson Pratt that they were on a table with all sorts of brass plates, gold plates, the Sword of Laban, the ‘Director' and the Urim and Thumim. (Millennial Star, vol. XL, pp. 771-772)
During the summer of 1837, while in Kirtland, David Whitmer pledged his new loyalty to a prophetess (as did Martin and Oliver) who used a black seer stone and danced herself into ‘trances.'(Biographical Sketches, Lucy Smith, pp. 211-213)
It was the start of the finish for him. It ended in 1847 in his declaration to Oliver that he (Whitmer) was to be the Prophet of the New Church of Christ and Oliver a counsellor.(Letter to Oliver Cowdery, by David Whitmer, Sept. 8, 1847, printed in the "Ensign of Liberty," 5/1848, p. 93; also see ‘Ensign of Liberty,' 8/1849, pp. 101-104)
In the meantime, he was excommunicated and roughly put out. His and Oliver's families were, in fact, driven into the streets and robbed by the Mormons while Whitmer and Cowdery were away trying to arrange a place to flee.(John Whitmer's History of the Church, Modern Microfilm, SLC, p. 22)
Cursed by leaders such as Sidney Rigdon, David Whitmer was denounced by the Prophet Joseph Smith as a "dumb beast to ride" and "an ass to bray out cursings instead of blessings." (History of the Church, vol. 3, p 228)
False Witness #3: Oliver Cowdery:

Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the Mormon church and joined the Methodist church.
In 1841 the Mormons published a poem which stated "Or Book of Mormon not his word, because denied by Oliver". Seasons and Times, Vol 2, p482
The Mormon church accused Oliver Cowdery of Adultery and claimed he had joined "a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs".
Oliver Cowdery was the Church's second Elder, often called the "Second President." The early day companion of Joseph Smith, he was scribe for the Book of Mormon, present at the "Restoration of the Priesthood,' and as close to the real truth as any man.(Pearl of Great Price, JS 2:72-76)
However, in 1838 in Kirtland, Oliver confronted Joseph Smith with the charge of adultery with Fanny Alger, and with lying and teaching false doctrines.(Private Letter to Brother, Warren Cowdery, by Oliver Cowdery, Jan. 21, 1838)
Joseph Smith denied this and charged Cowdery with being a liar.(History of the Church, vol. 3 pp. 16-18 and Elder's Journal, Joseph Smith, July 1838.)
Church records now show Miss Alger was Smith's first "spiritual wife." Oliver was telling the truth!(Historical Record, 1886, vol. 5, p. 233)
Cowdery was excommunicated for this and other "crimes."(History of the Church, vol. 3, pp. 16-18) Later, as a Methodist, he denied the Book of Mormon (Times and Seasons, vol. 2, p. 482 and Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, p 56 and "Oliver Cowdery-The Man Outstanding," Joseph Greehalgh, 1965, p. 28)
Cowdery publicly confessed his sorrow and shame for his connection with Mormonism.(The True Origin of The Book of Mormon, Charles Shook, 1914, pp. 58-59)
While the Mormon church claims he rejoined them in the fall of 1848, (Historical Record, 1886, vol. 5, p. 201) they also accused him later that year, with trying to "raise up the Kingdom again" with the Apostate, William E. McLellin.(The Mormon frontier, Diary of Hosea Stout, vol. 2, p. 336)
Oliver Cowdery was publicly charged by Joseph Smith and leading Mormons with stealing, lying, perjury, counterfeiting, adultery, and being the leader of a gang of "scoundrels of the deepest degree!"(Senate Document 189, Feb. 15, 1841, pp. 6-9 and Comprehensive History of the Church, B. H. Roberts, vol. 1, pp. 438-439)
Joseph Smith listed Oliver Cowdery as among those, "too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them." (History of the Church, vol. 3:232)
Oliver Cowdery died claiming that the book of Doctrines & Covenants must be discarded.
Conclusion:

All the Mormon witnesses are as worthless as they are unreliable who recanted their testimony.
Modern Mormon "spin doctors" write all kinds of articles claiming that the witnesses may have denied the Mormon church but they never the book of Mormon. Now you know that is a lie.
Some Mormons will agree that all three witnesses denied the book of Mormon but came back to deny their denial. Imagine the twelve apostles suddenly denying Jesus rose from the dead in public, only to ask people to ignore their denials and accept their testimony once again. This the apostles of Christ never did.
Only the deluded could possibly believe the outrageous fairytale called Mormonism.

This is just something that came to me one night when I couldn't sleep. Call it an "epiphany". Most people don't give this subject a second thought. And most of you may think it's too deep for Fubar. However, most of my blogs are haha. I hope, after reading this, If anything,you at least, find it interesting and thought provoking. Enjoy :)

How does one comprehend the concept of time? The Word of God says that, “With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day”. However, the human mind is too finite to embrace or even comprehend this idea. So, when the bible says that it took God seven days to create the universe, we have no way of knowing or understanding whether that time was measured from God’s time-frame or our own. This is, perhaps, why God chose to explain creation in terms of days as opposed to millenniums or eons-Which, to Him, must be nothing more than seconds and minutes. The way people understand the concept of eternity is by the use of smaller increments of time we do understand- minutes, hours, days, weeks, years, and so-forth. Our intellect isn't wide enough to encompass the whole picture. But, rather, minor details and objects such as a single star in the middle of a vast, infinite universe. By definition, ‘infinity’ is unquantifiable because it has no end. So we can't conceive of eternity itself, because the human brain is based on a beginning and ending. According to Albert Einstein, “the separation of time between past, present and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.” But, the real illusion is the belief that we have all the time in the world. That's the ignorant mindset in today's society.  But, time is precious. We must cherish every moment we are given. For it is a gift from God. We are not promised tomorrow. Nor are we promised the next hour, minute or second. So, use your time wisely. And don't waste it by complaining about trivial things like anger, resentment, greed or jealousy over what you don't have. Rather, focus on the things you do have and how blessed you are. Because, some people are not so fortunate. God bless.

Many people find it difficult to deny Jesus existed, so they throw in the good old classic question, the inevitable comment, the predictable attack on Christianity that runs along the line of why would a God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful allow bad things to happen to good people? We've all heard it numerous times, and it doesn't get any more convincing on the hundredth or thousandth asking. Actually, we can just as well turn the word order of the question around and ask why an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God would allow good things to happen to bad people? After all, while seeing good people suffer is horrible, it's not much fun seeing evil people having fun.

It has to be said, though, that this question is sometimes asked in all innocence, by people with a genuine desire to understand what seems impossible to understand. Or it is asked by people who have suffered or whose loved ones have known grief and loss. How could God let this happen to me and to mine, why would God not stop this pain and help me? At its most severe, it can be devastating. The Holocaust, the abduction and murder of a child, the long and painful death of a kind and gentle person. The critic of Christianity would respond that God is either not all-knowing, not all-powerful, or not all-good. I would say that the question and even the problem are actually more of a difficulty and a conundrum for the nonbeliever than for the Christian.

Learn more through:Debunking Popular Heresies.

The materialist and the atheist, those who would deny God, believe that at death all is over. Life is finished, it is done and complete; we are dust, mere food for worms. To these people, pain has no meaning other than what it is: pure, unadulterated suffering, without any redeeming purpose. There may to the atheist be a certain formless heroism attached to the person who faces suffering with courage and without complaining, but if we are all body and flesh, and no soul and spirit, if we are mere products of a selfish gene and nothing more, one wonders why this heroism would in any way be significant.

There is, though, a greater point, and that is that the atheist is convinced that these years we spend on earth—perhaps 80 or if we are lucky, and only a handful if we are not—are everything we have, and constitute the total human experience. Christians, on the other hand, believe that these years on earth, while important and to be used wisely and also to be enjoyed, are preparation for a far greater life to come. They are, in effect, a thin ray of light from the great sunshine that is eternity and life in heaven with God. My end, as Mary Queen of Scots had it,is my beginning. And her end was at the sharp point of an axe, as she was beheaded on the orders of her half-sister, Queen Elizabeth I. Queen Mary was certain that there was an existence beyond that on earth, as have been myriad Christians since the time of Christ.

While it is neurotic rather than Christian to welcome suffering, and no intelligent and comprehending Christian would welcome suffering for its own sake, the Bible actually makes it quite clear that faith in Jesus Christ and in Christianity does not guarantee a good life, but a perfect eternity. Indeed, there is more prediction in Scripture of a struggle, and perhaps a valley of fear, on earth for the believer than there is of gain and success. There may be Christian sects that promise material wealth and all sorts of triumphs in exchange for faith, but this is a non-Christian, even an anti-Christian bargain, and has never been something that mainstream and orthodox Christianity would affirm. Christians believe that this life on earth is only the land of shadows and that real life hasn't yet begun. So yes, bad things happen to good people.

Like all my blogs,please read the ENTIRE thing VERY carefully before commenting or making any objections.God bless

Many times people will raise an objection to a Christian's belief in the Bible as being the infallible word of God. They claim that using the Bible to support the Bible is "circular reasoning" ( testing the validity of an idea by its own pronouncements). This is not so.

We must first remember in discussing the claims of the Bible with anyone, that the Bible is not a single, autonomous work. Rather, it is a collection of 66 different books written over a vast time span in three languages on three continents with authors from every station in life. These ancient works cover every major topic dealing with the human condition including: love, hate, death, sin, marriage, civil laws, and relationships with each other as well as with God. Although these works were written independently, they show an amazing congruency and they never contradict each other!

When Paul writes "All scriptures is inspired by God (II Tim 3:16)", his primary reference is the Old Testament, which was completed 400 years previously. This is not to say that the verse doesn't apply to the New Testament as well, but Paul's subject matter was the Scriptures Timothy was taught as a child. Paul believes the Scriptures are "God-breathed"; that is they hold the same authority as if God were to come down and speak to you directly. Every word recorded in the original documents is considered to be chosen by God.

So, our first point is that the testimony of Paul establishes a point of view that holds the Scriptures very highly. We know that the early church believed the Scriptures were inspired, we must now find out how to demonstrate that fact. Before going too far, I would ask the person you're talking to what type of evidence is he/she willing to accept to demonstrate the Bible as the Word of God? We obviously cannot go into a laboratory and test for "God residue" on the text, so to ask for scientific proof is impossible. (Likewise, asking for scientific proof that one loves his spouse is absurd. True science is limited to making claims on that which it can disprove through experimentation. Since science does not have any objective standards for measuring "God-ness", it cannot be asked to make a determination on His existence.) This doesn't mean we cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion based on the evidence before us, though.

What we are really interested in, then, is to determine if the Bible is a book that is the true words of God given to men, or is it merely the words of men written about God? If it is the latter, then it should display characteristics like those of other books written by men about God. It really shouldn't be all that different from many other works we possess. However, if it did come from God... well it should be astoundingly different. It should be a very one of a kind collection. It should be unique.

Let's examine what we do know about the Bible and see if it aligns with what we'd expect from a message whose source is God. We'll accept the premises that God exists and He created humanity with a desire to know Him. Anyone questioning these ideas is arguing another point; one which must be addressed separately. In his landmark Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh Mc Dowell notes that if God created man with a desire to know Him, we would expect His message to have some unique properties:(1)

• It would be widely distributed so man could attain it easily
• It would be preserved through time without corruption
• It would be completely accurate historically.
• It would not be prone to scientific error or false beliefs held by the people of that time.
• It would present true, unified answers to the difficult questions of life.

The Bible stands alone as the only religious text that can claim it meets all the above criteria. I think it would be helpful if we compare the Bible with some of the other ancient texts and see just how unique the Bible is.

External evidence for the validity of the documents

The first qualification listed above is any message from the Creator would have to distribute His message to a wide audience. The Bible is next to none in this test.(2) It is the most published book in history, with the widest distribution of any published work. It has been translated into more languages than any other book. It is the most sold book in history. It was the first book published with moveable type. It is still the #1 best seller of any book. Now, none of these feats prove that the Bible was inspired. They are, however, consistent with what we would expect of God's message if He were trying to let us know about Himself and His plan for us. In other words, one cannot disqualify the Bible on this point. Many other ancient writings fall short, but it behaves as we would expect.

We also agreed that the message would be able to last through time. If God's message to you got lost, then of what use is it to you? If the message is corrupted in some way, how do you know which parts are from God and which are not? This is a tricky point to understand. This does not mean that no one will ever be able to mis-translate the Bible or add things to it, for I can write down a verse in this letter and copy it incorrectly. It does mean that we should be able to somehow discern where the errors in the copies are and also know the original intent of the message.

Because ancient writing surfaces were natural in their origin, they could decay easily. Papyrus, clay, and animal skins of the Old World did not have an incredibly long "shelf life". Therefore, we do not have any of the original documents (called autographs) that the Biblical authors wrote. However, we do have copies of the originals (called manuscripts) and can compare them to discern what were in the originals, and what wasn't. The more copies you have from different places, and the closer they are in age to the original, makes the process more assured. It's like the old game "telephone"; those who are closer to the originator of the message got more of it right than those at the end of the line. Also, by giving the same message to five or six telephone lines, with some effort you could probably reconstruct the original message by what the participants recall.

Now, this entire exercise is nothing restricted to the Bible alone. Every ancient document is tested as to its reliability in this same way. Historians look for copies of the text, from where they originated, their age and proximity to the autographs, and if the documents were quoted in other works to help them in determining the closest rendering of the text to its original form.

The Bible has an incredible amount of manuscript evidence to authenticate its message as it was originally written. Of every ancient literary or historical work, none can come remotely close to the huge amount of manuscript evidence for the New Testament.(3) There are over 5,300 manuscripts or parts of manuscripts we can examine today. If you count all the early copies of translations of the New Testament, the number skyrockets to over 24,000. This is such an astounding amount, it's about 43 times as much as the second most prevalent writing, The Iliad, with only 643. Both The Iliad and the Bible were works venerated as sacred writings, and viewed as having the answers to questions of the supernatural and the afterlife. Both fought attempts at additions, textual changes and corruption. The Iliad has over 400 lines in doubt out of 15,600. The New Testament with 20,000 lines has 40 lines in doubt, none of which substantially change its message.

Further, if we look at the time gap between the originals and the earliest copies of these cherished texts, we again see that the New Testament is far more reliable. The Iliad has a gap of about 500 years before the first manuscripts appear, where the Bible's books have pieces ranging from as close as 35 years after the original composition.

The Old Testament, unfortunately, does not share the wealth of manuscript evidence that the New Testament possesses. However, because of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other discoveries, along with ancient Hebrew sources that quote from the Old Testament, we are assured that it is in the same form as it was in Jesus' day. The Dead Sea Scrolls themselves included almost all of the Old Testament canon and they date from 250B.C. to 100A.D. Also, the copies of the Septuagint, which was a Greek version of the Old Testament written about 250B.C., show the text we have today has been nearly perfectly preserved.

Next, we must look at the facts of history and see whether the Bible reports these accurately. If this truly is a book written by God, then the facts must be presented unerringly. We have many written sources outside the Bible that corroborate its documentation. Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived in the first century. He not only preserves many traditions about events that are mentioned in the Old Testament, but also corroborates the existence of John the Baptist(Ant. XVIII.5.2), where it also mentions that Herod had him imprisoned and put to death. He also mentions James as the brother of Jesus along with his death by the high priest Annas(Ant. XX 9:1). Lastly, he mentions Jesus himself, who he characterizes as "a wise man". He further reports that people viewed Him as the Christ and that Jesus appeared to His disciples three days after Pilate put Him to death(Ant. XVIII.33). Remember, Josephus is a Jew, and would be adverse to Christianity and its message.

Other early documents authenticate the Bible accounts. The Jewish Talmud mentions Jesus and records His death on the eve of Passover. The early church quotes from the New Testament and authenticates it. Thallus, a Samaritan historian who wrote in 52 A.D. mentions the crucifixion, as did Phlegon, the Roman historian.

There's also a letter sent by a Syrian man sent to his son. It was written sometime near the end of the first century, or possibly the beginning of the second. The man's name was Mara Bar-Serapion and he was serving a prison sentence. He wrote to encourage his son and charge him to seek wisdom. In the letter it says,

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men."

Note the reference to Jesus being put to death is in a historical context. The letter also shows that Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews and that He taught wisely.

Archaeology has also borne out the reliability of the Bible. Everywhere the archaeologist searches, he uncovers discoveries that bolster, not refute support of the Bible as being a true account of history. Archaeological digs have uncovered a stele dedicated to Pontius Pilate and even found the remains of a crucified man, with the nail still in the bones of the hand. The Hittites were a group considered in the last century to be a mythical people only mentioned in the Bible. It wasn't until A.J. Sayce brought forth evidence of their existence in 1876 that the Hittites were generally accepted as historically true. In fact, the archaeological evidence for the validity of the Bible is so overwhelming that Donald J. Wiseman stated over 25,000 sites mentioned in the Bible have been found. Millar Burrows writes, "The more we find that items in the picture of the past presented by the Bible, even though not directly attested, are compatible with what we know from archaeology, the stronger is our impression of general authenticity. Mere legend or fiction would inevitably betray itself by anachronisms and incongruities."

Further, there is no valid reason to believe that the men who wrote the Bible were lying or trying to deceive. The New Testament particularly shows that the character of the writers was beyond reproach. Each of them suffered and were executed because they would not recant their position that the teachings of the Bible are true and accurate. If their testimony was made up for gain or folly, surely someone would have renounced his stand to save his life, but it did not happen. All the apostles and the writers believed unwaveringly that the Bible was absolute fact.

A set of documents having their origin in the All-knowing God of the universe would not be prone to scientific inaccuracies. If we are to believe that the Bible came from the same source that created the world, then is logical to assume it would not mis-represent the mechanics of the world. Only the Bible contains none of the scientific absurdities that are found in all other ancient religious writings.

In the Hindu Scriptures it is taught that the earth is set atop the backs of four elephants, who in turn stood on a giant sea-turtle that was swimming through a milky sea. However, Job states, "He stretches out the North over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing.(26:7)" Also, Isaiah mentions that God sits "above the circle of the earth.(40:22)" The New Testament also records a snatching away of believers. In Luke 17 Jesus talks of a singular event stating that "two men in one bed; and one will be taken, and the other will be left. There will be two women grinding in the same place; one will be taken, and the other will be left." These are events that happen at different times of the day, yet Jesus speaks of them as a single instance. Only someone who understands the revolution of a round earth could understand how day and night are relative and one act may affect people in both time frames.

When Genesis was written, The Greeks were beginning to tell of Apollos' flight across the sky in a flaming chariot. The Egyptians were worshipping the sun as Ra, deifying it. The Mesopotamians referred to the sun as "Shamosh" and called it the god of justice. Genesis, however, calls the sun "a light in the expanse of the heavens" and views it as a thing, one created by God. That the Bible does not follow the naiveté of those ancient religions is often overlooked, since modern man is much more knowledgeable in the mechanics of nature. We take for granted that someone touching an infectious person or a corpse should practice good hygiene and wash thoroughly in running water before proceeding to anything else, but this "discovery" has only been a medical reality for 150 years. The book of Leviticus, though, requires this same procedure. One cannot find ideas as arcane as blood-letting or consuming ram's horn for fertility, or all the other mythical cures for ills that were thought to be science in those days. The Bible is not a science book. It does not focus on scientific facts about the creation, but where it mentions those things, it is accurate in its representation. This is exactly what we'd expect if the Bible had its origin in the One who created the universe and its scientific laws.

Internal Evidence for Reliability of the Bible

Thus far we have examined several evidences of the accuracy and the reliability of the Bible by comparing it to outside sources and what we know is true. Now, I'd like to turn our attention to the text of the Bible itself to show how it validates itself as the word of God. Again, I remind you that we have a collection of different documents that were written over one and a half millennium, that are devoted to discussing the most controversial and emotionally charged topics man has known. The incredible thing is that they all agree. Taken together, the Bible presents a single, unified message of actions and attitudes by which man can live. This is an unprecedented feat.

To have sixty six books written by about forty authors, from kings and nobles to fishermen and soldiers, in three languages and on three continents, be of the same mind is just not humanly possible. Why, the editorial writers in our newspapers can't even agree when they come from the same culture and similar educational backgrounds.

To demonstrate the remarkability of this accomplishment, we can propose an experiment. Imagine a classroom of thirty students at the high-school level. The teacher has decided on the class writing a novel for a class project. Each student will be assigned one chapter and they will then gather the papers together to assemble the finished work. The topic chosen is "Why God is important in man's life," but there is no outline and there are no rules as to what that statement means. Because the students are all the same age and live in the same area at the same point in time, they have a tremendous advantage over the Biblical writers, but to expect a congruent work is ridiculous. The fact that the Bible is a unified message shows that its origin comes from beyond man.

Because the Bible claims it is the word of God, it requires of itself a stricter assessment. The Old Testament is filled with the authoritative phrase "Thus sayeth the LORD" . The fact that men recognized it from the time it was first penned as authoritative gives it a measure of strength. The laws that were required of the Jews were very arduous. Because they chose to accept them as commandments from God before any significant length of time had elapsed to mythicalize them shows that the people believed with their lives that these documents were from God. Jesus Himself validates the Old Testament by regarding it as the word of God and authoritative in all things.

The Biblical Test for Inspiration

The last point in demonstrating the inspiration of the Bible is one we have not yet mentioned. The Bible itself gives a test to all messages claiming to be from God, and you are to judge the merits of the message by that test. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 states:

"But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And you may say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."

This passage shows the yardstick by which all revelation is measured: prophecy. The Bible stands alone as a book stuffed with prophecy. It is the very heart of Scripture. With prophecy, God gives the faithful hope by promising better things in the future. Likewise, the wicked are warned of impending judgment if they don't change their ways. The Bible is unique from all other religious texts because it gives specific, detailed prophecies that were fulfilled just as written. Let's look at a few prophecies to demonstrate their precision.

The coming of the Jewish Messiah is the focus of the Old Testament. There are over 300 separate prophecies about the "Holy One of Israel" found there. They are so specific as to predict the city of Jesus' birth (Micah 5:2), His nature (Isaiah 7:14), His works of healing and miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6), His betrayal for thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12-13), His suffering (Isaiah 53), His style of execution (Psalm 22) and His resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Acts 13:35) amongst other things. These prophecies were written anywhere from 400 to 1000 years before Jesus' birth, yet they describe His life with the accuracy of an eyewitness. The odds against a living person meeting even a few of these predictions is so astronomical it is considered an impossibility.

Another prophecy given in the book of Isaiah was to the man who would conquer the city of Babylon. In Isaiah 44:27 and following the Lord says,

"It is I who says to the depths of the sea, 'Be dried up!' and I who will make your rivers dry. It is I who says of Cyrus, 'He is My shepherd!' and he will perform all My desire. Thus says the LORD to Cyrus, His anointed, whom I have taken by the right hand, to subdue nations before him, and to loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him so that the gates will not be shut. I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor though you have not known Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God"

This prophecy was written around 690 BC. History tells us that in 538 BC a Persian general named Cyrus had devised a plan to overtake the impregnable city of Babylon. He dammed up the river running through the city and sent soldiers under the gates. When he got to the front gates, however, he found them unlocked and took the entire city without a problem. In one night the most secure empire in the world of that time was overthrown. It was described by God to Cyrus, and addressed to him by name, 150 years before he had even been born!

One other prophecy we can examine is one that has been fulfilled in modern times. Israel is an amazement sociologically. Never in the history of mankind has a nation been overthrown and obliterated for 1900 years and then come back into existence. Yet, this is exactly what has happened to the nation of Israel, and they reside in the same geographic area as they previously possessed. We turn again to Isaiah, chapter 11 which states,

"In that day the Lord will reach out His hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of His people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea. He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; He will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (vss.11-12)

Notice, that the passage in Isaiah was written before the Babylonian captivity, so it refers to a second regathering. That implies that there would be two dispersals. Yet, after the second exile, it also promises that the nation of Israel would be put back together from "the four corners of the earth", which is an unequalled feat. Just think of how many Hittites or Philistines we find today. People who are exiled for an extended period of time generally assimilate into the culture in which they're placed. In no other instance has this ever happened.

In Jeremiah 16:15, God promises that the Israelites will dwell "in the land I gave their forefathers", and Ezekiel chapter 36 describes the incredible transformation of the land itself into a major agricultural center. We still have documentary footage of how the land of Palestine was transformed from a mosquito-infested swampland to the breadbasket of Europe. It is now the sixth largest producer of fruits in the world!

When all the evidence is studied, it leads to an inescapable conclusion: the Bible must come from a source other than that of natural man. It is a reliable document that faithfully records history and in that record it documents God intervening in the lives of men. The New Testament verifies that the Old Testament is the word of God, and Peter verifies that the writings of Paul are Scriptural; that is from God(2 Peter 3:16). Peter also states, "No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.(2 Peter 1:21)" This is a consistent message throughout the Bible.

In any field of study, when people examine the objects of their study, they classify them by their attributes. A bird fits the definition of an animal with feathers that lays eggs. Every animal that has those attributes is considered a bird. A mammal must be warm-blooded, have hair, and suckle its young. In examining all the religious texts of the world, only the Bible exhibits all the attributes of a God-inspired message. I hope you will appreciate the Bible more from our discussion, and let me know if I've assumed something that doesn't make sense to you. May you be greatly blessed in your pursuit of Him.