Hey Happy New Year eh!
In this newsletter:
1) “Persuaded by the Evidence” official trailer released
2) New CrEvo Rant released – and a favour to ask
3) Stop the presses – hominids were smarter than us?!?!?
4) Portable museum update
5) Upcoming talks and tours
6) Joseph’s genealogy round-up!
***********************************************************
1) “Persuaded by the Evidence” official trailer released
As mentioned in previous newsletters, I interviewed six men for a movie this past year. “Persuaded by the Evidence” was inspired by the book of the same title, and is simply the testimonies of multiple atheists and evolutionists who are now young-earth creationists and born-again Christians.
Being produced in High-definition, you will find this video a real treat.
You can watch the trailer – in High Definition – on youtube via the official movie website:
http://PersuadedTheMovie.com
In volume 1, I interviewed Dr. Jerry Bergman, Doug Sharp, David Bradbury, Tom Hennigan, Rick Lanser and Alan Montgomery. The fun part was that some of these men were even militant athiests who came to realize that there had to be a Creator God, and some even tried out different religions and cults before finally coming to the conclusion that Christ was the Creator, and the only way to heaven.
The movie should be finished and released by the summer of 2010 – please pray for this project, and for the many people who will see the video!
***********************************************************
2) New CrEvo Rant released – and a favour to ask
Just released, CrEvo Rant #35: Problem solved!
So what does Obama’s missing birth certificate (it’s been found!), X-men’s Wolverine and DNA have in common? They’re all in this rant!
(aside from that, they probably have nothing else in common).
In this rant, Ian deals with the claim that mutations (errors) in the DNA can increase information for evolutionary processes.
Watch it on youtube: (warning: Comments probably will have baaaaad words!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25miVf49F_0
Or you can watch all eight rants thus far on the playlist:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B228C26CBD74D87B
Small favour to ask:
If you like the rants and think they’re an effective means of communicating the creation message, then help get the word out. The atheist channels on youtube have tens of thousands of subscribers. The more subscribers the channel has, the more the videos are viewed. The more comments that are made, the more the videos are viewed. There’s several ways you can help out here:
-Subscribe to my youtube channel, for free: http://www.youtube.com/wazooloo If you don’t have a youtube account, it’s quick and painless to sign up for a free account. You can then subscribe, rate, and rant!
-Share the channel, or the playlist, or a specific rant with your friends and family – go to any rant, and just below the video you’ll see “Share.” Click on that, and you post the rants to your facebook page, or twitter, myspace, orkut, stumbleupon, livespaces, digg and reddit – or you can email it to a friend.
-Pray, and ask the Lord to bring subscribers, for the time is short.
And thanks in advance!
***********************************************************
 Image courtesy of the |
3) Stop the presses – hominids were smarter than us?!?!?
Thanks to Spike Psarris (CreationAstronomy.com) for bringing this to the attention of the creation community. In a way, this is more new-old news, but just yesterday a Discover article came out:
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/the-brain-2/28-what-happened-to-hominids-who-were-smarter-than-us
The article discusses the Boskop skeletons, found in the early 1900’s. The skeletons were supposedly from our part-way-between-ape-and-man ancestors (the “hominids). Now if you recall from my response to the SciAm article in January of 2009, (“the human pedigree”) the common evolutionary belief is that a larger brain indicates a higher intelligence.
I’ll ignore the controversy surrounding such claims for the moment, and will simply point out the remarkable evidence from these skulls. The Bostok skulls indicated a huge cranial capacity (brain size) of 1,980 cc, along with a very small face.
Of course, this is old news, as the Neanderthal skulls also showed the same thing.
The indications, according to evolutionary assumptions, is that our ancient ancestors were smarter than we were. Yet, these skulls have been relegated to the closet because they do not fit evolutionary theories. Why would people more intelligent than us become extinct? Why would we evolve into less intelligent creatures? And just what were Neanderthal-like people doing in Africa, when they were not supposed to have evolved in Africa?
***********************************************************
4) Portable museum update
Thanks to everyone who prayed and are praying, and to those who chipped in financially on the Portable Creation Museum project. About $1,300 was raised on top of the $2,000 already given to the project, and presently I’m making the arrangements for a British couple to give, in effect, a low-interest loan. In fact what they want to do is quite smart: They’ll loan 5,000 sterling pounds, with payments of $50US a month going towards operation mobilization (a world-wide missions organization) in lieu of interest. They suggested perhaps a donor could take on this monthly payment as their method of support for the museum project, and at the same time they’re supporting a missionary! If there’s any takers, drop me an email and let me know. The donations would be tax-deductable.
This loan will pay for the first shipping container, delivered, and with money in hand to start work on it immediately.
Once the money is in hand, I will be driving down to Toronto to pick out the first shipping container, which will probably be delivered within the week – so please pray, hopefully everything will go quickly so I can get some work done on it before I go to Newfoundland at the end of February. I’ll be back April-ish, work on the museum for another month or so before I head to Alberta for a tour for the summer. Please pray for me!
**************************************************************
5) Upcoming talks and Tours
Any groups in Ontario, I’m here for all of January and most of February, then I’m off to Newfoundland for probably a month, possibly more. Anyone in Newfoundland who thinks they might have a group interested in having me speak, please drop me an email, or call toll-free for more information: 877-532-9160, ext 100. I’m specifically seeking talks in Ontario, as this will allow me to be home most of the time to work on the museum project. Remember, a free DVD and info packet are available upon request.
The date has not yet been set for the recording of a new DVD I’ll be putting out on the Alien phenomena and the evolution connect. A disturbing, but fascinating subject. Stay tuned for more details.
January 26th: Cobden Pentecostal church children’s event
February 28: Lifebridge in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Morning family service
March 7: Cornerbrook, Newfoundland – start of the Newfoundland tour!
All March: Newfoundland – looking for bookings. (I could probably stick around for most of April too, if there are interested parties).
June-August: Alberta, British Columbia – looking for bookings, as well as western and northern Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan for the trip out.
Everything you wanted to know about Ian giving a talk to you group, but you were afraid to ask:
Click here.
**************************************************************
6) Joseph’s genealogy round-up!
If you’ll recall, in the last newsletter, I address a supposed “problem” in the Bible with Joseph’s genealogy. Well did I ever get a flood of emails from you guys! I’m simply going to copy and paste a whole wack of responses here, so it’ll be long, but I figure that’s the best way to deal with this.
First, let me clarify a couple of things: I hesitated to address Biblical problems in my newsletter because my focus is more to creation science. I also deliberately was very brief – for instance, I specifically did not mention the most common belief that one genealogy was for Joseph and the other for Mary. I was simply trying to make the point to the readers that the Bible can be trusted, and simply proposed one explanation for why the genealogies might have differences. It was not my intent to make any dogmatic assertions, rather I was simply showing how bogus the claims were of the anti-biblical skeptics. So, with that said, here’s some of the reader responses, thanks to those of you who wrote in! It’s a long read, but it’s meaty stuff.
——————————————————————————-
David wrote in from Arizona:
Ian,
Good to hear from you! Enjoy reading all your (whenever-they-come-out)
newsletters. Keep up the good work!
I got a minor problem with the part that I quoted below, though. Hang on
tight, ’cause this is a white-knuckle ride.
If Jacob and Heli were brothers, would they not likely have had the same
father? But read the verses around the ones you quoted. Jacob’s father was
Matthan and Heli was the son of Matthat. (Yeah, I know one possible answer
here is that Jacob and Heli were actually step-brothers from different
fathers — but this posits a very convoluted family tree. Somewhat
contrived and not a very satisfying answer.)
Now Matthat and Matthan sound similar, but they are not the same name
(much less the same person). Three reasons for this:
1) Matthat’s father was Levi and Matthan’s father was Eleazar (are you
positing some more stepfather relations here, too?); and
2) look at the names in the original languages (consult a good Greek
lexicon, like Thayer’s and a Hebrew lexicon like the Brown Driver Briggs
Genesius):
a) the name Matthan is from the Hebrew “Mattan” (which means “gift”) and
b) the name Matthat is a shortened form of the Greek Matthathias which
is turn from the Hebrew “Mattithiah” ( which means “gift of God”)
— close, but not quite the same; and further
3) Trace the genealogy back further and you see that the family trees
diverge even more until it comes together at David.
The likely answer here is apparently the one I have heard given most
frequently — and even cited by Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus — that one of the
genealogies (probably Luke) is actually traced through Mary. There is also
some interesting notes on this at
http://www.bible-history.com/jesus/jesusMat_1117_Lk_32338.htm and at
http://www.abideinchrist.com/selah/dec23.html and likely many more places.
This is, like a number of parts of the Bible, not completely clear and
open to some interpretation. Hope this helps!
Have a good Christmas with Christ in it!
——————————————————————————-
Ian,
I appreciate your newsletter, and in particular the time, effort and
mental excursion you have committed to the cause of Christ. I wanted to
respond to one of the items in your last newsletter with respect to the
genealogies of Matthew and Luke.
You said that this problem can be solved if the line of Luke is considered
Joseph’s lineage through and adoptive father instead of his biological
father which is recorded in Matthew. While this is a possibility, the
most probable explanation, held by many leading theologians today, is that
the genealogy in Luke is Mary’s genealogy. For example, John MacArthur
Jr, in his study Bible comments,
“Luke’s entire section from Joseph to David differs starkly from that
given by Matthew. The two genealogies are easily reconciled if Luke’s is
seen as Mary’s genealogy… Thus the Royal line is passed through Jesus’
legal father, and His physical descent from David is established by Mary’s
lineage. Luke, unlike Matthew, includes no women in his genealogy – even
Mary herself. Joseph was “the son of Heli” by marriage (Heli having no
sons of his own), and thus is named here… as the representative of
Mary’s generation.” (The MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, USA,
1997)
Josh MacDowell in “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” comes to the same
conclusion, treating several other possibilities, including the one you
brought up. Although these are not supreme authorities on the subject,
they are what I have in front of me, and I would be interested to do some
research into it to see what the earliest teachers say on the subject.
Whereas I appreciate your sentiment: “Let me just encourage you readers
that whenever you are faced with a “challenge,” just simply pray and seek
the answer!” I would add to that, “and reference reliable teachers.” In
many ways, studying the Bible is akin to studying science. We are not all
expected to come up with the theory of gravity intuitively, nor is God
shamed if we rely on a man like Isaac Newton – whom He endued with great
intelligence and ability, who gave God the glory and also said that he
himself relied on the discoveries of ‘giants’ before him – to lead us to
an understanding of gravity. In the same way, it does not dishonour God
if we learn from teachers in addition to prayer for personal
understanding. And prayer and intelligence are particularly important
when discerning the truth of such teachers.
Sincerely,
Andrew
——————————————————————————-
Ian,
I just got a chance to read through your newsletter and I disagree with
your explanation of the different geneologies of Jesus in Matthew and
Luke. I totally agree that the Bible is true and accurate and that there
is an explanation for the 2 differing accounts, but it’s not a simple
matter of having a different father given for Joseph in the two
geneologies. The entire geneology after King David is different. The
Matthew account has Joseph’s lineage coming through Solomon and the line
of Judah’s kings. The Luke geneology goes through another son of David
named Nathan. It is still possible that some form of adoption of Joseph
occured, but it wouldn’t have been a kinsman reedemer situation in which a
man took his brother’s wife. The best explanation I have seen for this
supposed discrepancy is that the Luke account is actually Mary’s
geneology, although she was not mentioned since she was a woman. The Luke
geneology differs from the one in Matthew in that it starts with Jesus and
goes backwards. It also lacks words (in the original) that specify a
relationship between the members of the list. In Matthew, it is
specifically stated that each man was begotten by the previous man in the
list. In Luke it simply says that Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph
and then lists every man that Jesus was a “son” of through his actual
genetic descent (which would start with Mary’s father since Joseph was not
the biological father and his relatives were not biological ancestors of
Jesus). It does not say that Joseph was the son of Heli in the original.
If you look at the strong’s numbers, after Joseph’s name the only words
are the names of each man. There are no words linking them. So it would
actually read “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melchi…”
and so forth. The relationship given is of each man to Jesus, not
necessarily each man to the next on the list so it doesn’t necessarily say
that Joseph was Heli’s son, but only that Jesus was a descendant of Heli.
Supporting this view is the fact that the end of this list has Adam and
then God. Jesus, not Adam, was the son of God.
I hope that gives some food for thought. I always thought it was an
interesting topic and I’d be interested in hearing what you think.
God bless.
—Lindsay
——————————————————————————-
Hei Ian,
I just wanted to write to you about the seemingly contradicting Matthew
and Luke, who gave different names for the father of Joseph. You said that
Jacobs brother was Heli and that Heli had died and Jacob raised his
children, or child. I believe this is not the case. Consider the
following:
The real father of Joseph was Jacob (Mat 1:16); but having married the
daughter of Heli, and being perhaps adopted by him, he was called his son,
and as such was entered in the public registers; Mary not being mentioned,
because the Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the
genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was,
in reality, but his father-in-law. Hence it appears that Matthew, who
wrote principally for the Jews, traces the pedigree of Jesus Christ from
Abraham, through whom the promises were given to the Jews, to David, and
from David, through the line of Solomon, to Jacob the father of Joseph,
the reputed or legal father of Christ; and that Luke, who wrote for the
Gentiles, extends his genealogy upwards from Heli, the father of Mary,
through the line of Nathan, to David, and from David to Abraham, and from
Abraham to Adam, who was the immediate “son of God” by creation, and to
whom the promise of the Saviour was given in behalf of himself and all his
posterity. The two branches of descent from David, by Solomon and Nathan,
being thus united in the persons of Mary and Joseph, Jesus the son of Mary
re-united in himself all the blood, privileges, and rights, of the whole
family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called “the
Son of David.”
With Blessings,
Joni
——————————————————————————-
Hi Ian,
Just a qiuick note on your geneology issue. The deal is that the Matthew
line is Joseph’s Line and Luke’s is Mary’s line. This is interesting
historically and proves out prophecy. As Jesus was the supposed son of
Joseph we get Joseph’s geneology. If there were a king to reign in
Jerusalem at that time Jesus was the true legal heir! His lineage went
straight back to King David on both sides of His family. One line through
David’s son Solomon the other through his son Nathan. Isn’t the Bible
awesome! God bless brother and Merry Christmas!
Mason
——————————————————————————-
Not only that, but possibly one line, Luke, is the line from Mary. There
is at least one other instance in the Bible where a son-in-law is referred
to as a son.
Teno
——————————————————————————-
Dear Ian:
There is a simple explanation for the differences in Yashua’s genealogies
seen in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and it is one which solves
another issue which you or your skeptical friend didn’t mention.
First, let’s look at this “other” issue. You will note that Matthew says
there were three sets of “fourteen generations” (Matt 1:27). The first two
sets indeed add to fourteen, but if you look at the last set, you will
only count thirteen. Not only that, but Yashua cannot be the Messiah
because he is not truly a “son of David” since the genealogy ends with
Joseph, who was not his biological father.
Both of these problems are solved when it is realized that the gospel of
Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, parts of which still exist
today. Verse 16 says in Hebrew literal translation “Jacob begat Joseph
the protector of Mary” where the word protector is a technical Hebrew
term: For a married woman, it would be properly understood as “husband”
but for a maiden it would be “father”. The Greek translator, knowing that
Mary’s husband’s name was Joseph, did not consider that her father could
also have that same name. (Joseph is a popular name in Hebrew as well as
other languages.) He therefore translated “protector” as “husband”
instead of “father”.
Notice that if the verse is read as “Jacob begat Joseph the father of
Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ” it fixes the following:
1) There are now the required fourteen generations.
2) Yashua is now directly related to Mary, who is of the family of David.
– joe
