|
|
1
Lemmings
and Loose lips
In
a perfect world there would not be any errors, mistakes, misleading
statements, or traditions. The book you are about to read is an attempt to pull
the truth out of the traditions, and bring us all nearer to what God actually
says.
Friederich
Wilhelm Nietzsche : "Every tradition grows ever more venerable - the more
remote is its origin, the more confused that origin is. The reverence due to it
increases from generation to generation. The tradition finally becomes holy and
inspires awe."
Ralph
Waldo Emerson : "Men grind and grind in the mill of a truism, and nothing
comes out but what was put in. But the moment they desert the tradition for a
spontaneous thought, then poetry, wit, hope, virtue, learning, anecdote, all
flock to their aid."
I
was brought up to believe that lemmings have sudden population explosions, and
as a result they go running in their millions to the sea and drown themselves.
For well over thirty years I never questioned the story. It came to me from the
'adult' world and was therefore reliable. I have now discovered that lemmings do
not commit mass suicide.
The
original view of the NZ moa was that it stood upright, with its head soaring
above the tall grasses on a near-vertical neck, but now we are told that the
neck bones were assembled the wrong way. The bird actually stooped.
It
was once firmly believed by many scientists that there was intelligent,
civilised life on Mars.
It
was also believed that the solar system turned with the earth at its centre.
It
was also believed that if a train went faster than a galloping horse, all the
air would be sucked out of the carriages and the occupants would suffocate to
death.
There
are thousands of such misconceptions, errors, and traditional views, but truth
has prevailed and most people now believe the revised information.
But
there are always the people who want to hang on to errors. Like the Japanese
soldier, who remained faithfully on the island he was ordered to guard, for
forty years because he thought the war was still in progress, and had to be
convinced by a letter from his emperor that the war was in fact over, there are
people in the Church who hold tenaciously to errors, despite the fact that they
have a letter from the emperor - the Bible - telling them that the facts are not
as they believe them to be.
I
was carrying a four-year old girl through a supermarket one day, when she became
scared and told me not to go near the back rooms, because, she said, "that
was where they cut up the children." I took the child to the doorway and
let her see the plain, ordinary rooms. The truth set the child free and she was
no longer afraid of those rooms.
Jesus
said : "You make the commandment of God of no effect by your
tradition!" In the context, he was speaking to the religious people, who
had twisted the meaning of scripture to justify their sin. Jesus stripped away
their hypocrisy. He wanted these people to do what the commandment said, not
what they wanted it to say.
An
example of how the truth can be twisted is found in a small book by Francis P.
Martin, called 'Hung by the Tongue'
In
the foreword by John F. Stephens, Ph.D. it is claimed that "all sickness
is Satanic oppression Acts 10:38." , but the Bible actually says
something different to this.
The
verse which Mr. Stephens quotes actually says that Jesus "went about doing
good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil . . ." Notice that the
verse does NOT say that all sickness is caused by Satan.
The
Bible says that sickness is a result of several causes.
1.
The curse on Creation - Gen. 3. "In pain you shall bring forth
children . . . Cursed is the ground . . . thorns and thistles." Dying and
death came in because of sin.
2.
Disobedience. If Israel obeyed God, God promised to defend them from the
diseases common to Egypt . Ex. 15:26,27.
3.
God. It was God who struck Moses with leprosy Ex.4:6. It was God who said
"Who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind?" - Ex. 4:11.
It was God who struck the cattle of Egypt with disease - Ex. 9:6 and the
Egyptians with boils - 9:11.
4.
Satan, with permission from God. Job 2:6,7, Luke 13:16, and 1 Tim. 1:20.
5.
Ignorance or disregard of simple health rules. "There is death in
the pot" - 2 Kings 4:40. "The law of the wise is a fountain of life,
to turn one away from the snares of death." - Prov. 13:14.
Illness
is a part of this age. It may be caused by inherited faulty genes, or
environmental disruption, the repercussions of warfare, or foolishness. God
allows it to occur for His own reasons, which we are not usually privy to.
(The
man born blind - John 9 - the man was born blind not because his parents sinned,
but for the glory of God, that the works of God should be revealed in him".
Timothy
had frequent illnesses, for which a remedy was suggested by Paul :
"Use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities
(illnesses)" 1 Tim.5:23.
Food,
rather than God's power, is recommended for an aid to good health in Psalm
104:15 "Wine makes glad the heart of man, oil (makes) his face shine, and
bread (strengthens) his heart."
James
5:13 - 16 is more about spiritual sins and the healing of a sin-scarred life,
than physical sickness.
It
is a gross overstatement to say that all sickness is caused by Satan. We need to
have a wider, more balanced view, and accept that God is wiser and deeper than
Man, and that His plans extend through time in so many ways, through so many
generations, we can never hope to see the complete view of what He is doing. We
need to see that life is more complex than it appears. Simplistic remedies often
lead to despair - as in the case of the sincere Christian who slowly dies of
cancer, despite having tremendous faith. There are many other causes (besides
Satan) for the so-called bad things which happen to all of us through our lives.
Francis
Martin begins his theme by quoting Prov. 23:7 "As a man thinks in his
heart, so is he."
At
first reading, this statement sounds like : 'Whatever you believe about yourself
in your heart will come true in your life' - but the verse has been ripped in
half! The whole verse is about the miserly person, who pretends to be
generous, but who is really miserly underneath.
The
whole passage starts in 6 and finishes in 8. What it means is "Don't
waste your time with miserly people. They will pretend to be generous, but they
will actually be counting the cost of everything they do." The effect of
keeping company with hard, grudging, miserly people is negative. They will drag
you down, waste your time, spoil your generous attitude, and use you as a pawn.
The
LB says : "Don't associate with evil men; don't long for their favour and
gifts. Their kindness is a trick; they want to use you as their pawn. The
delicious food they serve will turn sour in your stomach and you will vomit it,
and have to take back your words of appreciation for their "kindness."
"
"As
a man thinks in his heart, so is he" = as the miserly person thinks in his
heart, so is he, though he may not appear to be like that outwardly.
Consequently,
the verse quoted by Mr Martin, is not a "spiritual principle" as he
claims, but rather a text pulled out of context.
There
is almost no end to this kind of thing.
2
Knocking
on doors and Mary
BUT
WHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY SAY?
I
think this question is fundamental to our lives as Christians. If we do not read
the Bible and take what we read without adding or taking away from it, we will
fall into the same errors which Jesus so roundly castigated the religious
leaders for.
In
the book of Revelation 3:20 we see a word-picture of Jesus standing at a door
and knocking. This has been used in many ways to show how God knocks at the
heart of a sinner, and that is fair enough. He does call sinners to repentance.
But the truth of the verse is that Jesus is knocking at the door of the Church!
The Christians have locked Jesus out! How can a church survive without
the Founder and Creator of the Church? Logically, they cannot.
The
main characteristic of the church behind the door is lukewarmness. To make
something lukewarm, you mix hot with cold. The heat of God's truth has been
adulterated with the coldness of . . . what? Traditions, rituals, ceremonies?
You decide.
A
dear Christian Bible-teacher I have spent many hours with had a catch-phrase
which I have never forgotten. She would look straight at me and say "But
what does it say?" That is a very good question. When we read the
Bible, we must ask ourselves just what exactly are we reading? What precisely is
God telling us?
For
example, I was browsing through a beautifully illustrated Bible-story book when
I came to the story of Elijah. Across one and a half pages was a wonderful
picture of Elijah, sitting in a chariot, pulled by fiery horses, ascending into
the sky. Elisha stood on the ground watching. The principle was OK. God
took Elijah. But the method was not what the Bible said. 2 Kings 2:11
says "Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot
of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and
Elijah went up by a whirlwind . . ."
Does
it matter? Of course it matters! The truth is the most important thing in the
universe. Once a part of truth is lost or twisted, errors can grow, and the
snow-balling effect occurs, until the original truth is totally buried.
Take
the Roman Catholic doctrine of Mary. (The following is not aimed at
offending Catholics - just an attempt to get the truth)
In
general, Roman Catholics believe that
1.
Mary was a virgin all her life
2.
She was sinless
3.
She was taken up into heaven (The assumption)
4.
She intercedes in heaven on our behalf
5.
She shares the throne of God with her son Jesus
6.
She is to be venerated above all other women
The
truth is quite different.
1.
Mary had many children.
This means that she could not possibly have remained a virgin. Mat. 13: 55, 56.
"Is not this (Jesus') mother called Mary, and his (Jesus') brothers James,
Joses, Simon and Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us?"
2.
Mary knew she was a sinner.
She herself said "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in
God my Saviour" Luke 1:47. Mary needed a Saviour, therefore she must have
been a sinner who needed to be saved.
Lev.
12:2 - 8 teaches that if a woman conceives and bears a male child, she is to
remain ceremonially unclean for forty days, at the end of which time she is to
bring an offering to the temple. Mary obeyed this law. "So when they had
performed all things according to the law of the Lord . . ." Luke 2"39
(7 days + 33 days. The "eighth day is the first of the thirty three). So
Mary showed that she was in need of purification.
As
Jesus himself said : "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit" John 3:6. "Flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God" 1 Cor. 15:50. "The soul that sins,
it shall die" Ezek. 18:4. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us." 1 John 1:8.
3.
There is no mention anywhere in the Bible of Mary ascending to heaven.
Rather, she disappears from the story in the book of Acts, without any special
comment.
If
she did go to heaven, she would have to go in her proper time, because the Bible
says that Jesus was the "firstfruits" of the dead, that is, Jesus was
the first to rise from the dead. "But now is Christ risen from the dead,
and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep (i.e. died)"
1 Cor. 15:20
In
1 Thess. 4:16 we are told that, when jesus returns to take the reigns of
government over planet earth : " . . . the dead in Christ shall rise
first." So Mary must still be dead, in her "sleep", waiting,
along with everyone else, for the resurrection.
4.
Mary does not intercede on anyone's behalf.
"For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ
Jesus." 1 Tim. 2:5. "And as it is appointed for men (mankind) to die
once, but after this the judgement, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins
of many." Heb.9:27. Mary, like everyone else, died, (once) and awaits the
day of judgement. (Judgement can mean rewards as well as punishments.)
5.
Jesus gave his life for all sinners, and finished the work by himself.
"Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith (without Mary's help), who,
for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and
has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." Heb. 12:2 (No mention
of Mary sitting with him).
6.
Mary is not to be venerated above all women.
When the angel Gabriel spoke to Mary, Luke 1:28, he said : "Blessed are you
among women." Among, not above. (The same was said of Jael,
who killed Sisera : "Most blessed among women is Jael . . . blessed
is she among women in tents." Jud.5:24. God does not elevate Mary
above other women.
The
place of Mary is about the same level as any other godly woman. For examples of
this are :
A.
John 2 where Jesus spoke respectfully to her at a wedding in Cana : "Woman,
what does your concern have to do with me?" This shows that Mary was not to
have any power or authority to interfere with her Son's work.
B.
Mat. 12:47. When jesus' mother and brethren were trying to get to him through a
crowd, Jesus said : "Whoever does the will of my Father is my brother and
sister and mother". This puts Mary on the same footing as any other
believer.
C.
John 19: 25 - 27. When jesus was on the cross he said to John "Behold your
mother!" and to his mother "Woman, behold your son!". After this
John says "And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home."
Here was a good opportunity to mention some special event concerning Mary, but
none is added.
D.
Acts 1:14. After Jesus has gone to heaven we are told about the disciples :
"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the
women and Mary the mother of jesus, and his brothers." So Mary is just one
of the believers, praying along with everyone else, and this is the last mention
of her in the Bible.
Tradition
however, knows nothing of truth. Roman Catholic dogma, like the Talmud of the
Jews, has grown luxuriantly, embellishing the original words with so much
additional material that the original is effectively cancelled out.
Papal
decrees elevated Mary to such a high position that she was regarded as shielded
from sin by divine grace. This notion, which prevailed from the 12th century,
was developed into a papal decree on Dec. 8th 1854. On Nov. 1st 1950 the Bull
called Munificentissimus Deus declared the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. This
dogma asserts that "the Virgin Mary, the Immaculate Mother of God, when the
course of her life was finished, was taken up, body and soul, into the glory of
heaven." (Acta Apostolicae Sedis XXXII 1950, page 753 -773).
"Tis
strange - but true; for truth is always strange; Stranger than fiction."
Lord Byron.
"The
least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold."
Aristotle.
3
Wedges
and Lies
A
wedge is, (seen from one side) a triangular shape. Try to picture a wedge
in your mind, lying with one of its flat sides horizontal. We will call this
horizontal side the base line of truth. At one point the wedge is sharp, but its
sides do not run parallel. The further one travels from the tip, the further
apart are the two sides. Error is like this. We start with a small error, but,
given time and the additional errors of misguided people, we move further and
further from the original truth.
Now
suppose you could spot an error the moment it occurred. Before the error had a
chance to proceed, you could destroy the shape of the wedge before it started to
grow. Logically, once you begin to follow an error, there is no limit to the
distance you will end up apart from the base line of truth.
The
lies which Satan told in the Garden were like the departure from the base
line. Adam and Eve were deceived into believing half-truths. They thought they
would never die. Today there are dozens of misconceptions about death. Astral
travel, reincarnation, purgatory, heaven, hell, Nirvana, dream-life, and so on.
There is no clear consensus in any general population as to what exactly happens
after we die. Even Christians are divided fiercely over the issue - some say we
go to heaven when we die, others say we sleep the sleep of death (total
extinction) in the grave until the resurrection. Who is right?
It
would pay for each of us to study the Bible and find out. The alternative is is
go through life believing a load of errors, traditions and misconceptions.
Does
it matter how sincere we are in what we believe if we are wrong?
4
Going
to Heaven
Sophocles
: "How dreadful knowledge of truth can be when there's no help in
truth!"
Charles
Sanders Pierce : "Every man is fully satisfied that there is such a thing
as truth, or he would not ask any questions."
Charismatic
leader Roberts Liardon said that one afternoon in 1974, when he was 8 years old,
he was caught up into heaven where he says he met Jesus face to face. Liardon,
who now directs his own world wide ministry in Laguna Hills, California, says
that Jesus was "about six feet tall, with sandy brown hair, not real short,
and not too long." In his book "I Saw Heaven" Liardon says that
Jesus escorted him through the gates of heaven where he saw golden streets,
dazzling flowers, plenty of mansions, trees that "swayed back and forth
dancing and praising as we passed" and a "knee-deep, crystal
clear" river of life.
Liardon
claims that, when Jesus walked him to the heavenly throne room of God, he
noticed "three storage houses 500 to 600 yards away" which, he found
out were full of "all of the parts of the human body that people on earth
need . . ."
Other
people have claimed similar visions, or trips, to heaven (or hell). These
include Paul Yonggi Cho, Dr. Richard Eby, Betty Malz, Kenneth Hagin, Marietta
Davis, Mary K. Baxter and Morris Cerullo - all leaders and teachers in the
Christian Church.
I
do not for a moment want to question any of these people as far as their
sincerity or integrity are concerned. What I would like to do is compare their
experiences with the Bible, and see if there is a match.
The
most obvious problem with visions of heaven stories is the clear Biblical
affirmation that heaven is a place beyond our ability to describe. Paul, who was
"caught up to the third heaven", "heard inexpressible things,
things that man is not permitted to tell." 2 Cor. 12:2,4 NIV. With this in
mind then, the problems with all "I went to heaven" stories are (1.)
"Why are these people permitted to tell the world about it, when
Paul was not? and (2.) Why are these people able to tell the world about
it?.
Paul
stated that what he heard was inexpressible, yet a growing number of
charismatic leaders are not only publishing everything they experience, but are
also expressing it in vivid detail, down to the colour of heavenly grass, trees
and mansions, and even the colour of Christ's hair.
Another
point to notice is the mention, in several of the visions, of
"mansions". As Jesus said, "In my Father's house are many
mansions . . . I go to prepare a place for you." John 14:2.
Vines
Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says that the Greek for
"mansion" is "mone" which means primarily 'a staying' or
'abiding'. The same Greek word is translated as 'abode' in verse 23. Vines says
"There is nothing in the word to indicate separate compartments in heaven;
neither does it suggest temporary resting-places on the road." Despite this
clear warning, many modern translations render the verse as "In my Father's
house are many rooms . . ."
Visions
of heaven frequently include descriptions of multi-roomed Victorian castle-like
buildings, so who is right - the visionary or the Bible?
The
same question can be asked about the many descriptions of Jesus. In some visions
he has sandy brown hair, while in others he has brown hair, or golden locks, or
dark hair. It is always possible that Jesus looks different at different times,
but none of the descriptions from the visionaries match the description of him
in the Bible. "His head and hair were white, like wool, as white as snow,
and his eyes were like a blazing fire" Rev. 1:14. (For further information,
see Christian Research Journal, Spring 1993)
I
am not in the slightest bit sceptical about the existence of Jesus or heaven.
The Bible describes both in terms of realities. But what are we to believe when
we have a contradiction between what someone says, and what the Bible says?
Which description is true? Does it matter if several world-famous Christian
leaders all have similar visions? If a thousand Christian leaders all
said that they saw Jesus with black hair, would that make it true?
These
are questions we must ask whenever we encounter something different to the words
of the Bible.
5
Angels,
Mormons and the Bible
A
book came out many years ago, called Angels on Assignment. The author claimed to
have met with, talked to, and learned many wonderful things about God, angels
and other spiritual things. Most of what the angels said was in line with the
Bible, but some of it was completely out of line, yet, taken together with the
accurate things, the reader could easily have swallowed the error with the
truth.
The
Worldwide Church of God has undergone a dramatic change. Members of its ranks,
the 'steering committee' you might say, for all doctrinal matters, decided to
have a look at some of the church's beliefs. To their surprise, they discovered
that their beliefs were not consistent with what the Bible said. Consequently,
further checks were made on other beliefs of the church, which led to a
landslide of revisions. Today, after losing thousands of members, the Worldwide
Church of God declares itself to be so in line with the Bible that it should be
accepted as just another branch of the Protestant Mainline Churches.
I
have personally helped Mormons to examine their own beliefs. They usually react
with surprise, embarrassment and shame when they hear, spelled out clearly to
them, just what exactly they believe. (There are two main ways of dealing with
cults. One way is to keep showing them what the Bible says. The other way is to
show them what they believe - their history, the character of their own
founders, and their beliefs. Both ways are effective.)
A
friend of mine kept taking the Mormons back to one of their claims. "Do you
mean to say" he said, "That you actually believe . . ."
Eventually, and rather sheepishly, the Mormons retreated from the door, having
realised for the first time how foolish their statement really sounded.
Thomas
Jefferson : "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to
tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
Many
people are not able to agree with the above statement. They are scared to think
about the possibility of being wrong. They justify themselves. They rest on
someone else's scholarship, or sermon. They claim to have no time to study the
problem for themselves.
For
example, how many Christians (of a few years experience) believe in the Trinity,
the deity of Christ, His Return, the general Resurrection of all the dead, and
Judgement Day? Probably most. But ask them to show, from the Bible they carry,
where the Bible actually says these things, and they will usually flounder. So
how do they know these things? Because someone else told them. So how do they
know what they believe is true? They trust those who have told them.
This
is why all religions grow so strong. The followers believe what they are told.
Without question. One generation tells the next, and so on, training and
indoctrinating the children and new converts. When Jesus challenged the Jewish
authorities, he came against the Talmudic traditions, which the Jews held to be
on par with God's Word. They taught each new generation from childhood that the
writings of the fathers were reliable wisdom. They indoctrinated and
brain-washed with fanatical efficiency.
But
it wasn't the truth.
Every
culture has similar problems. Educating the rising generation is always a matter
of myth and lies, truth and tradition.
6
Education
The
writings of Dr. Spock were like a Bible to millions of parents, and a whole
generation was raised - educated - in the West on what Dr. Spok said, but many
of his ideas have now been proved wrong, or at best in need of revision. What
was originally received as truth, is now seen to be error.
In
the West, the education system is generally accepted as an enduring,
stable institution, but built into are many inconsistencies - noted by Reg and
Dena Leighton, in the May 1984 Australian Women's Weekly. Here are some areas in
which the truth has been lacking :
1.
Girls are better pupils.
It
was thought in the past that girls made better pupils than boys. Perhaps in some
cases it appeared so, but there is absolutely no evidence (that I know of) that
the sex of a child will affect his or her overall performance as a student. What
is true is that a passive, docile child, is more easily moulded into the school
system, whereas out-going, extrovert children are more difficult to control.
More boys than girls fall into this category, hence the lie that boys were not
as good at school than girls.
2.
Long hours of study ensure good results.
It
is now known that quality is more important than quantity. Methods of making the
most of shorter times ensure better results than long hours of daydreaming,
searching for lost books or mislaid information, interruptions and so on.
3.
Success at school ensures success later.
It
is impossible to prove this. A student who does poorly may, with determination,
drive, better opportunities and high motivation, make more money and achieve a
higher status job than a student who flies through with top marks. Another
question we need to ask is what constitutes success?
On
the other hand, there are cases (such as Winston Churchill) who did poorly at
school, but rose to succeed in later life.
4.
An IQ test is a true indicator of potential.
Such
tests measure a child's skills in verbal, mathematical, conceptual and problem
solving areas, but they do not usually test mechanical abilities, personality,
artistic flair and creative thinking.
If
a teacher has a numerical assessment of his or her pupils, this may adversely
affect the way he or she relates to the pupils. A low-rating may become a
self-fulfilling prophecy.
5.
School is strictly for children.
Many
adults are now returning to the classrooms, to gain degrees or qualifications
they missed out on when they were young, or to learn new skills.
6.
Bright children will learn despite their teachers.
Gifted
and specially intelligent children need talented teachers, but what happens when
gifted children are not encouraged? They become bored, restless and frequently
get into trouble.
7.
Spend more money on schools and the standard of education will rise.
It
is more important to spend money wisely than in great quantities. Studies have
shown that average grades have gone up after a small purchase of books, videos
or computers, but little has changed after whole new buildings were provided.
8.
School should be started as soon as possible.
Studies
have shown that children who start later always catch up to those who have
started earlier. Some studies have shown that formal schooling should not start
until children are eight or nine.
9.
Education should be left to the professionals.
Learning
begins long before children go to school. Parents are the best educators
usually, teaching children how to talk, dress, clean, cook, build, garden,
collect, explore, ask and so on. Without realising it, parents teach their
children a huge range of skills - as well as teaching morals, politics,
spiritual values and social communication - which is why many schools today are
encouraging the parents to share time in the school with the children.
10.
Small classes are better than large classes.
Despite
numerous studies it has never been proven that children learn more in a class of
15 or 35, but it has been shown that classes of 5 or 6 have a beneficially
effect on the children's ability to learn because of the direct and personalised
instruction, but there are other factors besides the number of children present
which affect the matter. Environment, the physical surroundings of the
classroom, the emotional security of the students, and most important the
qualities of the teacher all play a part.
"Only
the educated are free" - Epictetus (55-135 BC)
7
How
Young is the Earth?
Most
children are brought up to believe that the earth and the universe are very old,
that is, millions or billions of years old, but there is a large amount of
scientific evidence which indicates that this conclusion is totally wrong. Much
of the evidence indicates that the earth and universe are in fact only a few
thousand years old.
Here
is some of that evidence.
THE
ROTATIONAL SPEED OF GALAXIES
The
stars of our galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate around the galactic centre at
different speeds. The inner ones rotate faster than the outer ones. From
observations, including those made by the Hubble telescope, many scientists have
realised that the shape of our galaxy does not match its proposed age, which is
usually measured in billions of years.
If
our galaxy is as old as 10 billion years, it should not have its present spiral
shape, but instead should be a featureless mass of scattered stars.
This
observed phenomena is called the "winding-up dilemma" and many
theories have been proposed to account for it, all of which have come and gone.
The
most logical conclusion is that our galaxy is really very young, and that it was
formed and set in motion only a very short time ago - perhaps only a few
thousand years - otherwise it would not have its present shape.
COMETS
DISINTEGRATE QUICKLY
Comets
are usually said to be the same age as our solar system, which is usually said
to be about 5 billion years. The presence of comets totally contradicts this.
Comets
which orbit close to our sun always lose a huge amount of their material. Even
the biggest comet possible could not last much longer than 100,000 years at this
rate, yet the average maximum age for a comet is about 10,000 years. If our
solar system is as old as some scientists say, there should not be any comets in
it.
Possible
theories to explain this problem are that :
1.
comets might come from an unobserved 'Oort cloud' which is said to be well
beyond the orbit of Pluto,
2.
comets might come from improbable interactions between passing stars which might
knock them into our solar system,
3.
comets might come from some sort of planetary effect.
So
far none of these three theories have been substantiated by any observed or
calculated proof.
The
best conclusion which explains the presence of comets is that they are very
young - perhaps only a few thousand years - otherwise they would not be there.
MUD
ON THE SEA FLOOR
Every
year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the
continents. This material is washed down from the land by rivers and deposited
on the floor of the ocean, where it accumulates as sediment on the hard basaltic
ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the
continental shelves, is less than 400 metres.
How
old is the earth? Some theories say about three billion years. If the earth is
three billion years old we should expect to find sedimentary layers several
kilometres deep, but of course we do not. The present depth of sediment is
consistent with a very young earth.
One
theory for getting rid of the sediment is plate tectonic subduction. This means
that the sea floor slides slowly beneath the continents, taking some sediment
with it (about 1 or 2 cm per year). This process removes about 1 billion tons
per year. Obviously, this leave about 24 billions tons to account for, which
does not exist.
SODIUM
IN SEA WATER
Every
year, rivers carry about 450 million tons of sodium off the land and into the
sea. Only 27% of this sodium leaves the sea in different ways, leaving the
remaining 73% in the oceans. This means that the sodium content of the oceans
must be steadily increasing, which presents a very difficult problem to those
who say that the oceans, along with the earth are three billion years old.
The
oceans should be outstandingly salty today if they are as old as the theories
say they are, but if the earth is relatively young, then present saltiness
(salinity) is about what we should expect to find.
EARTH"S
DECAYING MAGNETIC FIELD
The
total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a
factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years. If the earth is as old as some theories
would have us believe, the magnetic field should have long disappeared, but if
the earth is only a few thousand years old, the present magnetic field is
exactly what we would expect to find.
BENT
STRATA
In
many mountainous areas, strata thousands of metres thick are bent and folded
into hairpin shapes. The usual theory is that, millions of years ago, these
strata were buried as relatively horizontal or straight layers of sediment, and
then later bent, but modern observers have noted that the bending has not
cracked or disrupted the layers.
The
only possible explanation for this is that the layers of strata were formed very
quickly, and bent into their present shapes very soon after they were formed.
This means that the formations must be very young. Since no such formation of
similar bent strata is occurring today, the formation of these shapes must also
have been quite recent, perhaps only a few thousand years ago - otherwise they
would not exist.
RADIOHALOS
Radio
halos are rings of colour which form around microscopic bits of radioactive
minerals in rock crystals. They are records of radioactive decay.
For
example Polonium-210 radiohalos in three different layers of rock in the
Colorado plateau indicate that they were each deposited within months of each
other. The usual estimate for their deposition is hundreds of millions of years,
but the radiohalos would not be the way they are if time periods of this size
were allowed for.
HELIUM
All
naturally occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they
decay. If such decay took place through billions of years, much helium should be
in the earth's atmosphere. At the same time, helium is being lost all the time
to space, but at a very low rate.
Working
with the amount of helium being produced and the amount being lost, we find that
earth's atmosphere has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have
accumulated if the earth is several billion years old. Logically, the earth must
be much younger that the theories say it is.
Another
measurement of the age of the earth can be calculated from the rate of
radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks. These rocks are supposed to be billions of
years old, yet their helium has still not escaped into the atmosphere as it
should have by now.
The
helium retention of these rocks shows that they must be only a few thousands of
years old, otherwise they would not contain so much helium.
palaeontologists
STONE
AGE SKELETONS
Man,
that is theoretical primitive Man, is supposed to have been on earth for
millions of years. The Stone Age, as it is called, was supposed to have lasted
about 100,000 years, during which time Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal men were
supposed to have numbered around 10 million. All that time they were burying
their dead with artefacts.
If
this is so, then there should be about 4 billion bodies available to examine.
Buried bones can last for many thousands of years - some scientists
(palaeontologists) say well over 100,000 years in good conditions, yet there are
hardly any bones to be found.
Only
a few thousand bodies and a handful of artefacts have been found so far - this
implies that the so-called Stone Age was only a few hundred years, which means
that earth's history is a lot shorter than many people believe.
HUMAN
POPULATION
In
modern times human populations are seen to be increasing consistently at more
than 1% per year. Allowing for disease, famine, war and so forth, and taking a
much more conservative figure of 0.5% every year, we can work backwards to
estimate the population of the world in the past. At the rate chosen, it would
take only about 4,000 to 5,000 years, starting with four couples, to reach
present world population figures.
RADIOMETRIC
DATING METHODS
Carbon-dating
is often used to determine the age of an object, but contrary to popular belief,
carbon-dating has nothing to do with millions of years. Even with the best
analytical equipment available today, the carbon-dating method can be used only
to make estimates to an upper limit of 100,000 years.
What
usually happens is that those who operate the carbon-dating system calibrate the
measurements with great age already built into it. An assumption is made that
the substance or object to be tested is already x number of years old, so this
is added to the final answer, thus supposedly providing support for what was
already assumed.
Carbon-dating
can only date things which contain organic carbon - which rules out most fossil
bones.
As
an example of how unreliable carbon dating methods are : Carbon dating of wood
found under lava, which came from the Rangitoto eruption about 200 years ago
gave it about the correct age. But when the lava on top of the wood was tested,
the result gave it an age of half a million years. How can the lava be older
than the wood under it?
As
an example of how unreliable carbon-dating is :
living
molluscs have had their shells carbon dated at 2,300 years,
new
wood was dated at 10,000 years,
mortar
from Oxford castle which is about 800 years old was dated as 7370 years,
and
freshly killed seals were dated as 1300 years
while
mummified seals only 30 years old were dated as 4,600 years.
How
too, can a dating method which is so far out with known dates, be used to
measure things in terms of millions of years?
FOSSILS
What
is a fossil? Usually, it is a plant or animals which has been buried quickly and
thoroughly by water-borne sediment. Most fossils show evidence of rapid burial
because the impression made by softer tissue is still there.
Fossils
are said to be millions of years old, yet some fossil bones have been found with
the remains of blood cells still in them. How can this be, if the bones are
millions of years old? The evidence points to a recent event, otherwise decay
would have obliterated the tissues completely.
UNDERSEA
RIVER-MOUTHS
When
rivers reach the sea, they usually continue into the water, dropping their
sediments in a fan-shape. The Nile is an obvious example of this, where the
delta is used clearly seen on an atlas.
The
average rate of silt-dumping under the sea can be measured, and projections made
forward and backward in time, which in turn can give us an estimate of the age
of the river.
At
present average rates, the fan-shaped deposits should be enormously bigger than
they are, if the earth is as old as we are told. But if the earth is only a few
thousand years old, and present rates of erosion and silt-dumping have remained
constant, then the earth must be only a few thousand years old.
PRESSURE
OF OIL FIELDS
Rocks
around oil beds are not stable. measurements have shown that they gradually give
way to the enormous pressures exerted by the oil beds under and inside them. If
oil is as old as we are usually told it is, then it should not be trapped so
securely under the rock - but if oil beds are only a few thousand years old,
then we should find them as they are at present.
The
powerful pressures found within oil beds indicates that they and the rock they
are a part of were formed about 10,000 years ago.
(It
is also known that oil and coal can be produced in a matter of weeks or even
hours in the case of oil, using heat and pressure.)
LAND
EROSION
Present-day
rates of erosion can be quite rapid. Some mountain ranges are being eroded away
at 2 to 3 cm per year. This may not sound much, but multiply it over a few
million years and the entire mountain range is gone. Even allowing for upthrust
forces of the earth's crust, the present shape of the earth, given a few million
years, should not be what we see today.
But
if the earth is only a few thousand years old, and given that erosion has been
relatively unchanged, the present shape of the earth is what we would expect to
find.
FORMATION
OF COAL
Coal
(and oil and gas) are called fossil fuels because they can be burned by Man.
Coal is the remains of wood, mainly trees, which were buried very quickly and
covered, or sealed, thus preventing the usual breakdown of the cellulose - as we
see when a tree falls to the ground in a forest. Under the seal of sediment, the
wood turns black and becomes coal.
How
is a coal field formed. It must be a rapid event, because natural processes are
quick to recycle wood if they are allowed to proceed. Coal fields are often very
thick, sometimes whole kilometres thick, representing millions and millions of
buried trees.
One
theory has it coal is formed by forests constantly dropping leaf and twig
litter, which builds up over millions of years. Nowhere in the world has this
been seen to be happening. What usually happens is that the litter becomes
humus, on which the successive generations of trees feed, thus keeping the layer
of humus much the same over thousands of years.
Coal
fields are full of tree trunks, which lie at all angles, as if they were tumbled
and pushed roughly together. Often the trunks stand vertically through other
layers, which shows that rapid burial took place, otherwise the upper part of
the trunk would have long decayed.
Coal
also often contains marine fossils, which shows that it was not formed in a
fresh-water swamp.
Because
coal does not require millions of years to form, its presence indicates that the
earth may be much younger than some people would believe.
All
the above can be said of oil too.
METEORITE
DUST
Space
researchers were worried that when the first vehicles, or the first men landed
on the moon, they would sink into something like 60 metres of dust. This figure
was arrived at by a simple calculation based on the presumed age of the earth
and moon times the amount of meteorite and cosmic dust dropping down.
If
- as it was correctly reasoned - the moon had been there for millions of years,
there should be a large quantity of dust on the surface, sufficient to soak up
any moon lander - hence the large, round feet on the lander, to help prevent it
from sinking in.
If,
on the other hand, the earth and moon were very young, perhaps only a few
thousand years old, the amount of dust on the moon should be almost
insignificant.
As
we all know now, the astronauts found a very thin layer of dust, which shows
that the moon is probably very young.
THERMODYNAMICS
It
is a fact that all natural processes tend to go from a higher energy level to a
lower energy level. To illustrate this, take a brand new car. It arrives as a
fully organised machine, with everything working, clean and complete - but leave
it outside for a few years and drive it for a while and it gradually falls
apart. The paint work flakes off, the plastic perishes and cracks, the tyres
wear down . . . eventually it rusts away and is no longer a car.
The
world and the universe show the same process. Whole, complete systems are
gradually winding down, or falling apart. Galaxies are flying apart. The earth
is cooling. The gravitational forces in the earth are weakening. Animal and
plant species are disappearing with no new species taking their places. The land
is eroding away. The seas are becoming saltier. The atmosphere is degrading.
It
should be obvious that a system which is slowly winding down must have, at some
point in the past, been 'wound up' to start it all off. It should also be
obvious that no disorganised collection of things is working the other way today
- that is, nowhere do we find the opposite to the laws of thermodynamics.
Disorder never forms into order without some external help. (For example, a
house left to itself, will not keep itself clean and tidy without an intelligent
organiser).
CONCLUSION
Reasons
why people believe that the earth is millions of years old :
1.
They were taught it at school,
2.
They think science in general teaches this unanimously
3.
They get this message from books, videos, movies, advertising, television
programs, songs, paintings, and they hear it from experts in teaching positions,
4.
They hardly ever hear the other side of the argument.
8
Questions
and de Bono's Puzzle
Most
people of world are occupied at one time or another with a quest for truth.
Crimes are investigated, lawyers argue for and against, detectives investigate,
police take down names and addresses, children ask questions, movie directors
find out histories and design sets, costumes and art to suit . . . and
television provides what is meant to be a constant supply of information, some
of which is true, some false, some a mixture. Advertising tries to convince us
of the truth about a product, or just the truths which are convenient.
In
every area of our lives the truth matters.
When
truth is not shown to be revealed, people get upset. When a massacre is hidden,
or an offence covered over, a whole nation may become interested, such as with
the Watergate incident. And who really shot Kennedy? Was there an accomplice?
And where did those two young people go when their boat was found empty? Was the
captain of the Titanic really urged to move his ship at an unwise speed by one
of his passengers? Thousands of questions, thousands of answers, all aimed at
finding out the truth.
People
go through life asking why, and where, and who and what, and when, and all the
variables in between. In most cases the questions may seem mundane, but they are
still based on a search for what is true.
Libraries
are full of millions of facts, which some people spend years searching through
as part of their research projects. Other people in the world are busy massing
facts, for documentaries, books, videos or scientific programs. Millions of
computers are at this very moment recording, processing and storing facts, and
why? Because humans (made in the image of a truth-loving God) are trying to know
the truth too.
But
what is truth?
One
way of answering this is to ask what is NOT truth. By eliminating the errors, we
should arrive at something which has no errors. Like the classification system
developed by Linnaeus, which narrows a creature down through different
categories, restricting the definition until it can be only one thing and no
other.
Or
we can compare what we are thinking about with similar things, and with
different things, so that by comparison we may possibly decide what is the
truest version. C.S.Lewis went through a process similar to this when he
compared the different religions, which he called myths, until one day he
realised that behind them there must be a "true myth". The New
Testament was arrived at by a similar method, by comparing all the thousands of
fragments, quotes and copies, until the consensus of all the pieces defined what
was the most authentic. Errors were easy to spot because they were in the
minority.
Or
we may exhaustively examine what we want to define as true until we have
collected what we think is enough information about it to be sure that we have
defined it.
Or
it may be like a person who buys and trains a dog, until eventually that person
knows that particular dog from all others simply because of familiarity.
How
do we identify a counterfeit, except by comparing it with the original. How do
we know we have the original except by comparing it with fakes.
However,
the further we look into the truth the harder it becomes to find it. The nearer
to the truth we come, the more accurately it must be defined. It is the lack of
definition which leads so many people to ask sincere but foolish questions.
For
example, Edward de Bono once raised this question about God - the God of
the Bible - being omniscient. (All-knowing.) If God knows all things,
that is absolutely everything, then he should not be able to think. Why?
Because as soon as God tries to raise a question, or consider something, he
cannot go any further. He already knows the answer, or product, or outcome. So
said Edward de Bono.
This,
of course, is a question for theologians and philosophers, but even a layman
like myself can see the holes in the argument.
1.
What we humans mean by omniscience and what God means are
two different things. They are not totally different, but they are different
enough to make nonsense of Mr. Bono's question.
2.
Our definition of "think" may not be wide enough to include the
full meaning of "omniscience". Does omniscience really mean
all-knowing? or does it mean more than this? Omniscience might include the
ability to know all things, but transcend it in many other ways.
3.
Buried in the question are two entities : God and Man. God is the
Creator, Man is the creature. There is an enormous gap between the two. The
question I would like to ask is whether Man is capable of understanding
the God of the Bible well enough to deal with the problem which Mr. Bono raised.
I doubt it.
9
Chasing
the Moon
As
an illustration, I remember a time when I saw two children playing outside on
the path to their house. The four year old saw the moon, while she was standing
at one end of the path, and the two year old saw the same moon from the other
end of the path. The four year old walked down the path and thought the moon was
following her. She laughed and ran back to where she had started, saying that
her sister couldn't see the moon anymore because she had "taken it
away", and now she intended to keep it.
Could
an adult explain to that child about perspective, optical illusions and the
effect of distance on the relative positions of objects set with a spatial
framework? It is highly unlikely. The truth, though reasonably clear to an
adult, is totally obscure to an infant.
Edward
de Bono thought he had 'caught God out' with his question. What he was doing in
fact was :
1.
Betraying his lack of information
2.
Betraying his position as a creature rather than a Creator
3.
Using a very crude weapon to poke at his limited idea of the Almighty,
Everlasting Father.
It
is interesting that Jesus said "My sheep hear my voice, and I know
them, and they follow me." John 10:27. There is an intimacy implied in
these words. The shepherds of Jesus' day knew every sheep by name, and could
call them one by one to their side. The sheep could discern the difference
between one shepherd and another, and would come only to the one they trusted.
As far as the sheep were concerned, they knew the truth about their shepherd,
and of course Jesus the Great Shepherd, the Creator of the sheep, knows all
there is to know of his own.
William
Makepeace Thackeray : "Truth is one forever absolute, but opinion is truth
filtered through the moods, the blood, the disposition of the spectator."
Anias
Nin : "There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and
staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by
fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a
laborious mosaic."
So
we have arrived at an important step in the unveiling of truth. It is a matter
of definitions. It is a matter of knowing what something is, and what that same
something is not. It has a personal side and a technical side. It depends on
intelligent memory and the ability to think. Truth may exist without being known
to exist by humans. It does not need a human to understand it to be valid. It
can be valid without any human knowing it exists - like a mountain flower which
blooms and dies unappreciated and alone, or like a distant galaxy, which only a
20th century telescope could be used to discover.
Truth
and magic are closely linked. The magician tries to make people see things which
those same people know cannot be true. Rabbits, cars and elephants do not just
disappear, cards do not cut themselves in half or move around a deck by
themselves, people do not walk through walls, or fly, or survive swords passing
through them. The audience knows this, but it likes to think that reality, or
truth, can be changed. (Some people are more interested in finding out how the
trick was done - the alternative truth).
Magicians
make fun of truth. They throw the joke back at the audience. "You know this
can't possibly happen, but you think you saw it happen." The audience is
made to feel foolish and ignorant, yet bright and intelligent too, because it
thinks it knows that certain things are impossible.
And
why do we laugh at someone else's stupidity? Why is the fool considered
important in Shakespearean plays? Why do we need a foil to laugh at? Because the
fool, or clown, makes the audience feel smarter. Because the fool is out of
place in a world where most people think they know the truth. But do they?
I
challenged some people to tell me what a certain object on the floor was. It was
a shoe. They got it right first try. But then I explained that the shoe was made
of chemicals, molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles and so on, down to quarks
and beyond. So what we thought was a shoe, on one level of truth, was in fact a
complete mystery on other levels. Energy, light, gravity, electromagnetic fields
. . . the further we go, the harder the truth is to find.
So
what do most people do in a world full of different levels of truth? They settle
for the familiar. The world they know, through their senses and
some thought, is the world they accept as mostly the real one. Real to them that
is. They usually know in an abstract sort of way about other things - radio
waves, light waves, x rays and so on, but these are not the immediate experience,
so they become the irrelevant concepts of the shadows. The words they hear in
the background.
Which
is why science is rarely headline news in the newspapers. Reality for most
people is summed up by the main fare on television and other mass media. There
are various reasons for this of course, which other people more qualified than
me could do a better job of discussing, but as I see it, one of the main reasons
why people are content to live on only one level of truth is because they have
never been educated in any other.
Parents
raise their children to be, more or less, copies of themselves. Peer pressure,
the media, the entertainment industry, advertisers and others all add their
weight to the moulding process. One generation replaces the next with a copy of
itself. Cloning would be too hard a word. Replication would be closer to the
mark. The right kind of education can change the machinery, but the new birth is
the best way to correct the fault.
10
Truth
and Science
The
editorial in the Creation magazine March - May 1998 said "Compromise with
evolution and longageism has weakened and undermined the influence of
Christianity in our culture. Therefore it is not surprising to see an
unprecedented flourishing of all manner of crazy cults, occult practices, and
bizarre superstitions, even among the intelligentsia. This link between decades
of evolutionary brainwashing and the rise of irrational pseudo science is
confirmed by careful sociological research in, of all places, The Sceptical
Inquirer (Page 18 - 31, Summer 1980)
"The
authors of the research report make it clear that they expected that freedom
from 'the ancient myths of traditional religions' (as they regard the Bible)
would usher in a new era of rational, reasonable thought.
"Their
findings showed otherwise. Conservative (or 'traditional' or 'fundamentalist')
Christians, the most likely to reject evolution, were also the most likely to
reject 'occult and pseudo-scientific notions'.
'Furthermore
geographical surveys showed that in areas where such Darwin-rejecting churches
are the weakest, there is the greatest flourishing of cults, occult activity and
various forms of superstition.
"The
authors also state that it would be a mistake to assume that religious liberals
(e.g. those who endorse evolution, long ages, etc) had "superior minds of
great rationality"; they are in fact "much more likely to accept the
new superstitions". Those who declared themselves as having "no
religion or only nominal religion are especially likely to accept deviant,
exotic alternatives to Christianity, just as they are likely to accept Darwin.
Bible-believers are the ones who "appear most virtuous according to
scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating
in our society today."
The
word "science" comes from the root "to know". It is a way of
knowing the truth, or finding as much of it as possible. Interesting that the
further people go from the Bible, the more non-truth they are willing to
believe.
11
The
Church - what is it?
Since
the Bible itself claims to be, and is by believers claimed to be, the
source of truth, the theme of the following chapters will be centred mainly on
discovering what the Bible says about a selection of things. Obviously, this
book could not be exhaustive in its scope, because the number of subjects is too
vast to include them all, so the subjects chosen are mainly of interest to the
author, and, hopefully to many of the readers as well.
The
church - people, or building?
Some
people say : "I am going to church" and by that they mean they are
going to a certain building, while other people say the same thing and mean a
group of Christians, who might, for argument's sake be meeting in a field, or in
a house.
The
church is a group of Christians who are committed to each other, who meet
regularly for worship, prayer and sharing of meals, who are helped by elders.
The church refers to people living for and doing things for Christ. The 'Early
Church", meaning the believers who lived together in Jerusalem just after
Jesus ascended to heaven, met in homes and the synagogue, but when they were
expelled from the synagogue, they maintained home fellowships. The early church
grew at an incredible rate - until traditions set in, and extra rules and
regulations were imposed on the believers.
Nowhere
in the NT are Christians told to build a church building - convenient though it
may be. Nowhere are Christians told to wear special clothes . . . but today the
Church has become so complicated, the original shape of it has been buried.
Today
we have multitudes of denominations, orders, job titles, plans, books, halls,
centres, colleges, funding schemes, rituals, orders of service and so on, all of
which seem to serve good purposes, but where is the Church which Jesus started.
What has Man done to it?
"Church"
comes from the Greek "ekklesia" which means an assembly or meeting. It
does not refer to an organisation or a building. It has not denominational tag.
Wherever
a group of believers meet, elders can be elected or appointed, and there we have
a church. There is no need to sign a membership card, or even to attend every
week. The Christians should live around the same locality, and work there,
winning the neighbours through witnessing, hospitality and good works.
I
recommend the book "The Bride of Christ" by Ronald McKenzie, Craig
Printing Company Ltd. Invercargill.
How
did the original church grow? By splitting into small groups and expanding
through the homes. This is not to say that there is no place for a large
meeting, in a hall. Corporate worship is edifying and inspiring. But the central
building idea is not mandated in the NT - for several good reasons.
One
is that the building consumes huge amounts of money. Another is the immobility
of it. As populations change, the Christians cannot move with them, but remained
fixed in one spot. Another is the fact that community needs change constantly,
and a single building is usually too inflexible to change with the needs.
Another is the fact that most unbelievers think church buildings are strange and
even threatening places.
A
whole book could be written (and several already have) about the difference
between what Jesus set up, and what Man has built. The following summary may
help to expose the stark contrast between present day 'church' and the model
which Christians ought to be following:
There
is no scriptural warrant for :
one-pastor
churches
boring
sermons
silent
congregations
fixed,
permanent church buildings
professional
clergy
theological
schools or colleges
denominations
pulpits
benches
in a row
two
songs
a
prayer
the
offering
the
Sunday morning sermon
church
splits over doctrine
church
doctrinal statements
compulsory
tithing
wimpy
denunciations of error
neckties
and suits to be worn at meetings
steeples
lecterns
altar
rails
church
buildings
Sunday
School
Children's
Church
Youth
Ministries
churches
without elders
Separating
the people of God into individual small groups in separate rooms for special
treatment/lessons/fellowship, though there are times when this is very useful
and practical.
Some
Christian meetings ban women from speaking or praying, but there are several NT
verses which show that women are permitted to contribute in every way to the
fellowship. Acts 2:17, 18. 1Cor. 14:26. 1Cor. 11:4,5. Acts 18:1 - 5, 18 - 26.
Romans 13:7. 1Tim.5:2 - possible refers to "lady elders".
As
1Cor. 14:26 says "Whenever you come together, EACH OF YOU has a psalm, has
a teaching, has a language, has a revelation, has an interpretation . . ."
Open meetings give the reigns back to the Holy Spirit, allowing Him to move
through, and use all, of His people.
As
Ronald Mckenzie : "Rather than restricting the ministry of women, we should
be encouraging them to take up the gifts that God has given them. They must be
encouraged to exercise the ministries to which God has called them . . ."
(page 30)
But
some people say that the present church structures must be good because they
have lasted so long. The reason churches last so long is because, even when
they have died, they continue on their institutional framework. Some dead
churches probably last hundreds of years on the traditions and formalised rules
they started with!
In
Revelation 3:20 Jesus is pictured standing outside the church, knocking
on its door and asking to be let in. It seems absurd to think of a church
- a group of people claiming to be Christians - actually shutting the door to
Jesus - the founder and sustainer of the the Church!
The
fact that some things last a long time does not mean they are good. God may
bless, in a small way, an institution which has believers in it who sincerely
want to please Him, but how much more could he do if the believers abandoned
their traditions and went back to the pattern in the NT?