I have heard many people (both Christian and non-Christian alike) say that Jesus contradicted the Law of Moses when He instructed His followers not to seek an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. However, a comparison of Christ's instruction in Matthew with the teachings of the Old Testament will reveal that He was only correcting a misunderstanding about the Law and not contradicting the Law itself.
There are five verses in the Book of Proverbs that have traditionally been interpreted as instruction for parents to spank their children, but many modern Christians have accepted a different view of these verses.
One of the common arguments brought against the traditional understanding of Leviticus 18:22 is the claim that the Hebrew word “toebah” (abomination) only refers to pagan temple practices and not things that are revolting in and of themselves. I was recently presented with an opportunity to respond to this argument, and I took the time to look up every occurrence of the word “toebah” in the Bible. I found that the above claim cannot be supported by the facts and that the English term "abomination" is an accurate translation of the word "toebah."
Evan Minton of the Cerebral Faith Blog recently asked for my opinion of his article "Why The Calendar Day Interpretation Of Genesis One Is Exegetically Untenable." Evan presented four problems that he saw with the young earth view of Genesis, and I thought that my responses to his problems would be helpful to my readers. Go ahead and read through Evan's article and then check out my response below.
I have often been asked to explain how Exodus 21:7-11 can be reconciled with the goodness of God.
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
Yesterday, a facebook acquaintance asked me for help understanding a common misconception about the Bible. He said that one of his friends wanted to know how anyone could believe the Bible when it contains such outrageous claims like the claim that the earth is resting on pillars instead of being a globe suspended in space. Here is the answer that I gave:
The Bible does not say that the earth rests on pillars. There are only three verses which speak of the pillars of the earth, and all three are using figurative language to refer to leaders among men. This is the same figure of speech that Paul used in Galatians 2:9 where he spoke of Peter, James and John being pillars in the church.
Over the years, I've browsed through several online lists of movies recommended for Christian teens. Unfortunately, the vast majority of them include films with decidedly anti-Christian content. Crosswalk.com's recent list of "10 Classic Movies Every Christian Teen Should Watch" provides a great example. Crosswalk has been promoting this list very heavily on facebook, but it includes films like Schindler's List with graphic and explicit nudity as well as Saving Private Ryan which is filled with R rated cursing.
Every time I read one of these lists, I end up complaining to my wife about how superficial mainline Christianity has become, and she, in turn, reminds me that I still haven't published my list of 100+ Clean Movies for Christian Families. Well, I'm still not quite ready to publish the full list of over 100 movies, but I think that I can match Crosswalk.com's list of 10 by providing my own list of 10 Christian Movies Every Godly Teen Should Watch.
There's an old pro-abortion argument that has received a lot of attention on twitter lately. It goes something like this:
Imagine that you are in a burning building along with a five year old child and an incubator of human embryos. You know that you can save either the single child or the entire incubator full of embryos, but you cannot save both. Which one will you choose to save? If you chose to save the child, then you have proven that a child is more valuable than a human embryo which means that unborn humans do not have as much moral value as born humans.
There have been several excellent responses to this argument, but I'd like to point out the two responses that I think are the best of the lot.
I've interacted with hundreds of voters over the past few weeks, and I've noticed that there are very few people who actually want Luther Strange to be our Senator. Those are mostly the ones in the "good-ol'-boys" club of Alabama politics. They like Strange because he's one of their own.
"Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning." (Proverbs 9:9)