27Sep
“Azazel” is a transliteration of a mysterious word translated “scapegoat” in many translations (cf. KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB). Leviticus 16 is the only place in the Bible where you can find it.
There has been much disagreement over the meaning of “Azazel.” Three main interpretations have been advanced. First, some regard it as the solitary place to which a goat was taken on the Day of Atonement, or according to Rabbinic tradition, the height from which the goat was thrown. Second, others think Azazel was a personal being, a desert demon in opposition to the Lord. The third interpretation is the most likely: that Azazel is “the goat that departs” or “scapegoat.” Continue reading »
20Sep
Christianity stands out among all other religions because of its personal God. In Hinduism, the divine is ultimately “Brahman,” the Absolute as it is sometimes called, an impersonal force of which all creation is a part. Buddhists don’t really have a God. Their goal is Nirvana, which is not a ceasing to exist, they say, but freedom from personality, which for most of us is pretty close to annihilation. Jews and Muslims worship a personal God, but only Christians worship a God who visited our world and lived with us, laughed with us, suffered with us, cried with us, and died for us.
Not only do we worship a personal God, but our God is Triune, three persons in one. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The latter of these three is often misunderstood as a mysterious “it,” an impersonal force used by God to exert his influence on the world. But the Bible speaks of his various traits (Rom. 15:30; 1 Cor. 2:11; 12:11; Eph. 4:30), uses masculine pronouns when referring to him (Jn. 14:26; 16:13), and speaks of the special role he plays in our salvation (Jn. 14:26; 15:26; Acts 16:6-7; 2 Thes. 2:13). Continue reading »
06Sep
Well, it has been a good series for Neil’s Niche, but I think I am going to leave it up to ya’ll to study up on Christian Evidences from now on. We have had some good questions asked and we only have one more left! We have dealt with the teleological and cosmological side of the argument, but I want to deal with one more aspect of an atheist: their intent. Atheists are usually wholeheartedly against the idea of Creation being taught in schools. They usually are vocal against anyone trying to push “matters of faith in an academic setting,” but I have a problem with this. You see, in my study and discussions I have noticed something: atheists have faith in a god…it is just not the God that lives. Atheists turn to the nurturing care of their god and fall back on it whenever someone challenges them. When dealing with atheists (especially in the scientific and academic communities), you will see that they worship the god of evolution. So here is the question to ask an atheist:
Does evolution have a purpose?
I am going to go ahead and tell you the answer: NO. Okay, since evolution is completely random and there is absolutely no purpose to such a “natural” occurrence, why do evolutionists push the theory (and it is just a theory) like it is a religion? Why isn’t Theism given the same weight as EVERY type of evolution gets within modern day academia? The problem with evolutionists today is that they do not realize that evolution does not need a defender. If it is true, we should see absolute empirical evidence of its existence. In other words: IF evolution is true, then it will prove itself. Yet we still have no absolute empirical evidence, and the atheistic community is split as to which evolutionary theory is correct. So the question then is not a question of whether evolution is true or false…rather it is, “Why do you try to attribute god-like qualities to evolution?”
