Hillsong Has Completely Exposed Themselves -- Literally!

It kind of surprised me when major “Christian” leaders decided to defend Hillsong “Church” when they gathered a bunch of half naked women and put them dancing on the “church” stage (which you can read about here). But now, Hillsong has just exposed themselves — literally. I have absolutely no clue how anybody will try to defend them now. If they do find a way to defend the following abomination, I believe I will be more convinced that postmillennialism is false :-), and that this world ain’t getting any better.

It has been recently reported that Hillsong Church has now put on another play with a “naked cowboy”.

Picture originally posted on https://www.instagram.com/p/BFIIRFLP8bn/. Now, it’s been removed.

As you can see, Hillsong has just gone nuts. Not only do they have half naked women (which they did last time on Christmas. Now, they have a “naked cowboy”. This “naked cowboy” is Diego Simila, a former model turned “Youth Pastor” (which is mentioned nowhere in the Bible).

I’m not really sure I need to prove from the Bible why this is an abomination. I’ll leave you with this verse, “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:” (Romans 1:24 KJB). I will now wait for the defenders of Hillsong to make comment.

Same Day Update:
Nevermind. They already have, “And so, while it is easy to criticize Hillsong (and the Naked Cowboy and this “watchdog” website), we would do well to search our own souls before the throne of God, asking Him to expose the darkness in our hearts, to restore us to our first love, to grant us deep repentance, and to open our eyes so that we can see Jesus afresh in all His glory. I pray this for myself as well!” (Michael Brown, http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/57490-when-hillsong-offends-the-naked-cowboy).

Um, Michael, now your “defense” looks absolutely pathetic. You admit they did evil, “but why judge them? Can’t we all just get along?” No further comment is necessary.

Archaic Words In The KJB (Part 3)

7. Ambassage
Luke 14:31-32 KJB reads, “Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.” From this passage, it’s very easy to see an “ambassage” is a message calling for peace and reconciliation. English Dictionaries confirm this. The New English Dictionary defines “ambassage” as “2. The message conveyed by an ambassador; the business entrusted to him.” Merriam Webster defines “ambassador” as “an official envoy; especially: a diplomatic agent of the highest rank accredited to a foreign government or sovereign as the resident representative of his or her own government or sovereign or appointed for a special and often temporary diplomatic assignment”. What does “diplomatic” mean? Merriam Webster defines “diplomatic” as “involving the work of maintaining good relations between the governments of different countries: of or relating to diplomats or their work”. Thus, in the English language, an “ambassage” is a message sent (with a messenger) desiring conditions of peace. Exactly as the KJB has it — and you can learn that word from the KJB in half the time it’ll take you to look at three dictionaries for it. But even so, this word is not archaic. The Yah Sacred Scriptures (2001) has “ambassage” in Luke 19:14.

8. Ambushment
2 Chronicles 13:13-14 KJB says, “But Jeroboam caused an ambushment to come about behind them: so they were before Judah, and the ambushment was behind them. And when Judah looked back, behold, the battle was before and behind: and they cried unto the LORD, and the priests sounded with the trumpets.” By comparing verse 13 to 14, just as the “ambushment” was before and behind Judah, the “battle” was before and behind Judah. This implies that “ambushment” means “battle”. In the context, the KJB defines an ambushment as a planned battle attack on someone else. And it’s right. The New English Dictionary defines “ambushment” as “1. A disposition or arrangement of troops in a wood or other place of concealment so as to fall on an enemy by surprise; the trap so constructed; ambush; ambuscade.” And modern Bibles are still using this word! The Amplified Bible (1987) has “ambushment” in 2 Chronicles 13:13.

9. Amerce
Deuteronomy 22:18-19 KJB has, “And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.” According to the KJB’s parallel structure of “elders...shall” and “they shall”, amerce is to chastise. In the context, the chastisement is apparently the taking of money and the giving of it to someone else (the father of the damsel). Thus, the KJB defines “amerce” as taking money from someone as a form of chastisement. The New English Dictionary agrees with the KJB’s built in definition by defining “amerce” as “1. To punish by an arbitrary fine; to fine, mulct (a person).” But it’s far too old to be used anymore. It’s so old, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible (2010) has “amerce” in Deuteronomy 22:19 ;-).

Archaic Words In The KJB (Part 2)

4. Alamoth
Psalm 46:1 KJB says, “(To the chief Musician for the sons of Korah, A Song upon Alamoth.) God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.” You can read the entire psalm to get the picture that this entire chapter is full of references to the strength and refuge of God. Thus, by the KJB, “alamoth” is the strength and refuge of God. What does it mean in English, though? Well, nobody knows. There is no English definition for the word “alamoth” anywhere. “Alamoth” is simply a transliteration (taking the Hebrew word and spelling out in English how it sounds) of the Hebrew word עֲלָמוֹת (Strong #H5961). What does that Hebrew word mean? Well, nobody knows what that means either. But they do conjecture that it probably means a virgin because עָלֶמֶת (almah) looks kind of like alamoth. And there are other guesses as to what this would mean (e.g. a location, a hiding place, etc.) But let’s think for just a minute what the above Psalm would mean if “alamoth” meant a virgin. “A Song upon Alamoth.” Is the Psalmist saying he fornicated with a virgin while singing praise to God? God forbid. Do you see how rediculous it would be if “alamoth” meant a virgin? 1 Chronicles 15:20 lists another mention of “alamoth”, “And Zechariah, and Aziel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Unni, and Eliab, and Maaseiah, and Benaiah, with psalteries on Alamoth;”. Were those musical instruments so heavy, they needed to be placed on the heads of virgins for support? Why not on a table or something? As you should see by now, it’s rediculous to think “alamoth” means virgins. The KJB is right. Alamoth means the strength and refuge of God. 1 Chronicles 15:20 is about playing musical instruments on the strength of God (or a song dedicated to the strength of God, e.g. Psalm 41). And from the KJB, I’m going to conjecture that “alamoth” is related not to “almah”, but to “alemeth”: עָלֶמֶת. (Strong #5964). Alemeth means a “covering”. This is just as God as our strength and refuge is our covering from evil. And speaking of being an “archaic word”, The New International Version (2011) has “alamoth” in 1 Chronicles 15:20. I guess the brand new NIV’s outdated too! I’m being sarcastic, of course.

5. Almug
1 Kings 10:12 KJB reads, “And the king made of the almug trees pillars for the house of the LORD, and for the king’s house, harps also and psalteries for singers: there came no such almug trees, nor were seen unto this day.” An almug is a particular tree according to this verse. That last phrase implies these trees weren’t well known in Israel, and were quite rare. Thus, the KJB defines “almug” as a rare and largely unknown tree. The English language confirms this. The New English Dictionary defines “almug” as “A variant of Algum…” (Vol. 2, p. 248). 1828 Webster says “Algum” is “In scripture, a tree or wood about which the learned are not agreed…” It’s exactly the same — a tree largely unknown and rare. And since this was listed as “archaic”, it would benefit the reader to know The English Standard Version (2011) has “almug” in 1 Kings 10:12.

6. Aloes
The KJB reads in Proverbs 7:17, “I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon.” Aloes is a perfume. John 19:39-40 KJB says, “And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.” Aloes is a spice for preservation purposes. Numbers 24:6 KJB reads, “As the valleys are they spread forth, as gardens by the river’s side, as the trees of lign aloes which the LORD hath planted, and as cedar trees beside the waters.” Apparently the full name of aloes is “lign aloes”. Aloes would then simply be an abbreviated version of Lign Aloes. Regardless, aloes also are said to come from trees. Thus, according to the KJB alone, aloes is a perfume or spice that comes from trees. Easton’s Bible Dictionary defines “Lign-aloes” as “a perfume derived from some Oriental tree (Numbers 24:6), probably the agallochum or aloe-wood.” “Probably” means they don’t know what tree. But what they do know is that it is a perfume that comes from trees. Exactly what the KJB teaches. See, you don’t need a dictionary to find out what these words mean. And apparently, this word is so archaic, that The New International Version (2011) has “aloes” in Numbers 24:6.

Archaic Words In The KJB (Part 1)

This will be the beginning of blog posts concerning the supposed “archaic words” in the King James Bible. After I’m done with all of them, I’ll probably put all the info into a video or something similar. Each installment will deal with a few words at a time. The point of this is to show how you don’t even need an old dictionary to find definitions of words in the KJB. First, I’m going to rely on what I consider the biggest archaic words list anybody has made against the KJB: http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#archaic

It’s kind of weird how it starts out by saying, “Below are 484 examples of how the KJV uses outdated language“, and then it says, “419 Archaic terms!”. 484 isn’t 419, just in case you’re wondering. Regardless, let’s dig in:

1. Abject
Psalm 35:15 in the KJB says, “But in mine adversity they rejoiced, and gathered themselves together: yea, the abjects gathered themselves together against me, and I knew it not; they did tear me, and ceased not:”. You can see by the parallel structure of this verse, “the abjects” are the same as “they” in the verse. Who are “they”? Well, you can read the entire Psalm for yourself and easily determine the “they” are men who hate David and persecute and slander him. Thus, simply by looking at the KJB, “abjects” are men who persecute and slander others — they are evil. Is this what the word means in English, though? According to the New English Dictionary (Volume 2, p. 20), “Abject” is “3. Down in spirit or hope; low in regard or estimation, degraded, mean-spirited despicable.“ The KJB defines for itself the meaning of “abject”. Also, The Amplified Bible (2015) has “abject” in Isaiah 47:1, showing this “archaic word” is still being used in modern Bibles.

2. Adamant
Zechariah 7:12 KJB reads, “Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the LORD of hosts.” Thus, from this we know an “adamant” is a stone. Ezekiel 3:9 KJB gives further details, “As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead: fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house.” So now we also know an adamant is harder than flint. In other words, it’s a very hard stone. The 1828 Webster Dictionary confirms this is correct, “A very hard or impenetrable stone; a name given to the diamond and other substances of extreme hardness. The name has often been given to the load stone; but in modern mineralogy, it has no technical signification.“ In other words, it can mean simply a stone in general that’s very hard. Exactly as the KJB has it. The New King James Version (1982) has “adamant” in Ezekiel 3:9 (I guess they forgot to “update” that “archaic” word).

3. Agone
1 Samuel 30:13 KJB says, “And David said unto him, To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days agone I fell sick.“ Just read that last part to yourself out loud. It will quickly become apparent that “agone” means “ago”. Three days agone, three days ago. That’s how it seemed to me, at least before looking at any dictionary. But the dictionaries do agree with me. 1828 Webster defines “Agone” as “Ago; past; since.” The Word of Yah Bible (1993) has “agone” in 1 Samuel 30:13. That’s only a few years ago, folks.

Steven Christopher: Vatican Agent

What Is "Evolution"? A Review of Differing Definitions

It has come to my attention that different people use different definitions for what “evolution” is and isn’t. This frankly makes it difficult in presentations to accurately refute it, since it can’t be nailed as to what it even means or implies. I’ll give a few examples:

Early Creationism: Micro vs. Macro

Early in the modern creation science movement started by Dr. Henry Morris, there was the teaching in creationist circles that there were two different definitions of evolution: Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution. Micro and macro, of course, relate to size (small and big, respectively). Macro-Evolution is defined in creationist circles as one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal (the Biblical “kind” being referred to as found in Genesis 1). Micro-Evolution is defined as variation within a kind of animal. The early teaching of many creationists was that the evolutionists had confounded two theories of evolution (micro and macro) into one unified theory of evolution. Sure, animals evolve with small changes, but no observable large changes have been proven.

However, such a definition (or definitions) of evolution presented a problem. This problem was the evolutionist response, “Well, tons of micro-evolution will eventually lead to macro-evolution (over billions of years).” After all, you have to run short distances if you want to run a mile. The difference is time, and since the evolutionists think they have plenty of it, macro-evolution is thought to be a fact among them.

This response by the evolutionists eventually brought down the popularity of this definition of evolution, as shown by some influential creation ministries.

Hovind Creationism: Six Different Evolutions

One influential figure in the early creation movement was Dr. Kent Hovind. Dr. Hovind originally held to the two definitions of evolution previously mentioned (micro and macro). But after some time, he expanded it to six definitions of evolution and called it the “evolution worldview” promoted in public schools. Here are the six definitions of evolution Hovind gave:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang
2. Chemical Evolution: The Formation of the Elements
3. Stellar Evolution: The Formation of the Stars
4. Organic Evolution: The Origin of Life from Non-Life
5. Macro Evolution: A Change of Kinds
6. Micro Evolution: Variation Within A Kind

Such definitions of evolution were unique in the fact that they covered virtually the entire faulty timeline of the universe presented in public schools (along with micro and macro, of course).

Evolutionists didn’t really seem to have a solid objection to these definitions (except the last two, of course). The only objection I could find in my research is that the first four aren’t “evolution” in the biological sense of the word. However, those who use Hovind’s definitions can easily respond by saying “evolution” basically means change, and all these changes are in fact taught in modern schools. The issue then is one of preferred semantics with the first four.

However, Dr. Hovind seems to have done a disservice to these definitions by putting out a $250,000 challenge to have them proven. It isn’t the challenge per se that was the disservice (in my opinion), but rather the conditions of the challenge and its implications. See, he challenged the evolutionists to prove “evolution”. He said in his (now nonexistent) challenge page:

*NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

In other words, the challenge was that the first five definitions of evolution all be proven and without God. It’s kind of impossible to prove the non-existence of anything (especially God). Plus, there are plenty of deceived souls who believe the first five definitions of evolution and God! They are called theistic evolutionists. That alone sounded SCAM in the minds of many evolutionists. On top of that, to prove “evolution” you needed to prove all five of them. If you only proved four of them, you didn’t prove “evolution”. This was very unattractive to evolutionists. I personally think the offer should have rather have had a prize for if any of these forms of evolution could be proven correct. Regardless, this was a step in the right direction: all the lies in the classroom about the universe were addressed, not just the biological lie.

Modern Creationism: The Focus on DNA

After seeing the problems with the micro-macro distinction in evolution, some creation ministries (such as Creation Ministries International) decided to try to change the terminology of the creation movement. They basically changed Macro-Evolution to Addition of Genetic Information, and Micro-Evolution to No Addition of Genetic Information. Genetic Information is the information found in DNA (the blueprint of every living thing). DNA has unique codes to make up different forms of life.

Instead of a focus on big vs. small changes, there was a focus directly on the blueprint of life. The creation hypothesis concerning genetics is that no new information will be added to the DNA of anything. In other words, even the micro changes to a creature will never be in the right direction — they will never be the right kind of changes that would change soup into you. That’s because living soup needs new genetic information to build arms, legs, etc. The same with the rest of the evolutionary theory. Since no change was in the right direction anyways to create new kinds of animals, the objection that small changes can become big changes was defeated. Sure, small changes become big changes — but in the wrong direction! The animal “evolving” would die of disability before turning into another kind of animal because the genetic code wasn’t being added to (it was actually commonly degrading over time!).

Some creation ministries that still really like the words “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution” still hold on to them, but have severely redefined them so that they no longer mean the same things. The Institute for Creation Research, for example, have mixed the micro-macro concept with CMI’s genetic focus and have come up with two new terms: Vertical Evolution and Horizontal Evolution. They still use “micro” and “macro” but only when they then define it as “horizontal” and “vertical” (respectively). Horizontal Evolution is defined as a change that doesn’t ADD (upward) genetic information. Vertical Evolution (upward) is defined as an ADDITION of genetic information. Running on a street won’t get you in space, and neither will the new “micro” get you to “macro” evolution. While such a redefinition is a step in the right direction, continuation of using “macro” and “micro” (which mean BIG and SMALL) will be confusing for someone, especially the evolutionist.

A Comeback of the Old Micro-Macro: Enter Ray Comfort

Recently, creationist Ray Comfort released a film against evolution called “Evolution Vs. God”. In it, he brings back the old creationist concept of micro and macro meaning small and big, but with different terms (this is possibly due to the fact that he used to be friends with Dr. Kent Hovind who also promoted the micro-macro distinction). He first tosses out “micro-evolution” in place of simply “variation within a kind”, and then replaces “macro-evolution” with Darwinian Evolution. But other than the change in terminology, it’s the same definition as the classical creationist definition of evolution (which brings back the evolutionary objection associated with it).

But even though this was a huge mistake to bring back faulty terminology that doesn’t take into account genetics, there was one good improvement: the name “Darwinian” applied to evolution. “Darwinian” implies evolution specifically in the field of biology connected with Charles Darwin. Sometimes, Neo (new) -Darwinian Evolution is used in popular contexts to imply Darwin’s ideas applied to genetics (DNA was unknown of in Darwin’s time). However, simply “Darwinian” gets the point across that this is the modern theory of Darwin’s suggested biological evolution.

A Solution to the Definition Debate

Here, I will be providing my own definition of “evolution” gleaned upon by the previous attempts by creation scientists. I believe Dr. Hovind’s concept of touching all subjects of the public school’s indoctrination program is excellent. I also think the focus on DNA should replace the old micro-macro concept, and I also prefer to NOT call Biblical variation within a kind “evolution”. The following is my modified formula:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang
2. Stellar Evolution: The Formation of Stars
3. Chemical Evolution: The Formation of the Elements
4. Galactic Evolution: The Formation of Galaxies
5. Organic Evolution: The Origin of Life From Non Life
6. Darwinian Evolution: The Addition of New Genetic Information

As you can see, this is very similar to Dr. Hovind’s formulation of “evolution”, with some important differences. First of all, Stellar and Chemical Evolution are switched. This is because the modern theory of the evolution of the universe has stars forming first to then produce all the elements by fusion and supernovae. I added in Galactic Evolution, since Hovind’s didn’t seem to have the formation of Galaxies or Planets (which is important, since you can’t have life evolving without planets — plus there’s some problems with the modern theories of galaxies evolving). I removed “micro-evolution” since that’s Biblical and shouldn’t be called evolution, and changed “macro” to “Darwinian” (since it covers the modern biological theory of evolution).

Conclusion

I hope this will spark some dialogue in the creation movement to solidify what we actually mean by “evolution”, so that we can refute the same devilish theory taking lost souls to hell by the billions. Please share with me your thoughts in the comments section.

Why Steven Anderson is NOT KJV ONLY

Dr. Peter Ruckman Gone To Be With Christ

The world has lost another righteous man as it grows more wicked. Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

“Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.” ~ Psalm 116:15 King James Bible.

Should Christians Celebrate Easter?

Should Christians Celebrate Easter? Find out in my latest video!

My Giant Bible List ALMOST Wiped Out!

Recently, I checked my Big List of Bibles: http://defendinggodsbook.com/free-bibles/ and found a lot of versions were gone. The reason being, that www.thebiblecorner.com (a free website that housed tons of free Bibles) just went offline (check it out to see what I mean). With this reduction in Bibles, I quickly searched for every one of their Bibles I had linked to my website. Thankfully, all but one Bible was restored by other various sources (that exception being The New Testament: A New Translation in Plain English - 1963 Charles K. Williams). To make up for it, I accidentally found another free Bible I did not previously have on my website (The Open English Bible 2014).

All of this is very important to me because with these Bibles come not only historical time pieces, but also miniature lexicons that provide supporting evidence for translational readings in the King James Bible that are changed in other pop versions.