Listen to this:
20140319-221800.jpg

AlbertMohler.com – The Briefing 12-13-13. Listen to full audio here.

Alarmist? Not when the Bible foretells global shaking. It’s a matter of time.

The Extinction Protocol

Earthquakes March 15
March 2014GEOLOGYIn the past 24 hours, the planet has been reeling from a series of moderate earthquakes that have erupted all across the Ring of Fire. The Ring of Fire is an area where a large number of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur in the basin of the Pacific Ocean. It is the most geologically-active region on the planet. In a nearly 40,000 km (25,000 mi) horseshoe shape, the region is associated with a nearly continuous series of oceanic trenches, volcanic arcs, and volcanic belts and/or plate movements. It has 452 volcanoes and is home to over 75% of the world’s active and dormant volcanoes. About 90% of the world’s earthquakes and 81% of the world’s largest earthquakes occur along the Ring of Fire. In the past 24 hours, double moderate earthquakes 5.3 and 5.6 magnitude earthquakes have struck Indonesia. A 5.4 magnitude earthquake struck NE…

View original post 143 more words

On a serious note, the bottom of the post quotes an extract from “Unequal Weights And Measures” that illustrates the disparity in exegetical & interpretive methods employed by anti-Missionaries, like Tovia.

The spelling item was too cute to pass up on. Have a listen below. I’m sure Tovia would not have passed on a classic opportunity like this either – if it wasn’t him in the “blooper reel”, of course. The fact is, I’ve listened to Tovia’s show many, many times & grew to like him as a person – hence this isn’t classic ad hominem, but still, I’m stirred by his arrogance at times & the audio extract seemed to balance radio show pride and arrogance with a bit of humiliation nicely – perpetrated by his radio show co-host after all, …so how malicious could it be. 🙂 The word in question wasn’t actually “theology”, it was “piece” – yet the title question remains. 🙂


20140311-215218.jpg

When attacking the New Testament — that is exactly what the anti-missionaries do — they often use a three-pronged approach: hyper-literality, alleged contradictions, and alleged misquotations.

In terms of hyper-literality, they will ask: “Do you literally believe what Jesus said? Then, if your right eye is causing you to sin, you should gouge it out and throw it away!” Or, “Didn’t Jesus say, ‘Give to him who asks you?’ Then give me your wallet, your shirt, and the keys to your car!” Or, in abusing the concept of the incarnation (I doubt that many of our opponents actually try to understand the incarnation in any serious way) they will use coarse quips such as, “Does your God wear diapers?”5 The overall effect of their hyper-literality is to try and make our faith seem idiotic and absurd.

In terms of alleged contradictions, these can be divided into two categories: historical problems and apparent contradictions within the New Testament sources themselves. A favorite passage of the anti-missionaries is Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, a speech supposedly brimming with error. And, if we would object that, even if there were errors (I do not believe there are) it would be no problem, since inspiration only means that Luke accurately recorded what Stephen said, the hyper-literal anti-missionaries are quick to point out that Stephen was “filled with the Spirit” when he spoke. Thus, according to them, if he really had spoken in the Spirit, he could not have made an error! As for apparent contradictions within the sources, the Gospel accounts of Yeshua’s betrayal, crucifixion, and resurrection, or the accounts of Saul’s Damascus road experience in Acts are singled out as being hopelessly at odds with themselves.6 The overall effect of these accusations is to try and make our Scriptures appear utterly untrustworthy.

In terms of alleged misquotations, we are generally pointed to verses like Mat. 2:23, “He will be called a Nazarene” — supposedly an entirely fabricated verse; and Heb. 10:5, “A body you have prepared for me” — supposedly a blatant alteration of the Hebrew of Psa. 40:6; or, verses allegedly wrenched from their original context, like Hos. 11:1b, “I called My son out of Egypt,” quoted in Mat. 2:15; and Isa. 7:14, the Immanuel prophecy, quoted in Mat. 1:23.7 The overall effect of these accusations is especially serious. It tries to give the impression that the authors of the New Testament were not only idiotic and untrustworthy; according to the anti-missionaries, they were actually devious and deceitful.8

The plain truth is this: It is the anti-missionaries who are often being devious and deceitful. For if they would be honest with themselves, they would have to admit that, using the same canon of criticism on their own sacred texts, they would utterly shipwreck their own faith. In other words, if the New Testament would be disqualified by anti-missionary arguments in one hour, using those same arguments, the Tanakh would be disqualified in a matter of minutes and the Talmud in a matter of seconds! The anti-missionaries will readily accept the views of critical, nihilistic New Testament scholars, while following only rigidly conservative (generally, traditional Jewish) scholars of the Old Testament.9

Stop and think for a moment. What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if the anti-missionaries believed in the New Testament and we were left to defend the Tanakh and the rabbinic writings? What would the anti-missionaries do then? Just imagine what their unsympathetic and shallow hyper-literality would do with passages like Gen. 2:18-20, where the Lord apparently brought giraffes, monkeys, elephants, and armadillos to Adam, only to find that none of them would make a good wife for him;10 or, Exod. 4:24-26, where the Lord sent Moses to Egypt to deliver His people, but tried to kill him on the way — because he failed to circumcise his son. And I’m sure they would also have plenty of comments to make about God’s bow that appears in the sky after the showers (Gen. 9:12ff.), or about the “windows of heaven” that are opened to allow the rain that is above the expanse to fall to earth (Gen. 7:11).

What would the anti-missionaries do with the moving story of the ‘aqedah? Would they ridicule a God Who tests the obedience of His faithful servant by asking him to slaughter his own son? (Of course, they would also point out that according to the text, He is hardly omniscient — see Gen. 22:12). Would they contrast the goodness of the Heavenly Father in the New Testament with the cruelty of Yahweh in the Old — a Yahweh Whose incessant hardening of Pharaoh caused him to lead Egypt to disaster, even when Pharaoh was ready to let Israel go? Just picture how the anti-missionaries would glory in the mercy of the Son of God, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” while denigrating the Lord’s command to exterminate totally the Canaanites — men, women, children, and babies. And would they be sympathetic to the fact that the Torah legislated slavery (Exod. 21:1-11), or that when the Israelites went to war, the Torah permitted them to spare good looking virgins for possible future wives (Deut. 21:10-14)? And have the anti-missionaries forgotten that, historically speaking, the great problem has been that the God of the Old Testament seems to be a less compassionate, gracious, and universal God than the God of the New Testament? This has always been an issue for New Testament theologians, as well as for destructive Gnostic critics like Marcion, or less radically, like Adolph Harnack. One need only think of the vicious work of Friederich Delitzsch — son of the brilliant Franz Delitzsch, a true friend of Israel — attacking the Old Testament as dangerous, and recommending that it be dropped from seminary curriculum.11 Remember, it is Psalm 137 — not the New Testament — that pronounces a blessing on those who smash Babylon’s babes on the rocks.12 What if the anti-missionaries were attacking this?! Source

Audio from: Israel National Radio – Tovia Singer – Tamar Gives Tovia a Spelling Bee. Listen to full audio here.

Preface: This post uses the current interpretation of ‘Palestinian’ (non-Jewish). Several years ago Jews in Israel were called by the same name.20140302-140434.jpg

You are expecting the headline to be deceptive or just plain false? Well, it’s based on poll data specifically around confidence in & criticism of PA leadership on the topics of human rights & democracy. Frankly, in 2014, Palestinians still prefer to be ruled by Israel rather than the PA. The quite illogical disclaimer could maybe have been that some Palestinians would prefer worse human rights & democracy, if only they could have Sharia, but the first quoted extract below disproves that.

Read the articles linked to, and the quotes below, carefully, and see if they seem authentic & decide for yourself. Note details like: “The total sample size of this poll is 1319 from Palestinians 18 years and older, in the West Bank (814) and the Gaza Strip (505) Interviewed face-to-face, in 120 locations.”

2014:

Mohamed Samara, a chemical engineer and football coach who spoke with the Post, is a resident of Tira, an Israeli Arab city to the west of Rout 6. He said he is against Liberman’s plan. “We are happy here; we have all the rights and live well and don’t want to be sacrificed,” said Samara. “We do not want to be in a Palestinian state, under a new political area,” he said. “We work here,” he said, noting that his city has good relation with Jews. Asked if he identifies with Palestinians in the West Bank, Samara responded that he has feelings for them and has some family members that live there. However, at the same time Samara says he identifies with being an Israeli citizen. Asked what percentage of residents of Tira would agree with his views, he responded, “90 percent.”

2002:

Only 19% give PA democracy a positive evaluation and only 17% expect a democratic system in the Palestinian state. But 66% of the Palestinians give a positive evaluation to the status of democracy and human rights in Israel.

These are the results of opinion poll # 6, conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) between 14-20 November 2002. The poll deals with the Peace Process, reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians, political reform and new Palestinian government, corruption, democracy and constitution, Arafat’s popularity and political affiliation. The total sample size of this poll is 1319 from Palestinians 18 years and older, in the West Bank (814) and the Gaza Strip (505) Interviewed face-to-face, in 120 locations. The margin of error is 3%.

1996:

The CPRS polls carried out between September 26 and October 17, 1996 and later between 26-28 December, reflect a great concern among the Palestinians for democracy and human-rights practices. Not more than 36% believe the PNA is heading towards democratic rule and 60% would like to see the executive branch of the PNA implement all decisions taken by the legislative.
There is also widespread denouncement of corruption (51%) and wasta (personal connections and nepotism), where 57% of respondents think that employment is obtained through personal contacts. Regarding freedom of expression, 52% think it is impossible to criticize the PNA without fear and only 28% think the press is free.
However, a sizable percentage of respondents (44%) give the transition to democracy in Palestine a positive evaluation in comparison to Jordan and Egypt (both 34%), but not in comparison to France (60%), the US (68%) and Israel (78%). Such concern with democracy is a healthy sign, which reflects a high level of awareness and appreciation of the democratic process among the Palestinian public. Hopefully this will work as an incentive and a guarantee for a democratic future.

The audio below is an interview with Palestinian Media Watch founder – monitoring Arabic-language media.

Listen to the audio below, or download it here.
Listen to full audio here.

Line of Fire Radio – 02.27.14 Shocking News from the Middle East and Answers to Jewish Questions

Listen to the audio below, or download it here.
Listen to full audio here.

AlbertMohler.com – The Briefing 02-27-14

20140301-184032.jpg

20140301-184107.jpg

Source

Government by the people for the people?except if other governments disagree? (e.g. the US which outlawed some similar things not too long ago).
20140301-141512.jpg

Listen to the audio below, or download it here.
Listen to full audio here.

Quote from BBC:

Ugandan MPs have passed a controversial bill that will ban miniskirts.

The anti-pornography bill, which also outlaws overtly sexual material including music videos, was voted through after a short debate.

When Simon Lokodo, Uganda’s ethics and integrity minister, proposed the legislation earlier this year, he said that women who wore “anything above the knee” should be arrested.

The bill needs to be approved by the president before becoming law.

Uganda is a socially conservative country – it is also considering legislation to increase the punishment for homosexual acts, which are already illegal.

According to Uganda’s private Monitor newspaper, the new legislation will outlaw material which shows parts of the body including breasts, thighs and buttocks, or any erotic behaviour intended to cause sexual excitement.

It will also ban anything that shows indecent acts or behaviour intended to corrupt morals, the paper reports.

Audio source: Line of Fire Radio – 02.24.14 Dr. Brown Weighs in on the Latest National and International Controversies

Don’t believe the US federal government would support / encourage illegal activity? This is becoming a trend, unfortunately – like, for example Obama instructing Holder to not defend selected culturally unpopular laws still on the US books.

20140228-213634.jpg

Listen to the audio below, or download it here.
Listen to full audio here.

AlbertMohler.com – The Briefing 02-18-14