Kristianslund Lederartikler
Partiets formål
Partiets grunnvoll
Partiets lover
Ledelse sentralt
Ledelse lokalt
Hvordan bli medlem?
Politisk program
Søk i nyhetsarkivet
Resultat: Side 6 av 37
Neste Side: 1 2 3 4 5 (6) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Onsdag, Mai 25, 2005

Klipp fra Radiometric dating breakthroughs
Creation Archive > Volume 26 Issue 2 > Radiometric dating breakthroughs

First published:
Creation 26(2):42–44
March 2004
Browse this issue
Subscribe to Creation Magazine

Radiometric dating breakthroughs
by Carl Wieland, Australia

A few years ago, some leading creationist geologists and physicists began a detailed research project into Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth (RATE). This RATE project began as a cooperative venture between the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the Creation Research Society of USA (CRS) and Answers in Genesis (AiG).1

With the release of key peer-reviewed papers at the 2003 ICC (International Conference on Creationism), it is clear that RATE has made some fantastic progress, with real breakthroughs in this area.

A young age for ‘ancient’ granites
When physicist Dr Russell Humphreys was still at Sandia National Laboratories (he now works full-time for ICR), he and Dr John Baumgardner (still with Los Alamos National Laboratory) were both convinced that they knew the direction in which to look for a definitive answer to the puzzle of why radiometric dating consistently gives ages of millions and billions of years.

Others had tried to find an answer in geological processes—e.g. the pattern was caused by the way the magma was emplaced or how it crystallized. This is indeed the answer in some cases.2,3 But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that in other cases there were many independent lines of evidence that suggested that huge amounts of radioactive decay had indeed taken place. (These include the variety of elements used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos and fission track dating.) It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes alone could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be an answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.

From the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place. So it was clear that the assumption of a constant, slow decay process was wrong. There must have been speeded-up decay, perhaps in a huge burst associated with Creation Week and/or a separate burst at the time of the Flood.

There is now powerful confirmatory evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay has indeed been the case, building on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons. The landmark RATE paper,4 though technical, can be summarized as follows:

When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas, which readily escapes from rock.

Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead.

By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.)

However, there is a significant proportion of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years of decay’ still inside the zircons. This is, at first glance, surprising for long-agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should surely be hardly any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating.

Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the RATE papers reports on. The samples were sent (without any hint that it was a creationist project) to a world-class expert on helium diffusion from minerals to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5,680 (± 2,000) years.

The paper looks at the various avenues a long-ager might take by which to wriggle out of these powerful implications, but there seems to be little hope for them unless they can show that the techniques used to obtain the results were seriously flawed.

More surprises on radiocarbon
Another dramatic breakthrough concerns radiocarbon. It’s long been known that radiocarbon (i.e. carbon-14, or 14C) keeps popping up reliably in samples (of coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. However, with the short half-life of 14C it should decay to zero in only some tens of thousands of years at the most.5 For instance, AiG has, over the years, commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. samples with Jurassic fossils, samples inside Triassic sandstone, and samples burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and TJ—the in-depth journal of creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. 14C was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate 14C further, building on the literature reviews of creationist physician Dr Paul Giem.

In another very important paper, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data.6 The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable 14C levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years. (When one takes into account the probability that before the Flood the ratio of radioactive to ‘normal’ carbon was much lower,7 the calculated age comes right down into the biblical ‘ballpark’.)

Interestingly, specimens which appear to definitely be pre-Flood seem to have 14C present, too, and importantly, these cluster around a lower relative amount of 14C. This suggests that some 14C was primordial (existing from the very beginning), and not produced by cosmic rays—thus limiting the age of the entire earth to only a few thousand years.

This appears to have been somewhat spectacularly supported when Dr Baumgardner sent five diamonds to be analyzed for 14C. It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—14C was present. The diamonds, formed deep inside the earth, are assumed by evolutionists to be over a billion years old. Nevertheless they contained radioactive carbon, even though, if the billion-year age were correct, they ‘shouldn’t have’.

This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably strong lattice bonds (that’s why it’s the hardest substance known), so subsequent atmospheric or biological contamination should not find its way into the interior.

The diamonds’ carbon-dated ‘age’ of about 58,000 years is thus an upper limit for the age of the whole earth. Again, this is entirely consistent with helium diffusion results reported above, which indicate the upper limit is in fact substantially less.8,9

14C workers have no real answer to this problem, namely that all the ‘vast-age’ specimens they measure still have 14C. Labelling this detectable 14C with such words as ‘contamination’ and ‘background’ is completely unhelpful in explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown. But it is no problem or mystery at all if the uniformitarian/long-age assumptions are laid to one side and the real history of the world, given in Scripture, is taken seriously. The 14C is there, quite simply, because it hasn’t had time to decay yet. The world just isn’t that old!

The 14C results are an independent but powerful confirmation of the stunning helium-diffusion results. It looks like 2003 was a bad year for megachronophiles (lovers of long ages), but a good year for lovers of the Word of God.

References and notes
AiG’s contribution was mostly providing the expertise of geologist Dr Andrew Snelling; however, when he commenced work with ICR, the project rightly reverted to a joint project of ICR/CRS.
Snelling, A.A., The failure of U-Th-Pb ‘dating’ at Koongarra, Australia, TJ 9(1):71–92, 1995.
Walker, T., The Somerset Dam igneous complex, south-east Queensland, Honours thesis [1st class Honours or Summa cum laude awarded], Department of Earth Sciences, University of Queensland, 1998.
Humphreys, D. et al., Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay, , 16 October 2003.
Even with the most sensitive AMS techniques used today, nary an atom of 14C should be present after 250,000 years.
Baumgardner, J. et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model, , 16 October 2003.
Factors which would lower the ratio: (1) more 12C in the biosphere due to the much greater amount of plant and animal life on the planet, (2) possibly less 14C production due to stronger magnetic field deflecting cosmic rays better, (3) 14C formed by cosmic rays started building up at creation, and in only 1,600 years before the Flood would not have reached equilibrium.
Chaffin, E., Accelerated decay: Theoretical models, in: Ivey, R.L., Jr., Ed., Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 3–15, August 2003; , 16 October 2003.
This burst of accelerated decay would be expected to have a greater effect, proportionately, the longer the half-life. Compared to the effect on a uranium isotope with a half-life of billions of years, the effect of speeded-up decay on 14C, with its half-life of the order of 5,000 years, would be much less, which would explain why there is still some of this primordial 14C left. Other papers by RATE scientists at the 2003 ICC dealt with theoretical grounds for accelerated decay and also gave further supportive evidence from isochron dates for this varying effect. I.e. ‘good’ isochrons obtained for different decay chains within the same rock sample, which should have all registered the same ‘date’, varied from one another indicating a greater effect on longer half-life isotopes. See Snelling, A.A. et al., Radioisotopes in the diabase sill (Upper Precambrian) at Bass Rapids, Grand Canyon, Arizona: An application and test of the isochron dating method, in: Ivey, R.L., Jr., Ed., Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 269–284, August 2003; .

Available online at:
COPYRIGHT © 2005 Answers in Genesis

Mandag, Mai 23, 2005

Klipp fra Feedback for the week of May 16, 2005. What’s the problem with theistic evolution? Klikk på overskriften.
Feedback for the week of May 16, 2005

What’s the problem with theistic evolution?

Your arguments in the section on theistic evolution are muddled, but I am open to learning more. In my view, evolution is a highly visible aspect of creation. According to the vast majority of biologists, evolutionary theory is absolutely central to biology’s understanding of the miracle of physical life. But evolutionary theory does no disrespect to God, and the spirit of inquiry that bore it is a divine gift. The physical world must be as it is because God wanted it that way, whether or not God did most of His work of creation all at once or over a much longer haul. Far be it from me to tell Him how to do His work.

Modern biology explains quite a lot, but its explanations only go so far. Science only attempts describe and explain those observable phenomena that it can describe and explain, and the rest is left to God. That leaves God at the helm, hardly in the gaps. The beauty of quantum physics is that it suggests how God could be there, everywhere, all the time, within the things we can’t see or measure. Yet miraculously the physical world behaves with striking consistency and predictability, as if God established physical laws so that they could operate without continuous divine intervention, if He ever so desired. Science is only about testing concepts that are testable.

What’s the big problem if a day in Genesis was longer than 24 hours? A day is merely how long it takes for the earth to rotate. God’s schedule might be different from ours. Mistranslations from ancient to modern languages occurred frequently. What language did God use when he dictated the Bible? What’s the problem if creation unfolded gradually or if creation’s consciousness of itself, morality, God and Divine purpose evolved slowly. What is so frightening about trusting in God by living with some uncertainty in these areas? The unquestioning devotion to a single, rigid interpretation of scripture seems like a sign of weak faith, and plainly has caused much intolerance and persecution throughout history. Can God be reduced to words? If God was clever enough to challenge us by creating a universe with the physical appearance of expanding over eons, then why not allow that He could have placed hidden or indirect meanings in scripture? The Church admitted it was wrong about Galileo, so why couldn’t it be wrong about other aspects of the physical world, as well?

G.N., MD


Your arguments in the section on theistic evolution are muddled,
Is there any particular argument you have in mind, and why?

but I am open to learning more.
A good place to start is actually to study what you’re criticizing.

In my view, evolution is a highly visible aspect of creation. According to the vast majority of biologists, evolutionary theory is absolutely central to biology’s understanding of the miracle of physical life.
First, truth is not decided by majority vote. Secondly, while the vast majority may pay lip service to the importance of evolution (that’s if they are really talking about goo-to-you transformism as opposed to mere change), in reality most of them conduct their research without any mention of it. See this admission from an evolutionist and the articles Evolution and practical science and Is evolution really necessary for medical advances?

But evolutionary theory does no disrespect to God, and the spirit of inquiry that bore it is a divine gift.
This newfound respect for ‘God’ seems disingenuous after G.N.’s previous diatribe against ‘religiosity’. This is aside from what we pointed out about the self-refuting characteristic of ascribing the origin of beliefs to Darwinian mechanisms (i.e. it means his belief in Darwinism is likewise due to mutation and selection for survival, not because it necessarily corresponded to reality).

However, we are seeing more and more of this disingenuity. E.g. the rabid anti-theist Richard Dawkins is infamous for saying that Darwinian evolution made it “possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”, and had utter contempt for those who claimed that god might be behind evolution. But recently he has urged evolutionists to team up with bishops who support evolution. Of course, Dawkins realizes that a god being somehow behind evolution differs in no practical way from evolution working by itself. See also the parable of the horse and the tractor.

Dr William Provine, atheist professor of biology at Cornell University reinforced this:

‘… belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.’ [in ‘No free will’; in Catching up with the Vision, Margaret W Rossiter (Ed.), Chicago University Press, p. S123, 1999.]

(Of course, if there is no free will, in the sense of voluntarily initiating thought, then it follows that Provine really couldn’t help believing this! Rather, his beliefs are fully determined by deterministic laws of brain chemistry.)

Another atheistic anti-creationist, Eugenie Scott, who has won humanist awards for her campaigns, has also said

‘I would describe myself as a humanist or a nontheist. I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!’ [Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology]

However, Christians should not be surprised at such disingenuity from atheists. They are being consistent with their belief that our sense of morality has merely evolved for some sort of survival advantage, rather than because there is objective right and wrong. As the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–1881) puts in the mouth of the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov, “Without God, everything is permissible; crime is inevitable.” So when Christians debate atheists, we should heed the warning of the 18th century British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke: “There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men” [meant inclusively in those days] (Reflections on the Revolution in France, p. 249). And please check Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation for what we are saying about atheists and morality to understand the moral argument—we don’t claim that atheists can’t be moral, but that they have no objective basis for their moral claims.

The physical world must be as it is because God wanted it that way, whether or not God did most of His work of creation all at once or over a much longer haul. Far be it from me to tell Him how to do His work.
This sounds very pious, but true piety involves actually believing what God has told us—He did his work (creation) in six days. See Did God really take six days? and ‘He could have done it that way … couldn’t He?’

Modern biology explains quite a lot, but its explanations only go so far. Science only attempts describe and explain those observable phenomena that it can describe and explain, and the rest is left to God. That leaves God at the helm, hardly in the gaps.
The ‘God of the gaps’ view is a straw man. As creationists we never seek miraculous intervention in the gaps in normal ‘operation science’. Rather, we use the basic scientific principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past). And because there was no material intelligent designer for life, it is legitimate to invoke a non-material designer for life. Note that this is not based on a lack of knowledge, but squarely on what we do know about complex specified information and the laws of chemistry that refute chemical evolutionary ideas of origin of life.

The beauty of quantum physics is that it suggests how God could be there, everywhere, all the time, within the things we can’t see or measure.
Is this now the ‘god of the quantum gaps’ advocated by the theistic anti-creationist Kenneth Miller? I actually wonder whether Miller or this critic actually understand quantum physics (an important part of my own Ph.D. research).

Yet miraculously the physical world behaves with striking consistency and predictability, as if God established physical laws so that they could operate without continuous divine intervention, if He ever so desired. Science is only about testing concepts that are testable.
Once again, this misunderstands the difference between origin and operational science which we have explained in detail. We have also cited the succinct thoughts of philosopher and apologist J.P. Moreland:

‘But some will object, “If we allowed appealing to God anytime we don’t understand something, then science itself would be impossible, for science proceeds on the assumption of natural causality.” This argument is a red herring. It is true that science is not compatible with just any form of theism, particularly a theism that holds to a capricious god who intervenes so often that the contrast between primary and secondary causality is unintelligible. But Christian theism holds that secondary causality is God’s usual mode and primary causality is infrequent, comparatively speaking. That is why Christianity, far from hindering the development of science, actually provided the womb for its birth and development.’ [Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation, Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 226, 1989.]

What’s the big problem if a day in Genesis was longer than 24 hours?
Quite simple—it denies the time length that God told us He took, not only in Genesis but in Exodus 20:8–11 with the giving of the Ten Commandments. And God inspired the Bible to teach us (2 Timothy 3:15–17), but if words in a certain context don’t have a definite meaning, then how can we learn what He wants? Dr Marcus Dods, a liberal theologian and Hebrew expert, said

‘If the word “day” in this chapter [Genesis 1] does not mean a period of 24 hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless’ (see Did God really take six days?).

A day is merely how long it takes for the earth to rotate.
Now you have the right idea! So it does not mean billions of years in the context of Genesis 1 (with evening and morning plus a numeric)—did the earth take billions of years to rotate once on its axis some time in the past?

God’s schedule might be different from ours.
I’d like to thank you for the May 6 Feeback Response. When frequenting Internet message boards, it is not uncommon to come across individuals posting in a manner similar to that of the writer of that particular submission. Responding to such missives is often an exercise in frustration, as it is difficult to separate the personal attacks and unpleasant tone from the actual (usually scattershot) content. The update writer handled himself with a great deal of restraint and responded with precision to each charge leveled against both God as well as the church. Thank you for showing me it can be done.

David Ruic

Again, how could God teach us if words didn’t mean the same to God and man? A reductio ad absurdum of this idea is to consider any other word in Scripture. Perhaps what God meant by ‘steal’ or ‘murder’ in the Decalogue isn’t what man means either? After all, this was a ‘special case’ where God wrote with His own finger. And since Jesus is God and He was in the grave for three days, were these days not literal either? This whole approach is existentialist nonsense.

Also, God doesn’t even need a schedule, because He is outside time! Therefore, when He said ‘day’, in the context of Genesis, He meant day from our perspective, since we are the creatures in the created space-time dimension who experience time.

Mistranslations from ancient to modern languages occurred frequently.
Then please inform us of some examples (even one?), demonstrating this from the original languages? After all, it’s illogical to claim that a mistranslation has occurred unless you can show what the correct translation should be.

What language did God use when he dictated the Bible?
Dictation is a straw man. Rather, we have cited theologians who pointed out

‘… inspiration is … God’s superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs.’ [Charles C. Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine, Moody Press, Chicago, p. 38, 1972.]

In answer to your presumed question, God inspired the Old Testament in Hebrew (with a few Aramaic parts) and the New Testament in Greek. And these languages have been very well studied.

What’s the problem if creation unfolded gradually
The problem, as we have often pointed out, is that this is not what God told us He did. And we have also pointed out the atheistic Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod said

‘[Natural] selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms … The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.’ [The Secret of Life, broadcast interview, 10 June 1978.]

See also Some questions for theistic evolutionists—as you should have already checked according to our feedback rules.

or if creation’s consciousness of itself, morality, God and Divine purpose evolved slowly.
This is a false panentheistic ‘god’ of your own making, not the Sovereign Creator of biblical Christianity.

What is so frightening about trusting in God by living with some uncertainty in these areas?
It is illogical to prefer uncertainty to certainty. Would you cross a bridge if the engineer was uncertain whether it could hold your weight? Fortunately, there are no relativists in engineering!

The unquestioning devotion to a single, rigid interpretation of scripture
But this is absurd. A single, rigid (as you put it) interpretation is essential for communication. Perhaps as an MD, when you prescribe 30 units of insulin for a diabetic, it would be OK for him not to hold to a single, rigid interpretation of your prescription. Instead, should he be free to interpret insulin as ibuprofen, or 30 units as 3,000 units?

seems like a sign of weak faith,
Au contraire, it is a strong faith to trust what God has revealed and oppose the majority opinion of one’s fellows.

and plainly has caused much intolerance and persecution throughout history.
This is a revisionist view of history and also a revisionist meaning of “intolerance”. Tolerance really means being civil to someone you disagree with. But this presupposes that there are different viewpoints, and that some things are objectively right and others wrong—for a start, that toleration is right and intolerance wrong!

But now ‘tolerance’ has been twisted to mean that all views are equally valid. Of course, this is except the view that some views are right and other views are wrong—this must not be tolerated because all views must be tolerated (liberal advocates of the new ‘tolerance’ don’t exactly have logic as a strong suit).

Also note the persecution that has come from the evolutionary Nazi and Communist régimes last century, far outweighing all the religious persecution from all centuries combined.

Can God be reduced to words?
It would be better to propose an actual argument rather than resort to cheap slogans. How can we know what God is like, except from the words He has used to reveal His attributes? How do you propose separating God’s Word from who He is, without making him a liar? The Creator Jesus is the Word (John 1:1-3), and He said, ‘the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life’ (John 6:63). And He said

‘If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels’ (Luke 9:23).

Of course that does not mean that words are fully adequate to reveal the glory of God in all its majesty, but that is because of our limited ability to understand as mere mortals, not because God has not communicated accurately.

If God was clever enough to challenge us by creating a universe with the physical appearance of expanding over eons,
This is begging the question—assuming something that requires demonstration. God has done no such thing—these eons are the result of interpreting certain physical data under a naturalistic paradigm that rejects what He has told us plainly. See also The earth: how old does it look? and the Parable of the Candle.

then why not allow that He could have placed hidden or indirect meanings in scripture?
Because He inspired the words of the Bible to teach us, not trick us. That’s why Jesus repeatedly said, ‘It is written’, not ‘it is encoded’. You might also like to consider the following passages that indicate that God generally wrote Scripture with straightforward meanings:

2 Corinthians 4:2
‘Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.’

In context the ‘truth’ is God’s Word and Jesus confirms it is in John 17:17.

Proverbs 8:8–9
‘All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness; There is nothing crooked or perverted in them. They are all straightforward to him who understands, And right to those who find knowledge.’

The Church admitted it was wrong about Galileo, so why couldn’t it be wrong about other aspects of the physical world, as well?
Actually, this is more revisionism as we explain in Q&A: Galileo. In short, you are claiming that the church should adopt the scientific consensus today (on evolution and long ages). But you castigate the church of four centuries ago for adopting the scientific consensus of its day, i.e. Aristotelian/Ptolemaic astronomy. Note that Galileo’s main opposition came from the scientists at the universities, while he and the other pioneers of geokinetic astronomy—Copernicus, Kepler and Newton, were all young-earth creationists!

G.N., MD

Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
Brisbane, Australia

Lørdag, Mai 14, 2005

Vi venter at kristne mennesker følger Jesus Kristus som er Sannheten og Kjærligheten i egen person. Svindlere og kriminelle har derfor til alle tider blandet seg med sanne kristne. På denne måten kan de få mulighet til å bedrive sin lyssky virksomhet uten å få søkelyset rettet sterkt nok mot seg. Denne faren bør vi være oppmerksomme på!

TEOLOGISK SVINDEL kan defineres som all slags aktivitet som utføres i kristendommens navn i strid med Bibelens lære.

Begrunnelsen for en slik definisjon er at Bibelen er den eneste legitime basiskilde for kristen lære. Alt som utgis som kristendom, men som samtidig er i strid med Bibelen, er svindel som i verste fall kan føre mennesker i helvetes evige pine! Bibelens lære er sannhet om virkelige forhold. Hvis man lager en annen lære om de samme ting og utgir det for kristendom, er det juks og bedrag!

En velsignelse i den treenige Gud navn er en handling som får virkninger i virkelighetens verden. Når man velsigner et homoseksuelt partnerskap i kirken, er dette teologisk svindel, fordi man velsigner det som Bibelen forbanner!

Et annet eksempel er ordinasjon av kvinnelige prester og biskoper. Siden dette er i strid med Bibelens uttrykkelige lære, er det et opprør mot den treenige Gud. Å utgi slike ordinasjoner for å være kristne handlinger er derfor ren teologisk svindel!

TEOLOGISK KRIMINALITET kan defineres som teologisk svindel som også er i strid med norsk lov.

En prest eller predikant som utgir seg for å være en kristen sjelesørger, men som samtidig utnytter et annet menneske seksuelt, driver med teologisk kriminalitet.

Et annet eksempel er en teolog eller politiker som utnytter sin stilling til å avsette bibeltro prester eller til å ansette prester som opponerer mot Bibelens lære. Dette er i strid med §2 og §16 i Grunnloven og er derfor kriminelt.

Et tredje eksempel er prester og biskoper som opponerer mot Bibelen og bryter sitt ordinasjonsløfte, for eksempel ved å gå inn for kvinnelige prester eller ved å velsigne homoseksuelle forhold. Disse prestene og biskopene mottar lønn for å forkynne Bibelens lære, men driver fortsettlig med å forkynne det stikk motsatte på visse punkter. Dette er ikke bare teologisk kriminalitet, men også ØKONOMISK KRIMINALITET.

Alle statsbiskopene i Den norske kirke driver med teologisk og økonomisk kriminalitet! De misbruker sine stillinger til å fremme sine personlige meninger og preferanser i stedet for å forkynne Guds sanne og evige Ord, som de er betalt for å gjøre. Den norske kirke har en veldefinert lære i Bibelen og bekjennelsesskriftene. Dersom biskopene hadde vært redelige mennesker, hadde de trukket seg fra sine stillinger i stedet for å bryte sitt ordinasjonsløfte og infisere kirken med sin vranglære. Derfor dømmes de også til fortapelse av Guds Ord! Se 2. Pet. 2,1: ”MEN DET STOD OGSÅ FRAM FALSKE PROFETER I FOLKET. SLIK SKAL DET OGSÅ BLANT DERE KOMME FALSKE LÆRERE, SLIKE SOM LURER INN VRANGLÆRE SOM FØRER TIL FORTAPELSE. DE FORNEKTER DEN HERRE SOM KJØPTE DEM, OG FØRER OVER SEG SELV EN BRÅ FORTAPELSE.”

Vi trenger en vekkelse innen ledelsen av Den norske kirke! Det er ennå tid til å vende om! Hør på Herrens Ord og gjør etter det! Jer. 3,22: ”VEND TILBAKE, FRAFALNE BARN! JEG VIL LEGE DERES FRAFALL.”

Onsdag, Mai 11, 2005

KLIPP FRA We’ve invaded their “temple”! Humanists are on notice: we’re taking dinosaurs back!
We’ve invaded their “temple”!
Humanists are on notice: we’re taking dinosaurs back!

by Ken Ham, president AiG–USA

First published in
Answers Update–USA
May 2005

Almost every time there’s news in the secular press about Answers in Genesis, the reporter will mock the fact that we believe dinosaurs and humans have lived at the same time.

Indeed, evolutionists absolutely hate it when AiG uses dinosaurs to proclaim the falsity of the idea of evolution and the truth of the history in Genesis. Nearly every secular reporter who visits the AiG Creation Museum (under construction west of Cincinnati) seems perplexed as to why we’re including dinosaurs—and they often express amazement that we would even dare to do so. And so when their TV or newspaper report comes out, there it is again: a mocking statement about dinosaurs and humans together.

Children and adults alike are fascinated by these creatures. Unfortunately, most people equate dinosaurs with millions of years and the evolution belief system. Dinosaurs have become almost icons for evolutionary teaching—they’re treated as sacred “gods” that belong only to evolutionists for their purpose of indoctrinating generations in secular humanism.

This has occurred because the church—by and large—handed dinosaurs over to the “world” when they abandoned the literal history so clearly communicated in Genesis and allowed belief in millions of years and evolutionary ideas (like the big bang) to be taught to generations.

Well, we want to put the evolutionary secular humanists on notice: we’re taking dinosaurs back!

For example, when you walk into the future Creation Museum, you’ll see animatronic dinosaurs and children together—you’ll find dinosaurs throughout the early segments of the museum’s walk-through biblical history—and you’ll see them in books found in our museum gift store.

To the humanists: we have invaded your evolutionary temples, and we have gone into your “holy of holies.” We have captured the dinosaurs … and we’re taking them back to give them their rightful place in history! They don’t belong to you!

And no, it’s not ridiculous to believe dinosaurs and people lived at the same time (as the Bible makes very clear)—it’s ridiculous and illogical not to! Consider the two signs pictured from one of Australia’s wildlife sanctuaries.

Think about it: according to evolutionary time, crocodiles have been around since the time of the dinosaurs1—and yet, humans live with crocodiles today. So why is it ridiculous to think humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time?

But it’s not just crocodiles—there are many other examples. On AiG’s website, there’s an article that quotes a leading evolutionist who said that finding a certain tree in Australia was like finding a “live dinosaur” (see Sensational Australian tree … like “finding a live dinosaur”). The article explained

This is because the tree, nicknamed the Wollemi pine, is known from fossils classed as so-called Jurassic age around 150 million years ago, but not from fossils in rocks of later periods.

Humans and the Wollemi pine tree live today, and yet from an evolutionary perspective, the Wollemi pine dates back to the “time of the dinosaurs.” That’s why the evolutionist called it the “dinosaur tree.”

While we don’t find fossils of the Wollemi pine tree and humans together, we do know they live together—because both are alive today.

In another AiG web article, Dr. David Catchpoole states

A recent New Scientist article ponders an enigma to evolutionists—“living fossils.” These are creatures alive today which are identical to fossilized forms, believed to have lived “millions of years ago.” Examples include … crocodiles (140 million years).2

Why then would it be so ridiculous to think that dinosaurs also lived beside humans but have died out in recent times? Even the news in March 2005 of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is consistent with this (see Still soft and stretchy).

And of course there’s a lot of other interesting evidence, such as dragon legends, the description of Behemoth in Job 40, Indian petroglyphs that look like dinosaurs3 and so on.

Nothing in observational science contradicts the obvious conclusion based on the Bible’s history:

Dinosaurs were created alongside man around 6,000 years ago.

Representative kinds of them were on Noah’s Ark.

Most dinosaur fossils are from the Flood (about 4,500 years ago).

Dinosaurs lived beside man after the Flood, but like lots of other animals and plants, have become extinct since that time.

No, as we will proclaim in our Creation Museum, it’s not ridiculous to believe dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. In fact, it’s the most logical belief based upon the Scriptures and the fossils!

More and more ground is being captured every day. Yes, we’re reclaiming what rightfully belongs to the God of creation!

Fossils shed light on sea turtle evolution, Animal Planet News,, Feb. 24, 2005. Return to text.
Catchpoole, D., “Living fossils” enigma, Creation 22(2):56, March 2000. Return to text.
Swift, D., Messages on stone, Creation 19(2):20–23, March 1997. Return to text.

Available online at:
COPYRIGHT © 2005 Answers in Genesis

Tirsdag, Mars 08, 2005

Dagens bibelord
4 Mos 26, 33:
33 Men Selofhad, Hefers sønn, hadde ingen sønner, bare døtre. Selofhads døtre hette Mahla og Noa, Hogla, Milka og Tirsa.
[27: 1. 36: 11.]
4 Mos 27, 1-7:
1 Selofhad var sønn av Hefer, Gileads sønn, som igjen var sønn av Makir, Manasses sønn. Han var av Manasses, Josefs sønns ætt, og hans døtre hette Mahla, Noa og Hogla og Milka og Tirsa.
[26: 33. 36: 1. Jos 17: 3 ff.]
2 De gikk fram for Moses og Eleasar, presten, og høvdingene og hele menigheten ved inngangen til sammenkomstens telt og sa:
3 Vår far døde i ørkenen. Han var ikke med i den flokken som satte seg opp mot Herren, i Korahs flokk, men han døde for sin egen synds skyld. Og han hadde ingen sønner.
[14: 29. 16: 1 ff. 26: 33.]
4 Hvorfor skal vår fars navn gå ut av hans ætt, bare fordi han ikke hadde noen sønn? Gi oss eiendom blant vår fars brødre!
5 Og Moses førte deres sak fram for Herrens åsyn.
[9: 8. 3M 24: 12.]
6 Da sa Herren til Moses:
7 Selofhads døtre har rett i det de sier. Du skal gi dem eiendom til arv blant deres fars brødre og la farsarven gå over til dem.

Torsdag, Februar 24, 2005

”OG HERREN VILLE IKKE TILGI.” - Av Stein Henriksen
Disse ulykkesbringende ordene står skrevet i 2. Kongebok kapitel 24 vers 4. og den situasjonen de er talt inn i, er forholdene i Juda rike under kong Jojakim. Jojakim var sønn av Josias. Den Juda-kongen som fullstendig hadde utryddet avgudsdyrkelsen fra Juda rike, og som ble karakterisert som den beste kongen i Israel siden David. Men før Josias kom til makten, hadde hans far Amon og hans farfar Manasse vært konger i Juda. De var ugudelige, og spesielt Manasse, som styrte i 55 år, hadde drevet omfattende avgudsdyrkelse. Den gav seg spesielt utslag i barneofringer, og det i et slikt omfang at Jerusalem ble fylt av de uskyldiges blod. Det var på grunn av dette Herren ikke ville tilgi. Men dette gjaldt folket, som var blitt forført av kongen. Det gjaldt ikke den enkelte. Manasse selv ble omvendt, da han kom i fangenskap, og fikk sine synder tilgitt. Men over Judas folk og rike som helhet ble den Guds vrede værende, som noe senere førte folket i fangenskap i Babel for sytti år, og Jerusalem lagt i ruiner.

Hvordan var så egentlig tilstanden i Juda på denne tiden? Det forteller Jesajas 3. kapitel noe om. For her står det slik: ”Blant folket skal den ene undertrykke den andre, hver mann sin neste. Den unge skal sette seg opp mot den gamle, den æreløse mot den som er høyt aktet.” ”Mitt folks herskere er barn, og kvinner råder over det. Mitt folk! Dine førere er forførere. Den vei du skal gå, har de ødelagt.”

Det som skildres her, både i 2. Kongebok og hos profeten Jesaja, minner sterkt om situasjonen i vår tid, og det både i vårt land og i mange andre. Feminismen, dyrkelsen av kvinnekjønnet, presses frem både av den bibelfornektende teologi og sosialistene. På deres program står den ting å løfte kvinnen opp til ledende stillinger både i samfunnet og i kirken. Kvinnen tas bort fra hjemmet, og får sitt virkefelt utenfor innenfor mannens område. Egentlig læres det at menn og kvinner er så like at de både kan og bør inneha de samme posisjonene i samfunn og kirke. Men er de like, er det egentlig en meningsløshet at kvinnen skal føde barn når mannen ikke gjør det. Og i seksuallivet må det være greitt om menn har seksuelt forhold til menn og kvinner til kvinner, siden begge kjønn er like. En ser altså at ut fra en slik tankegang fødes både fosterdrapet og homoseksualiteten. På samme linje ligger det kvinnelige presteskap, de kvinnelige predikanter og ledere av legfolket, de kvinnelige samfunnstoppene. Og alt dette har som sin forutsetning at kvinnen trekkes bort fra hjemmet og ekteskapet, vekk fra barna.

Det fører til kraftig reduksjon av kjernebefolkningen, og truer pensjonsordningen og omsorgen for barna og de svake i samfunnet.

Men det mest alvorlige ved saken er at dette er synd mot Gud og i strid med Hans åpenbarte vilje for skapelse og syndefall.

Dette førte til Herrens vrede og dom over Israel i svunnen tid, med erobring av landet og ødeleggelse av Jerusalem og Samaria.

Det er ingen grunn til å tro at det vil gå vårt folk bedre når en gjør seg skyldig i de samme syndene.

Derfor er det grunn til å våkne opp før det er for sent.

Stein Henriksen
Org. Nestleder i KF

Lørdag, Februar 12, 2005

Gratulere med stillingen som hysj-hysj-sjef. Jeg så selv ikke programmet, fordi jeg prioriterte håndballfest. Med Willoch i manesjen får jeg dessuten økt adrenalinproduksjon.

”Vold som virkemiddel er i strid med islam” sa Willoch. Dette er en ekstremt pinlig uttalelse. Den viser at :

Willoch ikke kan ’Mekka-Medina’ historien;
at han ikke vet hvorfor Mekka-Medina historien er så avgjørende nettopp for utviklingen av voldsreligionen;
at han ikke kjenner sverdverset, sure 9.5;
ei heller at ca. 60 prosent Koranen er oppfordringer til hat, terror og drap, og det i Allahs navn;
Willoch er åpenbart ikke klar over at han selv, så vel som Holme, Djupedal, programlederen, Kongehus, folk og Storting, bispene og prestene inkludert, altså oss vantro i følge islam, kalles for ape og svin, sure 5.62-65;
Willoch kan heller ikke kjenne til skrekkverset, sure 8.12ff;
Willoch kan heller ikke ha lest sure 9.123: drep hedningene, ligg på lur, fang dem, legg bakhold etc;
Willoch burde vite at Koranen og islam er gjennomsyret av jødehat, sure 9.14f.
Siste observasjon: Hvis Kåre Willoch har lest Koranan overhodet, så må han ha lest den meget overflatisk.

Willoch påstår at årsak til terrorisme er at Vesten undertrykker muslimske land, tråkker på deres kultur og religion, overgrep etc; grusomme overgrep mot muslimenes samfunn. Alt dette er feil, det er tvetydig, og formuleringene er upresise. Kjenner da ikke Willoch til islams blodige 1400 år gamle historie. Hva betyr muslimenes land for eksempel? De er alle arabiske stater, riktignok med ulik grad og styrke av islam. Muslimenes samfunn – hva eller hvor er er det? Verre enn verst er at Willoch bruker Palestina-navnet som om det fantes eller finnes et land som heter Palestina. Det finnes heller ikke, eller fantes, et folk som heter palestinere. De er arabere med en bostedstilknytning til Israel og jødenes land tilbake til 1880-årene. Jødene ble kalt for palestinajøder, og araberne palestinaarabere, et navn araberne hatet frem til 1967. Da oppsto myten om et palestinsk folk. Araberen Musa Alami skriver at det arabiske folk var ”i stort behov av en ’myte’ til å fylle deres samvittighet og fantasi”. Musa Alami: ”The Lesson of Palestine”, sitert Joan Peters ”From Time Immemorial”, s. 13. I følge Alami ville en ”indoktrinering av ’myten’ om palestinsk nasjonalitet skape ’identitet’ og ’selvrespekt’”, ibid. Det er ironisk at Arafat var ikke araber, men egypter. Men han kalte seg for palestiner.

Professor Philip K. Hitti, en ledende arabisk historiker, sa da han vitnet under ed for The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry i 1946: ”Sir, det finnes ikke noe Palestina i arabisk historie, absolutt ikke”. Han uttalte seg sterkt negativt til at navnet Palestina blir brukt på kart.

Så en kommentar til det med islam og terrorisme. Jeg regner med at Sikkerhetspolitiet har nær kontakt med muslimske miljøer. Når imamer eller andre påstår at islam er en fredens religion, så trenger det en forklaring. Når en muslim og en europeer snakker om fred, så legger de helt ulike begrepsinnhold i ordet fred. Islam lærer om to hus. Krigens Hus og Fredens Hus. Den freden imamen snakker om, er den freden som finnes i Fredens Hus, som er den tilstand som inntrer når et vantro folk eller en vantro stat underlegges islam. Krigens Hus består av alle vantro, det er enhver ikke-muslim på denne moder Jord. Referer islams uhyggelige lærepunkt som lover selvmordsbombere direkte adgang til det islamske Paradis. Jeg registrerer at i debatter, avisinnlegg, media, så kan jeg knapt huske at noen har satt søkelys på terrorister, feige som de er med maske på Før de skjærer hode av et uskyldig offer holder de frem Koranen sammen med offer/ofrene. De avskyelige bildene farer verden over. Han som var hovedmannen bak attentatet på Tvillingtårnene brukte Koranen og koranord. Det er en religionskrig vi er vitne til, slik det har vært i 1400 år. Vi vet hva som skjer i Sudan. Der har islam og muslimer myrdet omkring to millioner kristne de siste få tiårene. Islam er ikke fred. Islam er krig – krig med våpen. En imam sa forresten for kort tid siden: ”Nå trenger vi ikke bruke våpen lenger for å islamisere Europa. Europa er islamisert. Vi bruke demografiens lover som våpen”. I Holland snakkes det lavt blant politikerne nå hvorvidt Holland er blitt en islamsk koloni.

Jeg finner noen uttalelser fra programmet ganske utrolige, urovekkende, kunnskapsløse og desinformerende, for eksempel at panelet var enig om at islam er fredens religion! Islam er Krigens Hus – Dar al Harb! Den som ikke er klar over dette er en sikkerhetsrisiko i vår nasjonalstat. Jeg anbefaler til lesning de to bøkene av Mark Gabriel, ”Islam og Terrorisme” og ”Islam og Jødene”

Olav Andreas Dovland

Onsdag, Februar 09, 2005

Klipp fra Telegraphing the wrong message
Telegraphing the wrong message
by Ken Ham, president, AiG–USA

February 5, 2005

As the world’s largest apologetics organization, Answers in Genesis is frequently interviewed by secular reporters. In fact, there has been an international reporting frenzy as a result of a recent federal court case on how evolution and alternative theories should be taught in public schools. Even though we had nothing to do with the case, the media have been calling us.

We often grimace when we see the secular media’s final reports. While some just report the facts and manage to get it right, most either come with an agenda that is overtly biased against Christians (See Jonathan Sarfati’s article, Time and Newsweek blatantly attack Christian doctrine) or they just don’t understand what we believe.

Recently an article appeared in the Sunday Telegraph, “In the beginning … Adam walked with dinosaurs,” that was probably one of the worst pieces of journalism we’ve seen in a while. This reporter either didn’t hear what we were saying or had an agenda. The article also shows you the confusion that’s out there concerning creationist beliefs.

Here is Ken’s point-by-point critique of the article (the article is indented):

With its towering dinosaurs and a model of the Grand Canyon, America’s newest tourist attraction might look like the ideal destination for fans of the film Jurassic Park.
I wouldn’t really call the museum a tourist attraction. I believe it will attract people and tourists, but it’s really a teaching center. It’s meant to engage the culture and engage the society. The museum teaches … it’s got a message ... it’s a walk through history. There will be some entertaining aspects to it, but it’s primarily a place to teach people a very important message and to challenge them.

The new multi-million-dollar Museum of Creation, which will open this spring in Kentucky,
We call it a Creation Museum, which is really just the name. It not only has the account of creation, but it also has the whole history of the world, as recorded in Genesis, leading up to the message of the Cross.

They said the museum would open this spring. But what I told them was that we are hopeful the whole museum will open in the spring 2007 and that, by mid-year of 2005, we should be able to open the planetarium, lobby, bookstore and café.

will, however, be aimed not at film buffs, but at the growing ranks of fundamentalist Christians in the United States.
The museum is meant to be an outreach to both Christians and non-Christians. It’s an outreach to the whole culture—to challenge non-Christians with the message that the Bible’s history is true and therefore it’s message of the gospel and morality is true. The museum is meant to challenge Christians who have compromised with millions of years and evolutionary ideas. It’s also to teach and equip Christians to defend their faith in today’s secular world.

It aims to promote the view that man was created in his present shape by God, as the Bible states,
Now wait a minute—I didn’t say that! The whole universe is suffering from 6,000 years of sin and the Curse. We get diseases—we get old and die. We weren’t created like this. We were created perfect originally, but we’re suffering from 6,000 years of the Curse.

rather than by a Darwinian process of evolution, as scientists insist.
Note the phrase “as scientists insist.” What this person is trying to do here is to say, “If you believe in evolution, that’s science,” and “if you believe in what these people believe, that’s not science.” But that’s not true. We have real scientists, like Dr. Jason Lisle, on staff. He was granted his Ph.D. in astrophysics by evolutionists at a well-known secular university. They agreed—he did real science.

There are many scientists who believe that God created the universe in six literal days, six thousand years ago. In fact, we have a number of scientists on staff in the U.S., Australia, and England, and many in the secular world, who agree with us. We’re going to teach lots of real science throughout the museum—the science of genetics, natural selection, information, geology and so on. I tried to explain to this reporter that it’s not science versus the Bible. We all believe the same operational science in the present. It’s a debate between two beliefs about origins, and scientists who believe the Bible can show how science confirms the Bible’s history.

Even when you explain this to reporters, they either don’t understand or don’t want to understand because they already have an agenda.

The centerpiece of the museum is a series of huge model dinosaurs,
Although the dinosaur models will certainly be a spectacular part of the museum, I wouldn’t call the model dinosaurs “the centerpiece.” Not all the dinosaurs will be huge, either. The life-size model dinosaurs will be all sorts of different sizes—from the size of a sheep to 40 feet long.

built by the former head of design at Universal Studios,
The dinosaurs were not built by the former head of design at Universal Studios—they were built by Buddy Davis. Patrick Marsh, the design director for the Creation Museum, was not the former head of design at Universal Studios. He was the art director who did the scenic design for “Jaws” and “King Kong” at Universal Studios in Florida, USA.

which are portrayed as existing alongside man, contrary to received scientific opinion that they lived millions of years apart.
Here it is again—if you believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years before man, that’s science. Obviously, the reporter has a bias and an agenda. But who was there millions of years ago to see these things? That’s one of the things I tried to explain to him—the difference between operational science (what you can observe, repeat, and test in the present) and your beliefs concerning the past.

Other exhibits include images of Adam and Eve, a model of Noah’s Ark and a planetarium demonstrating how God made the Earth in six days.
These aren’t just images—they’re actual sculptures of Adam and Eve. We’ll have more than just a model of Noah’s Ark. We’re going to show all sorts of phases of the Ark’s construction.

The planetarium is going to show much more than just how God created the universe, including the Earth, in six days. It’s going to have a variety of programs on the stars and the universe, including powerful arguments against billions of years and the big bang theory. It will also show the glory of God as we look at the universe.

The museum, which has cost a mighty $25 million
Our budget for the Creation Museum is $25 million, including the building and all its exhibits. Our exhibits (over 42 major exhibit spaces) will cost about $10 million. Actually, $25 million is not much when you consider other museums and theme parks that would spend millions on just one exhibit.

For instance, the budget for the “Jaws attraction” at Universal Studios in Florida, USA cost $22 million in 1999. The Spiderman attraction at Universal Studios recently cost over $100 million.

A little closer to home is the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. Their total costs came to $110 million for the 158,000-square-foot-complex. And their exhibit area is actually not that much different from ours. But we’re going to have some unique elements, such as animated dinosaurs and waterfalls. We are actually able to keep our costs down through our volunteers and doing things in-house. Our budget for the whole museum is extraordinary low for the quality and number of exhibits.

will be the world’s first significant natural history collection devoted to creationist theory.
Of course, I can understand the secular world calling it a theory, but we would say it’s devoted to biblical history and true operational science.

It has been set up by Ken Ham, an Australian evangelist, who runs Answers in Genesis, one of America’s most prominent creationist organizations.
Answers in Genesis hasn’t been set up by me. Certainly, I’ve had the vision for this, but it’s all the people who have come to be a part of the organization that are making this happen.

I’m not an evangelist—I was teacher in Australia. While I’m certainly the CEO of Answers in Genesis, it’s actually run by a leadership team that includes Mark Looy, Mike Zovath, Kathy Ellis, Carl Kerby, Jim Hatton, John Pence, and Dale Mason. We also have a board of directors that meets several times a year.

He said that his aim was to use tourism, and the theme park’s striking exhibits, to convert more people to the view that the world and its creatures, including dinosaurs, were created by God 6,000 years ago.
I don’t understand how he could say that the Creation Museum is a theme park when I have never called it a theme park nor would I ever.

The statement about converting people to the view that God created dinosaurs 6,000 years ago is somewhat misleading. I explained to him that the most important thing we’re doing is helping people understand the credibility of the Bible. If its history in Genesis is true, then the rest is true.

There is an emphasis by the secular world (and I find this a lot) to look at us and say, “These are the people that believe God created in six days, 6,000 years ago.” We believe these things, but that’s not what I said is the aim of the museum. I said the primary aim is to convert people to Christianity.

“We want people to be confronted by the dinosaurs,” said Mr. Ham.
What I said was that, when people come into the lobby, they will immediately be confronted with dinosaurs and people together, a challenge to their evolutionary assumptions.

“It’s going to be a first class experience. Visitors are going to be hit by the professionalism of this place. It is not going to be done in an amateurish way. We are making a statement.”
The statement we are making is that the Bible is true—you can trust it. And they did actually get it right that it will be a “first class experience.”

The museum’s main building was completed recently, and work on the entrance exhibit starts this week. The first phase of the museum, which lies on a 47-acre site 10 miles from Cincinnati on the border of Kentucky and Ohio, will open in the spring.
I told them we trust the museum will open in the spring of 2007 and that we hope to open the planetarium, lobby, and café in the middle of this year (2005).

Market research companies hired by the museum are predicting at least 300,000 visitors in the first year, who will pay $10 each.
Our market research certainly indicated that. We actually believe there could be as many as 600,000 or more visitors in the first year, based on the support and interest we see in the museum.

Among the projects still to be finished is a reconstruction of the Grand Canyon, purportedly formed by the swirling waters of the Great Flood – where visitors will “gape” at the bones of dinosaurs that “hint of a terrible catastrophe,” according to the museum’s publicity.
Saying Grand Canyon was formed by swirling waters of the Great Flood is misrepresenting what the creationists believe. (See A canyon in six days!) Also, dinosaur bones are not associated with the Grand Canyon.

Mr. Ham is particularly proud of a planned reconstruction of the interior of Noah’s Ark. “You will hear the water lapping, feel the Ark rocking and perhaps even hear people outside screaming,” he said.
The reporter asked me to go through and describe the museum, and I said at one stage that we’re going to have a walk through of Noah’s Ark. The plans for that exhibit have since changed to something more spectacular. When I said that you might hear screams of people, it wasn’t meant, in any way, to say, “Ha, they died.” It was meant to say that this was a serious event. I think he has misinterpreted my comments to imply that I’m proud of the fact that all these people died. Well, that’s not true at all.

Our message today is that we have an Ark of salvation. You need to come into the Ark—the Lord Jesus Christ. The whole reason we were planning that kind of display was to warn people. People need to come into the Ark of salvation because there is a final judgment coming. It’s not a feeling of pride—it’s a heart-wrenching message that we have to give to people.

More controversial exhibits deal with diseases and famine, which are portrayed not as random disasters, but as the result of mankind’s sin.
He did get this part right in that it’s not God’s fault, it’s our sin which explains why there is death and disease in the world.

Mr. Ham’s Answers in Genesis movement blames the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado, in which two teenagers killed 12 classmates and a teacher before killing themselves, on evolutionist teaching, claiming that the perpetrators believed in Darwin’s survival of the fittest.
This is one area where I find, over and over again, that secular reporters don’t want to understand or don’t listen. We have never blamed the Columbine High School massacre on evolutionist’s teaching, and we don’t blame abortion or gay marriage on evolution.

We do point out that most students today go through a government school system where they are left with the impression that there is no God, they’re just an animal, and they can do whatever they want. Then who decides right and wrong?

What we’re saying is that aborting babies or shooting people is only consistent with what they believe. Evolution’s not to blame—the ultimate blame is sin. They reject God and the Bible, and construct a morality in accord with their foundation that there’s no God. Evolution is most likely a supposed justification for saying there is no God. Just like the Israelites in the book of Judges, who had no king to tell them what to do, they do what is right in their own eyes.

Other exhibits in the museum will blame homosexuals for AIDS. In a “Bible Authority Room” visitors are warned: “Everyone who rejects his history – including six-day creation and Noah’s flood – is ‘willfully’ ignorant.”
I don’t know where he got this from. There’s no exhibit that is going to talk about AIDS in the museum. And we don’t blame homosexuals for AIDS at all. That’s preposterous. We might say that, if you are disobedient to God’s rules for marriage, then you can spread diseases. But the bottom line is that if you don’t have God’s rules in regards to marriage, then there are consequences. (See our Q&A on morality—the section on homosexuality.)

Elsewhere, animated figures will be used to recreate the Garden of Eden, while in another room visitors will see a Tyrannosaurus rex pursuing Adam and Eve after their fall from grace. “That’s the real terror that Adam’s sin unleashed,” visitors will be warned.
We’re going to have a T. rex, but we never said he’s going to be pursuing Adam and Eve!

We are going to show that everything changed after the Fall—some animals became carnivorous and violence filled the earth.

A display showing ancient Babylon will deal with the Tower of Babel and “unravel the origin of so-called races”, while the final section will show the life of Christ, as an animated angel proclaims the coming of the Savior and a 3D depiction of the crucifixion.

In keeping with modern museum trends, there will also be a cafe with a terrace to “breathe in the fresh air of God’s creation”, and a shop “crammed” with creationist souvenirs, including T-shirts and books such as A is for Adam and Dinky Dinosaur: Creation Days.

He asked me if there was going to be a souvenir shop. What I told him is that the emphasis is going to be on resources: books, DVDs, tapes, etc. I told him we want people to go away with a message—to be equipped. I said there might be some things like T-shirts there but the major part of the bookstore is resources to instruct people. With over 700 items on our resources list (books and DVDs), there’s not going to be a lot of room for souvenirs.

The museum’s opening will reinforce the burgeoning creationist movement and evangelical Christianity in the U.S., which gained further strength with the re-election of President Bush in November.
It’s interesting to me how, because President Bush was re-elected and he’s a Christian and many Christians voted for him (a lot of non-Christians also voted for him), the secular media seem almost upset that Christians are having an influence in America. It’s almost as if Christians aren’t allowed to have an influence but non-Christians are.

What AiG is all about is disseminating information, telling people the Bible is true and seeing people converted to Christ. We are not a politically motivated organization.

Followers of creationism
What does he mean by followers of creationism? We aren’t a sect. We are Christians who believe the Bible. Followers of God’s Word is the way I would put it.

have been pushing for their theories to be reintegrated into American schoolroom teaching ever since the celebrated 1925 “Scopes Monkey Trial”, when U.S. courts upheld the right of a teacher to use textbooks that included evolutionary theory.
We’ve never been a political movement. We’ve never tried to get creationism taught in schools. We believe there has to be a change in people’s hearts. These secular people are antagonistic to Christians because they reject the Christian faith. They are secularists, and they want their worldview to dominate. Are Christians not allowed to have a view? How inconsistent can they get?

A lot of people misunderstand the Scopes trial. Hollywood has misrepresented and even perverted the trial through the movie Inherit the Wind. It bears hardly any resemblance to the truth. It was really a movie done to denigrate Christians.

One of our speakers, Dr. David Menton, has written an analysis of the movie in Inherit the Wind: an historical analysis.

The statement that “U.S. courts upheld the right of a teacher to use textbooks that included evolutionary theory” is absolutely amazing because it is 100 percent untrue. The reporter needs to actually read the transcript of the Scopes trial and find out what really happened. (You can obtain this from the AiG bookstore, it’s called The World’s Most Famous Court Trial.)

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced that position by banning the teaching of creationism in public schools on the grounds of laws that separate state and Church.
This is not an accurate statement, and it’s not the first time the media has misreported on this. The law actually says that competing theories of origins can be taught in public schools as long as no particular religion was being established. (See “Hunting for truth” in the secular media!)

This is the reason that people are now trying to get evolution disclaimer stickers in textbooks and intelligent design taught in school—they are saying it has a secular intent and doesn’t mention God. Thus it would conform to the Supreme Courts ruling.

Since then, however, many schools–particularly in America’s religious Deep South–have got around the ban by teaching the theory of “intelligent design”, which claims that evolutionary ideas alone still leave large gaps in understanding.

“Since President Bush’s re-election we have been getting more membership applications than we can handle,’’ said Mr. Ham, who expects not just the devout, but also the curious, to flock through the turnstiles. “The evolutionary elite will be getting a wake-up call.”

What I told him is that we received more memberships than we had expected. I didn’t mention President Bush’s re-election. He added that.

Sometimes I shake my head and sigh when I see what the secular reporter said compared to what really happened! Oh, how I look forward to seeing an article that reports what we actually say, rather than a reporter’s modifying our words to tell readers what we “really meant to say!” Perhaps, if we had more time to decontaminate journalists from their years of evolutionary brainwashing, their reporting would be a little more balanced.

Available online at:
COPYRIGHT © 2005 Answers in Genesis

Katolikker og sosialister i norsk bispenominasjon? - Av Jørgen Høgetveit i
Fra gammelt av da man kjempet for å innføre menighetsrådene (fra 1890-1920) for at folket skulle få delta i utpeking av hyrder – kjempet høyresida, preste- og embetsverket mot. De ville gjerne ha et ”kirkelig storting” – noe de ikke fikk da – men har fått nå. Og så ser vi hvordan stat og kirke ødelegger den norske kirke igjen og fører oss sakte men sikkert inn i Moderkirkens favn, et klamt favntak vi heldigvis fikk kommet oss ut av etter reformasjonen. Vi ser det i deres teologiske tilnæring til den katolske kirke. AKF/Krossen Media har gitt ut et utmerket hefte av en tidligere prost i DNK som dokumenterer dette: ”Går den norske kirke mot ROM ?” Konklusjonen er et entydig JA! Olav Valen-Sendstad så og advarte mot denne utviklingen allerede rundt 1956 hvor han påpekte at når evangelisk-luthersk lære ikke lenger var levende i vårt folk ville sosialismen trenge inn i det verdslige regiment og salvebinde det gjennom lover og byråkrati – og den katolske kirke ville komme med sin lære og kirkebegrep og overta kirken igjen. Han får rett – om det ikke skjer en oppvåkning. Omkampen om Norge i gang!

Vi ser det i bispeposisjoner som for eks. at biskop Vagle i Nidaros drev inn i presesstillingen etter biskop Bondevik som tok over etter Oslobispen. Han tok med seg hele prostestaben sin på visitt til paven og holder store verdensvide økumeniske samlinger i Nidaroskatedralen. Her er det noe som skal gjenreises. Nå er flere biter på plass og flere skal komme.
Kirkerådet gjennomfører et valgopplegg med mange krumspring for å få fram kandidater som passer venstresida – for å gjøre Hernes verk fullkomment. Siste utspillet er – utenom reglene – å bringe inn i nominasjonsprosessen Pettersen (gammel radikaler?), tidligere leder av IKO og produsent av KRL-faget som Hernes og Lilletun fikk gjennomført på tross av iherdige protester fra 12 000 underskrivere og flere av lederne av de kristen organisasjonene som støttet AKFs protester mot dette eklatante Grunnlovsbrudd. Og nå kommer slutt kampen mellom ”Moskva – Rom”. Vi sier ikke mer om Pettersens kandidatur – men merker oss at Kvarme først har vært i et Benediktinerkloster og fått ”minnelse” om å kaste seg inn i nominasjonsprosessen. Deretter har han vært 30 dager i et Jesuitterkloster (Dagen 4. feb.-05) – jesuittene som igjennom hundreårene har vært spydspissen mot de evangelisk – lutherske riker. Dagen skriver slik i ingressen: ”I 2003 tilbragte biskop i Borg, Ole Kristian Kvarme, 30 dager i stillhet blant katolske jesuitter i Berlin.” Han deltok i ”det som kalle ”ignatianske øvelser” – som han selv utdyper – men bare navnet gjør at man tenker sitt. Hvorfor i all verden befinner en norsk biskop for den evangelisk lutherske kirke seg i den ÅNDELIGE ATMOSFÆRE som et jesuitterkloster er? Hva bringer han med seg tilbake til Norge derfra? Nå støttes han for øvrig i Aftenposten av Matlary - Kr.F – som tidligere var pavens høyre hånd i familiesaker! Kvarme står riktignok ”midt i DNKs vedtak” om homofili etc – men hva hjelper det - når DNK står langt unna Bibelens syn på en rekke spørsmål. DNK og Norge får nå oppleve konsekvensene av at deres skaperteologi – om Gud som Skaper og Hans ordninger fra familien, menigheten og nasjonen – er gått fullstendig i oppløsning under trykket av forkvaklet teologi, naturvitenskap og dyrkelsen av den humane – menneskelige fornuft! Den fornuft fra ”vår formørkede forstand – kan jo ikke sannheten kjenne, uten din den gode Ånd, vil sitt lys i oss opptenne – godt å tenke, tale gjøre. Dertil må Din Ånd oss føre.” (etter minnet).

Etter Paulus`s utredning om en del av dette i 1. Tim. 2 avslutter han kp. 3 å tale om ”-Guds menighet, sannhetens støtte og grunnvoll.” Når sannheten fravikes for humane ”gode tanker” om bl.a. ”det nye kjønnsrollemønster” (Likestillingsloven av ca. 1967 – som fører fram til ”kjønnsnøytral” ekteskapslov 2005) da må FOSTERDRAPET KOMME for å fjerne beviset for at kvinnen ikke er mann – og når menn og kvinner er like – kan selvsagt MENN LIGGE MED MENN. (Kristenfilosofen Francis Schaefer) Det er frafallets ubøyelige logikk. Urettferdigheten vokser seg stor og kjærligheten blir etter hvert iskald hos de fleste med slike læreavvik og følgende praksis. For ”kjærligheten gleder seg ved sannhet” – det er Bibelens tale.

Skal Sannheten igjen seire i det norske folk – blir det igjen gjennom en vekkelsesrøst som Herren har fått oppreise i ensomhet med sitt Ord som Hans Nielsen Hauge, Ludvig Hope med flere. Frafallet begynner på seminarene – som en teolog en gang sa til meg. De skriftlærdes surdeig har gjort sin gjerning blant oss – nå trenger vi vekkerrøster forpliktet på Guds Ord og med sann hyrdeomsorg for folket – som finner fårene igjen rundt om på haugene hvor de forskremt samler seg i små grupper og venter på Overhyrden. (Esekiel kp. 34) Da får vil vel igjen et forfølgende samarbeid mellom kirke og myndigheter mot disses som truer deres selvutklekkede samfunnsorden. Men går Gud med har de ingen sjanse til å ødelegge verket med alle sine onde planer. Om Gud gir tid trenger vi en slik vekkelse mer enn noen gang nå!

Mandag, Februar 07, 2005

Brev til biskopene i Den norske kirke fra pensjonert sokneprest Olav Andreas Dovland
19. januar 2005

Den norske kirkes preses,
biskop Finn Wagle

biskop Gunnar Stålsett,
og kirkens øvrige biskoper.


I ET INTERVJU MED BISKOP GUNNAR STÅLSETT julaften fikk han spørsmål om kristne og muslimer tilber samme guden. Svaret han ga er oppsiktsvekkende.
GUNNAR STÅLSETTS UTTALELSE er kommet i åpenbar konflikt med islams 1400 årige krigshistorie og tradisjon, med Koranen og Hadithskriftene, og må etter min mening være den mest uryddige, omtrentlige og kunnskapsløse religionsblandig som er uttalt av en biskop på lange tider. Jeg har lydopptaket foran meg. Spørsmålet var: Er det samme guden kristne og muslimer tilber? Stålsett svarer med flere ord enn jeg har plass til her, men hans svar kan ikke forstås som annet enn et Ja!

ISLAMS HISTORIE er en sammenhengende blodig historie fra de 27 krigene som Muhammed selv var hærfører for og satte i gang, og fram til i dag. Der det ble krig, var det i regelen muslimer som satte i gang krigshelvetene. Slik er det også i dag. Historien lyver ikke. Bare historikere kan lyve. Folkeslag er nærmest utryddet. (for eks. armenerne og assyrerne. I dag er det Sør-Sudans kristne befolkning som slaktes ned, omkring 2 mill. etter 1983). Kulturer er blitt knust, nasjonale skatter stjålet og gjort islamske, for eks viten innen medisinfaget, matematikken, arkitekturen, filosofien, astronomien, litteraturen. (les Peter BetBasoo’s brev til Carly Fiorina,

NI GANGER HAR ISLAMSKE hærstyrker invadert Europa. Angrepene mot Sicilia begynte i 652. Siste gang ble de islamske styrkene slått ved Wiens bymurer, september 1683. For noen måneder siden hørte vi fra en imam litt lenger sør at ”nå er det ikke nødvendig å bruke våpenmakt for å islamisere Europa. Europa er islamisert. Denne gangen bruker vi demografiens lover”. (Hollandske politikere diskuterer nå om Holland kan kalles en muslimsk koloni. Hollendere har begynt å emigrere). Burde vi ikke da ta denne trusselen alvorlig? Trusselen som den demografiske utviklingen fører med seg, og diskutere den åpent? Sure 8.12 forteller oss at Allahs sak er å kaste frykt inn i de vantros hjerter, Einar Bergs oversettelse, (som brukes hvis ikke annet er nevnt). Den islamske verdensfronts erklæring av 23. februar 1998 erklærer jihad – hellig krig – mot jøder og korsfarere. USA og Europa er etter dette primære krigsmål. Bin Laden begrunner krigen med sure 4.91! Det er ikke Abraham, Isak og Jakobs Gud som ”kaster skrekk” i våre hjerter! Det er islams Allah som gjør det. På ethvert sted i Koranen EB oversetter til ’Gud’, skal det stå Allah!

NÅR BISKOP STÅLSETT FORTELLER oss i intervjuet at jødedommen, kristendommen og islam tilber samme Gud, så er dette uhistorisk og ukorrekt. Jeg må dessverre si, biskop Stålsett, at jeg har ikke tillit til kunnskapene dine når det gjelder islam. Du er for øvrig i godt selskap blant bispekollegene. Jeg ber deg og dere øvrige biskoper om å lese sure 109. Studér deretter de 20 referansesurene. Vær modige! Vår gud, Jahve, er ikke helt stueren, politisk vurdert, blant dom fina i hovedstaden. Vi skal følge Guds ord i Bibelen! Ordinasjonsløftet forplikter. Allah og Jahve utelukker hverandre gjensidig. Snesevis av gange ’sier’ Jahve og Allah helt motsatte ting! (om navnet se 2. Mosebok 3).
ER DET SANT DET BISKOP STÅLSETT SIER? Er det teologisk holdbart? Eller historisk holdbart? DET er i alle fall sant at ”Muslimer tror at de må berøve andre deres religiøse frihet”, se Islam bak sløret, s. 25. Og sure 109, blant annet, bekrefter at biskopen tar grundig feil!

SANNHET ER IKKE BARE ET FILOSOFISK begrep, ikke engang bare et teologisk. Jeg ser at muslimske skriftlærde nå kalles for teologer. Deres tittel burde være allahloger. Det er like fundamentalt galt å kalle moskeforsamlingen for menighet. Premissene for bibelsk kristendom forutsetter at det virkelig eksisterer en sannhet. Er det slik, innebærer det at det er noe som er det motsatte, for eks. ikke-sannhet, løgn, eller bare feil, altså galt. To påstander som gjensidig utelukker hverandre kan – eo ipso - ikke begge være av sannheten. Akkurat dette er det grunnleggende forhold med islam og jødedom/kristendom. Jeg er sannheten, sa Jesus. Sannheten er en person – inkarnasjonens gåte! Dette håner og forakter Koranen.

ENTEN HAR ISLAM RETT NÅR Koranen hevder at ”det er bare én gud, Allah, og Muhammed osv”, eller så har jødedom/kristendom rett når den bekjenner seg til én gud, Jahve, som også den kristne kirke bekjenner. Muslimer og kristne tilber avgjort ikke samme guddom. Koranen sier bl. annet at Allah omskapte jøder og vantro – som er enhver ikke-muslim - til apekatter og griser, (NB! Griser), sure 7.166, se også 5.65. Vår gud, Jahve, har aldri sagt noe lignende! Vår Gud elsker sin skapning – mennesket! Eksempler på slike motstridende utsagn i Koranen og Hadithskriftene, i sammenligning med Bibelen, er mange, svært mange! Hvordan skal det gå med marsjipangrisene i desember måned, som vi er så glad i? Snart vil de ble krevet tatt bort. Tegningen av grisen på barneavdelingen på Kristiansand sykehus ble fort fjernet.

• • HVEM AV BISKOPENE DELER I STÅLSETTS SYN? (at Allah og Jahve er samme Gud)

I DAGENS SITUASJON ER DISSE SPØRSMÅLENE nødt til å bli besvart av bispekollegiet! Biskopene må regne med at svaret på spørsmålene kan få konsekvenser for manges fremtidige tilhørighet til Den norske kirke. Svarene kan komme til å fjerne mange fra Dnk. Biskopene er statskirkelige personer i et BETRODD, åndelig embete. Ingen biskop er hevet over Bibel og Bekjennelse!

JEG MENER Å KUNNE BEKREFTE AT Den norske kirke, lik Den katolske kirke, lik reformasjonskirkene, ikke tror på Allahs såkalte åpenbaringer. ( Tvert i mot. Vi avviser Muhammeds åpenbaringer som åpenbaringer fra Abraham, Isak og Jakobs Gud, kalt Fedrenes Gud. Vi tror heller ikke at Muhammed fikk åpenbaringer fra engelen Gabriel. Muslimer som er blitt kristne er førstehåndsvitner. Her kan svært mange nevnes. Noen ved navn, andre under psevdonym, for eks Mark Gabriel. Han var professor og lærer ved Al-Azhar Universitetet i Kairo i 12 år. Til avsluttende eksamen ble han nr. 2 av 6000 kandidater. Han underviste i islamsk gudelære og historie. Samtidig var han imam ved Gizamoskeen i Kairo. Så ble han avskjediget på grått papir, som det heter. Han ble hentet på universitetsområde av egyptisk sikkerhetspoliti, arrestert og torturert. Hans far mislyktes i et forsøk på å drepe ham. Der hvor sharialoven rår er det dødsstraff for å forlate islam. Skal biskopene og vi andre stilltiende akseptere dette? Det er en barbarisk og umenneskelig dødsdom i en tilsvarende menneskefiendtlig religion vi er vitne til.

BISKOP STÅLSETTS UTTALELSE BETYR at islamiseringen av Norge kan skje langt raskere, samtidig med at vårt folk villedes med julaftens uttalelse. Den latinske oversettelsen av juleevangeliet, Lukas 2, begynner på dette kraftige vis: Factum est, …..! Det en biskop sier må jo være sant, må være factum est, for så sier Herren! Resultatet av forvirringen er skjebnesvanger for kirken. Et skremmende eksempel er det som skjer i Danmark nå. Der er interessen for islamsk tro - i en etterkristen og nedkristnet kultursammenheng - økende. Rom. 1.28 Danske ungdommer konverteres til islam i en religiøs oppbruddstid, samtidig med at sju biskoper i den danske folkekirken nå innfører vigselsrituale for homofilt partnerskap! Hva sier Bibelen? Hva sier biskop(ene)? Samtidig sier en dansk sokneprest at Gud finnes ikke, Gud er død. 60-årenes moteteologi – Gud-er-død-læren – forsøker en norsk sokneprest å vekke til live igjen. Teologi er Gud taler. Hvis Gud er død, så taler han i alle fall ikke. Det er ingen tvil om at utydeligheten i kirken er sterkt medvirkende til islams fremgang.

MARK GABRIEL begynte med å stille riktige spørsmål på galt sted! Ser dere at norske media er uinteressert i spørsmål jeg reiser? Det virker som biskopene også er uinteressert. Ser dere at norske media er svært opptatt av kirke/kristendomskritikk? Ser dere at media er mer enn maksimalt opptatt av hvem som blir biskop både her og der, da og nå? Ser dere hvilke kriterier media bedømmer biskoper etter? Ser dere at islam forblir stort sett uberørt av journalister og redaktører? Vi vil verken at fylkesmenn, som da Stålsett ble biskop, ordfører, professor eller redaktører skal ’utnevne’ biskoper. Kirkebispesirkuset nå med Kirkerådsdirektøren Erling Pettersen er pinlig. Pettersen har virkelig posisjonert seg i retning bispestolen. Ved å skifte overbevisning (mening) 180 grader på minimum av tid. DET uroer vel verken ordføreren i Oslo eller Berge Furre?

ELLERS ER LITTERATUREN EN VEIVISER HER. Oriana Fallachis bøker er en vekker for Europa. Denne vekkelsen ser ikke ut til å ha nådd Norge og bispekollegiet. Politiske og kirkelige ledere lar tiden gå fra seg. Undres om én biskop eller én politiker har lest Oriana Fallaci?

DET GÅR IKKE AN Å RESONNERE som Oslobispen. Så unøyaktig i viktige trosspørsmål kan en biskop ikke være! Bispen har selvsagt rett i at det finnes bare én Gud. DET har vært vår kirkes bekjennelse alltid. Men denne guden er ikke muslimenes Allah! Det finnes ikke noen enhet mellom Jahve og Alah! Allah er den største, er den muslimske trosbekjennelse. ”Navnet Allah kommer fra det sammensatte arabiske ordet al-ilah. Al er den bestemte artikkel, og ilah er et arabisk ord for gud”, (se Robert Morey: Den islamske invasjon).

”ALLAH ER ET RENT ARABISK UTTRYKK som blir brukt med henvisning til en arabisk guddom”, ibid. Når Koranen påstår at islam er forut for både jødedom og kristendom, så er dette grenseløs historisk uetterrettelighet. Koranske og hadithske utsagn forteller at Abraham var muslim. Dette holder ikke mål for en historisk målestokk. Den første muslimen må jo være en etterkommer av Muhammed. Er det biskopen med læreansvar i Den norske kirke som uttaler seg til ”Juleglasset”? Allmennheten har rett til og krav på å få vite det! Betaler vi kirkeskatt, så har jeg kanskje rett på svar?

ARABERNE FORSTÅR OG VET utmerket godt at JHVH, som er Abraham, Isak og Jakobs Gud, og islams Allah, ikke er og ikke kan være samme guddom. (JHVH er konsonantene. Med vokalene satt til uttaler vi det gjerne Jahve, noen Jehova). En kjent og autorativ kjenner av islam, palestinaaraberen dr. Anis Shorrosh, uttalte til Jerusalem Post 21. april 1993 at ”Koranens Allah er ikke den samme som Bibelens Gud”. Mange likhetstrekk mellom Bibel og Koran bekrefter intet i retning biskop Stålsetts uttalelse. Det er den kristne SANNHETEN som tilsløres her, eller tildekkes, at Jesus er sannheten. (Les for eks ”Islam bak sløret”).


KORANEN - hvis vi annullerer et skriftord, lar det gå i glemmeboken, sender vi et bedre - sure 2.100 (EB).
THE KORAN (N.J.Dawood sure 2.106) - we abrogate a verse. Smlg. surene 6.34; 10.65 og 22.18f.
KORANEN SIER ’Vi’ (er Allah) gjorde avtale med Abraham og Ismael - sure 2.119.
KORANEN SITERER NOE Abraham i følge Bibelen ikke sa – sure 2.119 ff. NB!!
KORANEN SIER at Abraham og Ismael reiste Husets (Kaabaens) fundament - sure 2.121.
KORANEN REFERER ALLAH - Kjemp (jihad). Drep dem hvor dere treffer dem - sure 2.186 ff.
KORANEN KREVER - ingen annen religion enn islam - sure 3. 79.
KORANEN PÅBYR - pågrip dem og drep dem der dere finner dem - sure 4.91.
KORANEN – de vantro er deres fiender (Dawoods overs. inveterate foe - sure 4. 101) - sure 4.102.
KORANEN - muslimer beskyldes for å ha drept Messias, Marias sønn, (historisk umulig!!) - sure 4.155 ff.
KORANEN - Allah ga åpenbaringer til Noa, Abraham, Jesus og en rekke andre - sure 4.161f.
KORANEN FORDØMMER kristne og jøder. Islam hevder det er blasfemi å si Jeg er et Guds barn - sure 5.19 ff.
KORANEN PÅBYR muslimer ikke å slutte seg til vantro - sure 5.62-65.
KORAN KALLER VANTRO - enhver ikke-muslim - for ape og svin - sure 5.65; 7.163-167
KORANEN SIER at jødene er islams verste fiender - sure 5.85.
ALLAH sprer frykt inn i vantros hjerter - sure 8.12.
KORANENS IMPERATIV - Kjemp mot dem (det skal i virkeligheten være make war on them) - sure 8.40.
KORANEN FORDØMMER at jødene sier Esra er Guds sønn (noe jødene selvsagt ikke gjør) - sure 9.29 f.
KORANENS SVERDVERS - drep avgudsdyrker - sure 9.5; 9.24; 9.74 (drep dem).
KORANEN (BARE KRIG) - DREP DEM helt til de er nedkjempet - sure 47.3ff.

JEG GJØR BISKOPENE OPPMERKSOM på at det skal stå ALLAH i Einar Bergs oversettelse på ethvert sted hvor han VELGER GUD. Oversetteren pynter på flere uttrykk. I sure 8.12 for eks står det ’GI DEM ET SLAG OVER NAKKEN OG SLÅ DEM OVER FINGRENE’. N.J.DAWOODS oversettelse er i samsvar med den arabiske teksten: ”…STRIKE OFF THEIR HEADS, STRIKE OFF THE VERY TIPS OF THEIR FINGERS”. De siste årene har vi gang på gang sett i full offentlighet muslimske terrorister kappe hodet av gislene. Det er en bestialsk og umenneskelig drapsmetode som har sine røtter i religionen islam. Engelen Gabriels budskap, hva? Jeg vet knapt om norske ord som kan beskrive denne islamske djevelskapen.

BISKOPENE KAN MEDVIRKE til at denne nødvendige debatten blir tatt på alvor. Biskopene med ansvar for kirkens lære og teologi kan også i meget stor grad bidra med å ufarliggjøre debatten, som jeg i tilfelle kaller for ansvarsfraskrivelse. Etter Jesu ord skal vi elske vår neste. Muslimene er vår neste! Men vi skal ta islam på alvor. Vi vil ikke omfavne islam som religion. Det er en grusom religion.

RELIGIONEN ISLAM, SÅ VEL SOM VÅR KRISTNE RELIGION, må underlegges de samme regler for saklighet. Vi aksepterer ikke sportsjournalister til den oppgaven. Jeg finner meg ikke i overhode, ikke å kunne kritisere islam eller Muhammed - så lenge islam kritiserer oss som vantro, og kaller oss for aper og svin! Biskopene, den norske kirkes ledere, kan ikke unnvike denne krevende samtalen lenger. Islam kan umulig få innvilget særrettigheter. Alle forstår det. Rettigheter som ikke engang vår egen kristne religion har her på berget! Koranen uttrykker kraftig kritikk og forakt for vår tro!
HVEM SKAPER FIENDEBILDET? PERSONLIG VERKEN VIL JEG ELLER ØNSKER JEG Å BIDRA TIL DET. Men biskoper og prester og andre som bruker uttrykket fiendebilde, må besinne seg. Jeg protesterer kraftig på at det er vi som vil informere om islamiseringen som skaper fiendebildet. Det er islams Koranen som skapte og skaper fiendebildet. Koranen sier skremmende mye stygt om oss vantro. Muslimen er også skapt i Guds bilde, men da sier jeg ikke i Allahs bilde, men det bilde som fremgår tydelig i 1. Mosebok 1.26. Biskopene må også være oppmerksom på at det er lite kunnskap om islam. Med synsing flyter det over alle avis- og mediabredder.

JEG BER BISKOPENE INNSTENDIG OM Å KOMME PÅ BANEN. Det gjør det vanskelig for dere å uttale dere unisont om Stålsetts uttalelse. Vanskelighetene blir bare verre og verre. Skjær gjennom nå! De fleste nordmenn vet om den innvortes uenighet i bispekollegiet. Enighet er der ikke! Heller ikke énhet! Enhet - uten bibelsk klarhet og sannhet – kan ikke vedvare. ”Sic transit gloria ekklesia Norvegiensis”. Vi nærmer oss kan hende SISTE stoppsted. Islamiseringen pågår snikende og uhyggelig fort.

NÅR DERE SNAKKER OM DIALOG, så viser det at dere ikke kjenner islam godt nok, verken i bispekollegiet eller på statsminister Bondeviks kontor. For islam og imamer, og Koranen, fins det ingen dialog med vantro, annet enn den som kan forbindes med Huddabajjah-avtalen. Muhammed inngikk denne avtalen om å holde fred i 10 år. Etter to år dro hærføreren Muhammed tilbake til Mekka og brøt fredsavtalen. Det er fullt lovlig for en muslim, eller en muslimsk stat å bryte en avtale med en vantro eller en vantro stat, hvis det gagner Allahs sak. Arafat henviste til denne avtalen fra en moske i Johannesburg (1994) en gang han ble kritisert for å ha inngått en avtale med Israel.

Olav Andreas Dovland,
pensjonert sokneprest
Østlia 8, 1592 Våler

Kopi sendes:
Rolf Reikvam i Stortingets kirkekomite
FrP’s stortingsgruppe
KrF’s stortingsgruppe
Steinar Bastesen, Stortinget
Dagsavisen Dagen
Ukeavisen Norge I Dag

Resultat: Side 6 av 37
Neste Side:
1 2 3 4 5 (6) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37