Christ in the Old Testament: Sisera’s Crushed Skull

It is natural in the Evangelical world to either not read the Old Testament or read in it a manner that casts a cover of irrelevance over its content. Many claim that it doesn’t apply to Christians and therefore has no place in our reading, studying, and preaching. Others simply neglect to give it their attention.

What we often don’t realize is that the entire body of sacred scripture is God’s method of communicating with humans. The Old Testament may contain things that seem strange (such as the Jewish dietary laws), but rest assured that God has a purpose for including those things in the canon for our edification and His glory.

One fascinating thing that I have neglected to see until recently is that there are countless allusions to Christ in the Old Testament. God alluded to Christ in Genesis 3:15 when He said, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel, ” (ESV). That offspring would eventually bear the wrath of God for the elect upon a hill called Golgotha, or the place of a skull, thereby crushing the skull of Satan.

With that in mind, it’s hard to read the account of Sisera’s death in Judges and not be reminded of Christ. Read the following passages and tell me if you find the same allusion:

But Sisera fled away on foot to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite. And Jael came out to meet Sisera and said to him, “Turn aside, my lord; turn aside to me; do not be afraid.” So he turned aside to her into the tent, and she covered him with a rug. And he said to her, “Please give me a little water to drink, for I am thirsty.” So she opened a skin of milk and gave him a drink and covered him. And he said to her, “Stand at the opening of the tent, and if any man comes and asks you, ‘Is anyone here?’ say, ‘No.’” But Jael the wife of Heber took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand. Then she went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple until it went down into the ground while he was lying fast asleep from weariness. So he died. And behold, as Barak was pursuing Sisera, Jael went out to meet him and said to him, “Come, and I will show you the man whom you are seeking.” So he went in to her tent, and there lay Sisera dead, with the tent peg in his temple. (Judges 4:17-22, ESV)

Now read Deborah’s summary:

She sent her hand to the tent peg and her right hand to the workmen’s mallet; she struck Sisera; she crushed his head; she shattered and pierced his temple. (Judges 5:26, ESV)


Obama: Bad Data and Poor Statistics

How does the nation create jobs? Apparently the Federal Government needs to raise taxes. According to a statistical analysis, Obama concluded that this is what the American people need in order to create jobs. This analysis included data from a Google employee, who asked Obama, “Will you please raise my taxes?”1

In the same article, Obama is quoted as stated the following:

I mean, has anybody been watching the debates lately…You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change.

The President has made a huge assumption regarding wild fires. The assumption is that there is a causal relationship between climate change and the wild fires. (The statement also assumes that climate change exists in the form of man-induced global warming, which is a topic deserving its own post.) The President is attempting to infer that the climate change caused the fires, and that because Rick Perry denies the Global Warming Theory (GLOWART), he is an idiot and people shouldn’t vote for him. The problem is that even if GLOWART existed, a causal relationship between it and the wild fires in the great state of Texas is hard to prove without significant data. Wild fires would require an increase in the global temperature over a multiple year period in order to exist. Furthermore, other explanations (lack of rain, increased smoking due to having to live with the Obamanomics of the twenty first century and thus an increased unextinguished cigarette butt population, etc.) would have to be negated in order to infer that GLOWART explains Rick Perry’s fire problem and that he’s an idiot for denying it. Instead of being reasonable, Obama has taken a cheap shot at Rick Perry.

Let’s venture back to the argument alluded to in the first paragraph. Obama’s argument is as follows:

  1. Premise: Raising taxes for the rich results in job growth.
  2. Premise: My statistical analysis proves that Americans validate Premise 1.
  3. Conclusion: Therefore, we must raise taxes on the rich now.

The problem with Premise 1 is that it is a false assumption. Here is a counterargument to Premise 1:

  1. Premise: All private sector jobs are created by businesses.
  2. Premise: Businesses seek to increase profit.
  3. Premise: Increased profit is an increase in revenue vs. expenses.
  4. Premise: Increased profit results in increased in investment.
  5. Premise: Increased investment results in increased jobs.
  6. Premise: Lowering taxes on businesses results in increased revenue.
  7. Premise: Lowering taxes on businesses results in increased profit.
  8. Conclusion: Lowering taxes on businesses results in job growth in the private sector

One might dispute Premise 5, stating that the investment might be in tools or real estate. However, those tools had to be built and a real estate agent was contracted in the land purchase. My point stands: raising taxes on the rich will not create jobs. The President may add that his plan is to create “shovel-ready” jobs in infrastructure. While there are many roads and bridges that need replaced, raising taxes (and thereby killing jobs in the private sector) is no way to accomplish this goal. Furthermore, these “shovel-ready” jobs are temporary. Finally, it takes months of engineering and drafting to plan a new bridge.

The President has recently unveiled an additional data set in his statistical analysis. This data set includes two records: Warren Buffet and his secretary. Apparently, Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Therefore, Obama argues, the tax rate for the rich needs to increase. Let’s not mention that much of Buffet’s income is from capital gains. Let’s also conceal any charitable contributions that Buffet made in order to lower his tax rate.

In order to perform a statistical analysis, one needs to gather a sample of data that is representative of the entire population. The more data one gets, the more accurate the sample will represent the thoughts of the population (assuming that random sampling is used). Typically, 1000 to 1500 records are used in statistical analyses, resulting in a very accurate result. Obama has taken three records in his sample, and those records are not representative of the whole. The President should instead use reason and look at past policies that resulted in increased job growth in the private sector. Even better, the President should just go back on vacation and enjoy his time in office–it is likely to end in just over a year.


  1. The data was retrieved from a retired Google employee from the following site:,0,3495346.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher



God IS: A Refutation of “Proof” #1 at

Let us examine an argument that claims that God is imaginary. The title of the argument is “Try Praying”. The main argument is that because God does not answer our prayer for Him to cure every instance of cancer, He is imaginary (does not exist). Several scripture references are cited in support of the argument, namely Mt 7:7-10, 17:20, 21:21; Mk 11:24; Jn 14:12-14. Several actual arguments exist in the article in the following form:

  1. Premise: If God/Jesus said {something regarding prayer from the aforementioned verses}, and we ask God to cure cancer, then God should cure cancer.
  2. Premise: God does not cure cancer.
  3. Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

The first argument quotes Jesus in Matthew 7:7-11 and makes the following argument:

  1. Premise: If “our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him”, then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it.
  2. Premise: God does not cure cancer.
  3. Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

Is this argument valid? Is it sound? Are there any logical fallacies presented? There are several layers of assumptions intertwined into this argument that must be discharged for this argument to be proven. Furthermore, premise 1 is an argument itself. Here are the elements of the argument with the added assumptions:

  1. Premise 1
    1. Premise: Our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him
    2. Assumption: Curing every instance of cancer is a good thing.
    3. Assumption: God is required to do what we ask.
    4. Premise: I have asked God to cure every instance of cancer.
    5. Conclusion: Therefore, God must cure every instance of cancer.
  2. Premise 2
    1. Premise: God does not cure cancer.
    2. Assumption: No instance of the elimination of cancer in one person in history can be attributed to God.
    3. Assumption: No instance of the elimination of cancer in one person in the future can be attributed to God.
    4. Assumption: If cancer miraculously disappeared it could not be attributed to God.
    5. Assumption: If man discovered a cure to cancer it could not be attributed to God.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Assumption: For God to exist, He must meet the qualifications set out in premise 1, even if those qualifications are inconsistent with other depictions of God.

The deeply implicit assumptions in this argument present some difficulty in proving that this is indeed a valid argument. For instance, if one is going to argue from the Bible that God should cure every instance of cancer if He exists because it is good, that person has neither considered the attributes of God as presented in Scripture nor pondered the nature of the fallen world. Romans 8:28 states that “all things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose.” A biblical view of God is one that sees His ultimate sovereignty over all things. For more information regarding God’s sovereignty, see A. W. Pink’s The Sovereignty of God. The Bible presents the universe in a fallen state due to the sin of Adam. The entire cosmos is touched by the corruption of sin. Adam’s sin was imputed to all men (Romans 5:12). Earth was no longer a peaceful and safe place to dwell; furthermore, work would be hard (Genesis 3:17-19). God forewarned of disease, earthquakes, and famines (Luke 21:11). God uses disease for the purpose of teaching people (Proverbs 3:11, 15:32). To Moses, God asserted, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exodus 4:11). Trials and sufferings bring patience and patience bring character and character brings hope (James 1:2; Romans 5:3-4). The syllogism is as follows: if we experience suffering, we will get patience. If we get patience, we’ll grow in character. If we grow in character, we’ll acquire hope. Therefore if we experience suffering, we’ll acquire hope. The negation of the syllogism is as follows: If we don’t acquire hope, then we have not experienced suffering.

The argument presented by in “Proof #1″ does not reflect the Biblical presentation of the nature and character of God and creation. God is all-powerful, self-existent, and transcendent, and is therefore in control of all things. For disease to exist, it must have a purpose in God’s plan. “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever, amen,” says Paul in Romans 11:38.

So what, then, is a “good thing” that Jesus told his audience at the Sermon on the Mount to ask for? That’s not for us to decide. In order to understand what to pray for, one must be indwelt by the Holy Spirit, because we are too weak:

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:26-27, ESV)

In order to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit, one must be saved. The Bible presents a radically different view of man than the world wants to accept. Man is by nature spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1) and under the rule and dominion of Satan (Ephesians 2:2-3). It is only when God elects to have mercy on an undeserving sinner and regenerates their depraved soul that salvation occurs and the human becomes indwelt with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:4-10). This is an act of grace and results in the person’s repentance and profession of faith in Jesus Christ. When this occurs, the person may pray for those “good things” that Jesus said that they would receive if only they asked. In a spiritually dead state, however, not even a single soul is capable of asking for “good things”.

There are many other ways to provide counterexamples to invalidate this argument, but they are not needed. The assumptions implicit in this argument are the keys to its own demise.

Are there any fallacies presented in this argument that we can learn from? An obvious one is the fallacy of non sequitur, which simply means that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Apologetics, Philosophy

God IS

There exists a militant atheist website at the following URL: The home page makes some of the following claims:

  • Billions of people attend millions of churches around the world to worship God. Yet the God they worship is completely imaginary. Their belief represents a delusion.
  • It is easy to prove that God is imaginary. Start at the beginning with Proof #1…

This site claims to present 50 proofs that God doesn’t exist. I will attempt to address all 50 of these “proofs” one by one. But first, let us define some terms.

  • A proof is a series of propositions in a logical formula used to establish the truth of the argument.
  • An argument is a set of statements used in an attempt to establish a fact. Arguments require at least 1 premise and a conclusion. An argument is not a statement of fact or a series of statements of fact. For example, this is not an argument:
    1. The sky is blue.
    2. My shoes are blue.
    3. I like my shoes because they remind me of the sky.

    This is an argument:

    1. Premise: All computer programmers are geeks.
    2. Premise: I am a computer programmer.
    3. Conclusion: Therefore, I am a geek.
  • A premise is a statement that supports a conclusion.
  • A conclusion is a deducted inference that must be true if the argument is sound.
  • A sound argument is an argument that is valid and all of its premises are true.
  • An argument is valid if and only if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. In other words, if all of the premises are true and the conclusion is false, the argument is invalid. Observe the following invalid argument:
    1. All computer programmers drink decaffeinated coffee.
    2. I am a computer programmer.
    3. Therefore, I drink decaffeinated coffee.

    While at first glance this argument looks fine, it is in fact the case that I am a computer programmer and drink strongly caffeinated coffee. Therefore, the argument is invalid. The first premise is false.

As I systematically analyze the arguments (or non-arguments) made by the authors of the site linked above, I will be looking for valid and sound arguments as well as formal and informal logical fallacies.

Apologetics, Philosophy

Am I Self-Existent?

There is a trend among humanity to ponder their existence. The following questions have been asked for centuries:

  • Do I exist?
  • If I exist, what else exists?
  • How did I come into being?

In modern times, the questions have been more narrowly focused.

  • Did I indeed evolve from other species?
  • Does God exist?
  • If God exists, what are his characteristics?
  • Is matter self-existent?

Many have attempted to answer the question of ontology. Some claim that matter is self-existent. Others argue that matter was created out of nothing by a self-existent God. This post is an adaptation of a treatise that I wrote in university for an atheist philosophy professor. I got an A.

The following are four possible explanations to account for existence1:

  1. Reality as we encounter it is an illusion
  2. Reality as we encounter it is self-created
  3. Reality as we encounter it is self-existent
  4. Reality as we encounter it was created by something that is self-existent

In order to prove that one of these is true, one would simply need to disprove the other three. This post attempts to invalidate options 1, 2, and 3, leaving option 4 as the only rational choice.

The Matrix, an Oscar-winning film from 1999, portrayed reality as being a great illusion. Could it be the case that all of the things that we see are really just illusions? Are the thoughts that we think really being pumped into our brains from some sort of supercomputer? Do we even have brains? Do I even exist? In the Meditations (2004), Rene Descartes answered these questions by claiming that while one thinks, it must be the case that the thinking one exists. The phrase “I think, therefore I am,” came from Descartes’ theory. Since all of humanity is capable of thinking, it must be true that humanity exists. Furthermore, Descartes discovered that material things exist as well. Thus, the proposition that existence is really an illusion must be false.2

Probably the most prominent view by those other than theists is the idea that reality as we encounter it is self-created. If reality exists and is not an illusion, then either it has been created or is self-existent. If it has been created, either it created itself or was created by something that is self-existent. The claim that the universe and everything contained within it was self-created has a fatal flaw. In order to create itself, something would have to exist before it existed. For the universe to come into being by a combination of space, time, and chance, it would have to have existed in some form beforehand. This view does not account for the creation of the universe—the universe would have to be self-existent or be created by something self-existent. Thus, because it is impossible for
something to be and not be, it is impossible for something to create itself, and this view is therefore invalid.

The two remaining views depend on the reality of self-existence: either reality as we encounter it is self-existent or was created by something that is self-existent. If something exists, and it is not possible for that thing to have created itself, then it must be true that it was created by something else. Therefore, either something self-existent has created all things or all things were created by something that was not self-existent in some sort of chain reaction of creation spanning the ages to eternity past. Because only a self-existent being is eternal, this hypothetical chain reaction must have been started by a self-existent being in the first place. Therefore, if something exists, it is necessary to conclude that a self-existent being exists. The question is now whether all matter is self-existent or whether it was created by a self-existent being. In order for matter to be self-existent, it would have to be eternal. It is generally accepted among the scientific community that matter as we know it came into existence as the result of the “Big Bang” around 15 billion years ago (LaRocco & Rothstein, 1995). This explosion, according to the theory, occurred at a point of singularity and resulted in galaxies growing and being spread across the universe. This theory, if true, would not serve as evidence that matter itself is self-existent, because that matter came into existence at a certain point in time as the result of an explosion. The Big Bang theory begs the question of what caused the explosion to occur in the first place. If it is true that matter is not self-
existent, then it must have been created by something self-existent. Could it be true that the Big Bang was caused by a self-existent being? That is a matter of speculation. Regardless of whether the Big Bang theory is true or false, matter itself is either self-existent or created. Matter itself is by nature found in four forms – solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. It is unstable and subject to change. It is not in a constant state of eternal being. It has been proven by nuclear fission that an atom can be annihilated in order to harness and dissipate its energy, thus destroying matter. Furthermore, it appears to be the consensus in the scientific community that atoms tend to decay over time, resulting in the degradation or destruction of matter. Thus, it is not possible that matter itself is self-existent. Because matter is not self-existent, it must have been created by something that is self existent. Therefore, a self-existent one created the universe.

There are many objections that could be interjected into this argument and, indeed, this topic has been the subject for much debate and many dissertations. Regardless, logical reasoning proves that it must be true that if the first three ontological options are false, the fourth must be true. It is outside the scope of this paper to argue what that self-existent being is, but it must be
transcendent and eternal—two qualities that are typically ascribed only to God.


  1. This is a comprehensive list and accounts for every possible theory of existence. For more information, see Sproul (2010).
  2. Descartes’ answer has been the accepted one for centuries. For more information, see Descartes (2004).


  • Descartes, R. (2004). Meditations on First Philosophy in which are demonstrated the existence of God and the distinction between the human soul and body. (J. Bennett, Trans.). Retrieved from Original work published in 1641.
  • LaRocco, C. & Blair, R. (1995). The Big Bang: It sure was BIG!!. Retrieved from
  • Sproul, R.C. (2010). Defending Your Faith: The Four Possibilities. Retrieved from Audio available for free from
Apologetics, Philosophy

Michael Bloomberg: Theophobe? Not Quite

On September 11, 2011, Americans will remember the horrible terrorist attacks that killed some 3,000 civilians ten years ago. High school freshmen likely won’t remember the day of the attacks; they were only four or five years old. At most, unless they were related to the injured or lost, they’ll remember the chaos and turmoil that occurred in their households while their parents mourned over the lost and panicked in anticipation of further terrorist attacks.

Indeed, parents should review the 9/11 attacks with their children and educate them regarding the nature of modern terrorism. The next ten days would be a great time to do so.

Returning to the title of this post, NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg is being criticized for not allowing prayer to be a part of the ten year anniversary memorial of the September 11 attacks. Robert Knight, a columnist for The Washington Times, attributed the title “theophobe” to Michael Bloomberg in a recent article. The word “theophobe” is a compound word from the Greek word theos (“god” or “God”) and the Greek word phobos (“fear”). It could be defined as a fear of gods, a fear of a god, or a fear of the Almighty God.

Now, if it was the case that Michael Bloomberg, or any other mayor of New York City, was in fact a theophobe (in the god(s)-fearing sense), it would seem likely that he would pander to the “religious” crowd and allow generic prayers to be offered up to a generic god in order to appease them and the crowds. However, offering prayers to an unknown god that is not the God of the Bible would be utter vanity, because they would not be offered to the Sovereign Lord of the universe, the omnipotent creator, sustainer, and end of all things, who has revealed Himself to the world through Jesus Christ by whom all things that exist were created (1 Cor 10:31; Rom 11:36; Heb 1:2; Col 1:16).

Bloomberg hasn’t pandered to the religious crowds. That means that either he is a Theophobe (God-fearing) or he is an anthrophobe, fearing anthropos (man). Of course this assumes that a person can be in one of three categories: God-fearing, god(s)-fearing, or man-fearing. This isn’t entirely true. Either one fears God and loves the truth, or he hates God and despises the truth. There is no middle ground (Rom 1:18-32).

The Mayor is no God-fearer. If he were, he would be on his knees day and night pleading for God to have mercy upon the people of New York and to not pour His wrath upon them again. He would offer public prayers himself in the name of Jesus Christ, the King of Kings. He would see his position as one of stewardship. He would fear no man.

Can we criticize Bloomberg for not allowing prayers at the ceremony? Or should we rather expect such from a man who supports gay marriage and abortions? Is he merely attempting to avoid controversy? His fruit is showing.