About Me

My name is Tim Chaffey. I’m a Bible-believing Christian, husband, father, teacher, apologist, author, and cancer survivor.

Making me look short

I have been happily married since 1996 and have a daughter and son. I enjoy spending time with his family, walking, basketball, swimming, and good theological discussions. In 2001, I was the starting center for a national championship basketball team. I swam the relay leg of half-Ironman triathlons in 2012 and 2013, and completed the Nation’s Triathlon in 2013 with Team in Training to raise funds for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

I currently work as the content manager for the Ark Encounter. I spent five years as a pastor and associate pastor, in which I taught youth ministry, adult Sunday School, and a weekly theology class in addition to regular preaching duties. I have also taught high school Bible and science classes for six years.

In 2011, I completed a Th.M. in Church History and Theology from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary after successfully defending his thesis on The Sons of God and the Nephilim. In 2008, I earned a Master of Divinity degree (summa cum laude) specializing in Apologetics and Theology. I also hold a Master of Arts and a Bachelor of Science in Biblical and Theological Studies.

I started Midwest Apologetics in 2005, a ministry dedicated to defending the word of God from the beginning to the end.

Having long been interested in the creation v. evolution controversy and the corresponding age of the earth battle, I co-authored my first book, Old-Earth Creationism on Trial: The Verdict Is In in 2008 with Jason Lisle, Ph.D. in Astrophysics.

I am also a cancer survivor, having been diagnosed with Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia in July 2006. I have been in full remission since September 2006. My second full-length book, God and Cancer, traces my battle with the disease, but focuses on providing insight and advice to others who are going through difficult times. The book concludes with an apologetic for the existence of God. This section demonstrates that suffering and evil do not provide evidence against the God of the Bible, but rather the Bible provides the only solution to this issue.

I have co-authored The Truth Chronicles youth fiction series. Book 1 (The Time Machine) was published in April 2010, book 2 (The Contest) in May 2010, book 3 (The Rescue) in June 2010, book 4 (The Thief) in April 2012, book 5 (The Chase) in Fall 2012, and book 6 (The Ark) in December 2013. These exciting books are designed to teach young people how to defend the faith, and learn more about the biblical worldview. A short story, which is actually a prequel to The Truth Chronicles series, is included in the short story anthology, Worlds of Faith.

But my favorite topic has long been the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I recently published In Defense of Easter to address the historicity of the Resurrection, to defend it against the skeptical and critical attacks, and to discuss many of the practical implications of the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.

I have contributed to several other books as either an editor or writer. Notably, he has written multiple chapters in the following books: How Do We Know the Bible Is True? Volumes I & II, and Demolishing Supposed Bible Contradictions, Volume II.

 


Comments

About Me — 58 Comments

  1. I just discovered your blog and I am extremely impressed with your knowledge on Biblical studies. I am very curious what denomination are you? As I am in the process of finding a Church home.

    • Hi William,
      Thank you for the encouraging words. I currently am a member of a conservative Baptist church. “Baptist” can have a very wide range of views, so the Baptist church down the street from me is quite different than the one I attend. Also, while I agree with their doctrinal positions, I am not in complete agreement with the polity at most Baptist churches—in that area, I would prefer to see a plurality of elders model like many Brethren churches have. I believe their structure is more in line with what Scripture teaches. I hope this helps.

  2. Mr. Chaffey,

    First I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate all your resources online. They are a great help to me. More specifically, I really enjoyed your article on Romans 9:13. That is a verse and passage that when I hear it interpreted by certain people I know something sounds off. But- not so with your commentary. I believe the same as you concerning that specific verse. However, I had another question for you that is definitely broad and may be hard to answer. I struggle reading the rest of Romans 9, as well as other passages like Romans 8:28-30, 1 Th. 1:4-5, Eph. 1:4-5. I see that God choosing is the focus of these verses, and I know the words elect and predestinate are in the Bible, but I am just struggling knowing how to read these verses in my head. On one side you have hard-line Calvinists interpreting them and making you feel as if you are selfish or not as Godly if you don’t interpret them to maximize God’s glory. But then there is the hard-line Arminian side that makes you feel like you are placing man higher than God. Needless to say, I have tried for a long, long time to find a balance between these two camps. I have heard people say “election is a mystery” and I think there is some partial truth to that, but most people that ascribe to that saying are 5-point Calvinists. So, I have tried to just understand what the Bible says and seek Godly counsel on my interpreting the Bible. I just want to create my theology from the Bible and not from other book or system from other people. Can you help me out here?

    Thank you
    In Christ,

    Preston Adams

    • Hi Preston,
      Thank you for the very kind words. I’m thankful that my writings have been helpful for you. Yes, Romans 9:13 is often ripped from its context along with those other passages. You nailed it when you said that going to one side or the other makes you feel as if you are selfish and ungodly or placing man higher than God. I don’t believe one needs to choose between Calvinism and Arminianism since I believe both systems have strengths and weaknesses. I believe the biblical position is somewhere between the two. I don’t believe the whole predestination/free will debate is an either/or proposition—it is a both/and. Norman Geisler did a pretty good job of explaining this in his book, Chosen But Free.
      It’s difficult for many of us to read the verses you mentioned without having a mindset that they are speaking about individual election, since that has been so widely promoted in the church since the Reformation. What’s interesting is that whenever Paul uses terms like election and predestination, it is always in a context that is loaded with Jewish/Gentile issues. A friend of mine, Dr. Chad Thornhill, did his dissertation on this very subject and will be releasing a book on the topic later this year (I think it’s due out in October). You can listen to a couple of podcasts he has done on the topic at the Moral Apologetics website. Follow this link (http://moralapologetics.com/tag/chad-thornhill/) and then scroll to the bottom for the two-part series he did on the topic.
      God bless!

  3. Dear Tim Chaffey
    I just finished a research on the last days of Yeshua and reached significant conclusions about his planned crucifixion and burial. I am astonished that Christians believing that Yesua’s passion and crucifixion was under divine control for his becomingv Jesus Christ, bu still blaim the Jews of killing ‘God’!!! Did God kill himself, at least for 3 days??? Please contact me. I wish you a happy Easter. Zeev Lewy (Jerusalem)

    • Hi Dr. Lewy,
      The passion and crucifixion were not for Jesus to become the Messiah. He already was the Messiah prior to those events, but as He pointed out to two of His disciples in Luke 24 on the Road to Emmaus, the Christ needed to suffer the things Jesus endured (Luke 24:26).
      Were all of these events under God’s control? Absolutely. Did God force individuals to act against their will in these events? Not at all. Jesus demonstrated His authority over those who came to arrest Him, but He still allowed it to take place (John 18:4–9).
      As for blaming the Jews, it is indeed sad that some Christians have blamed the Jews alone for this act. It is astonishing that any Christian could be anti-Semitic, but I do come across it on a somewhat regular basis. Jesus was a Jew. All of His disciples were Jews. Every writer of the New Testament was a Jew, with the possible exception of Luke. The church began with 3000 Jews on the Day of Pentecost. Paul said that he would be willing to suffer eternally if the Jews could be saved (Romans 9:3–4).
      Jesus told His disciples that they were going to Jerusalem where He would be betrayed to the chief priests and scribes and they would condemn Him to death, and then deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked, scourged, and crucified (Matthew 20:17–19). So who gets the blame for His death? We all do, because we are all sinners. Jesus mentioned both Jews and Gentiles, although He did tell Pilate in John 19:11 that those who delivered Him over were guilty of a greater sin (presumably because they should have known better). So they should have known better, but Paul told the Corinthians that the leaders didn’t understand what they were doing, otherwise they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:8).
      We are all guilty of the blood of Lord Jesus since we have all sinned against God. Jews should never be singled out as being the only guilty party in this act. Instead, Christians should follow Paul’s example and love the Jewish people as God does.

  4. Thank you! We just yesterday had a discussion in our women’s bible study on Jepthath. Did he or did he not kill his daughter? 2 of us said he did, and 2 of said he didn’t. I looked up on google, and finally came to a sight of yours. (I also looked you up to verify who you are as to why I’m at this sight!) What it finally came down to, was not to divide ourselves about it. Some do believe he did some don’t. You at the time in 2008? I think believed he did, as do I and my other sister in Christ. What a great debate. My thought in MY study, is it’s ok to believe differently as far as did he or didn’t he sacrifice.. and to not have others try to change our answers? We won’t know for sure until we ASK Jephthah ! lol You’ve impressed me to that you don’t want us to become “enemies” over it, but look at the Word and determine, and it seems? ok for some to believe he didn’t sacrifice his only daughter and for some to believe he did. We aren’t changing scripture or changing it to suit what we want it to say… we are just trying to determine what it is saying.

  5. Mr. Chaffey,

    I discovered your name through comments about “Killing Jesus”, the Bill O’Reilly collaborated book.

    As a Muslim, I wish to inform you that it’s Islamic doctrine: Jesus, peace be upon him is Messiah as well as the Word and Spirit of God.

    Your statement, “Presumably, one reason to avid calling Him the Messiah would be that to make such a theological claim would offend Muslims and unbelieving Jews.” May indeed hold true for Jewish belief but is completely inaccurate to describe Islamic belief.

    I hope to have been some help in your relationship with man and God. Peace be with you.
    r,
    Pete

    • Hi Pete,
      Thank you for taking the time to read my review of O’Reilly’s book and then taking the time to get a hold of me with your concern. I have written on this subject in a little more detail in an article on the Resurrection. In one of the footnotes of that article, I wrote the following about the Gospel of Barnabas (GoB):

      Indeed it is strange that some Muslim apologists cite the GoB since it clearly contradicts the Qur’an. The GoB specifically denies that Jesus is the Messiah (GoB, 42), reserving that title for Muhammad (GoB, 97), yet the Qur’an calls Jesus the Messiah (Christ) on multiple occasions (e.g., Qur’an 4:171 and 5:75).

      Would you consider that quote to be accurate? I think that is what I had in mind when I wrote that statement in the O’Reilly review.
      Thanks!

      • Sure thing! Reviewed your Resurrection article and do feel your GoB quote is accurate. Emphasis however on Muslim apologists, i.e. as mere laypersons contrast to knowledgeable scholars yes, in this understanding it is acceptable. We do agree that the GoB is an obvious forgery.

        Muslims believe in the Gospel as revealed to Jesus, peace be upon him. Alas, zero writings of Jesus are preserved in todays canonicals. Proof? The Bible – Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are speaking to us but no Gospel of Jesus. Concerning? No doubt, archaeological digs will continue to find “more ancient manuscripts” to improve upon the Bible’s updated versions – eventually… truth will indeed set us free.

        “Allah” not used by the Jews? – this is inaccurate. As Arabic and Hebrew are sister languages, Elohim sometimes El or Elah are not distinct words but all mean God or more accurately the single Arabic word Allah. Proof? An English Bible “NEW AND IMPROVED EDITION”, edited by Rev, CI Scofield, D.D. backed by eight other D.D.’s, went further offering an alternative spelling, “Alah” for God. See comment No. 1 on page 28 of that edition and also Mark 15:34 for the “Eli Eli lama sabachthani?” statement.

        Ask instead why we use “God” or “Jesus” at all as these pronunciations did not exist until modern English. Jesus derives from Early Middle English Iesu (closer to the Arabic Quran transliteration Isa). After the Great Vowel Shift in late Middle English (15th century) the letter J was first distinguished from ‘I’ by the Frenchman Pierre Ramus in the 16th century, not common in Modern English until the 17th century so that early 17th century works such as the first edition of the King James Version of the Bible (1611) continued to print the name with an I. see for yourself:

        http://nazirene.peopleofhonoronly.com/images/kjv1611/Jesus_Iesus.jpg

        The Jews mocked Jesus as “King” and his mother worse epithets in his time and continue to proclaim false charges today -What you see is the Quran testifying to this. See Deuteronomy 18:19 for your responsibility in recognizing the last testament to mankind – Al-Quran.

        Alas! No need to look further than the Bible itself for truths of what actually happened concerning Jesus. After what appeared to be his execution and an apparent resurrection, Jesus says to Mary M. “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” John 20:17

        Tim, I love you for the sake of Allah. Thanks for allowing me a voice on your blog!

        • Hi Pete,
          Thanks for looking into the Gospel of Barnabas issue. I appreciate the friendly discussion, although I would strongly disagree with some of the claims you made.
          I don’t agree with you that Muslims believe the gospel of Jesus. The gospel message is that Jesus died for our sins on the cross, He was buried, and He rose from the dead, just as the Scripture said He would (1 Corinthians 15:1–4). Muslims deny that Jesus died at all (claiming He was taken up to heaven), thus He wasn’t buried and didn’t rise either. If I may ask, how is the message of Islam “good news” (i.e. the gospel)? The reason Christianity can claim to have the “good news” is because through the death, burial, and Resurrection of Jesus, God graciously gives us what we truly need (forgiveness), and He offers what everyone really wants (eternal life in a perfect world). In Islam, a person must attempt to earn salvation, but in Christianity, God has already done everything and salvation is a free gift.
          Also, I don’t believe we will find any other Scripture. There’s no need to find something written by Jesus. We already have several books written by those who knew Him best, and they have explained His teachings.
          I understand that Arabic and Hebrew, along with Aramaic and Ugaritic are related languages. They are each part of what we call Semitic languages. But the name “Allah” does not appear in the Jewish Scripture (Old Testament), nor did the Jews view “Elohim” or “El” as God’s name. Instead, these were titles used for Him. God is very clear in Exodus 6:2 that His name is YHWH (Yahweh). Of course, that’s in the Hebrew. Jesus’ words on the Cross were in Aramaic, and there is actually another syllable in the word that what you typed. Rather than “Eli, Eli” it was “Eloi, Eloi” pronounced as el-o-ee.
          I do agree that “Jesus” did not have the English “J” sound until the past few centuries. The Greek started it with an iota (the “i” vowel). So we do agree on something here. :)
          Back to our disagreements. Deuteronomy 18:15–19 was not fulfilled by Muhammad, but by Jesus. Jesus was from among “their brethren” (v. 18) since “their” was referring to the Jews. Muhammad was obviously not an Israelite so he could not fulfill this prophecy. So there is no need for me to recognize the Quran as the last testament to mankind.
          I do agree that we do not need to look any further than the Bible for the truth about what happened to Jesus. He prophesied many times that He would be crucified and rise from the dead. That’s exactly what happened. He even showed His scars to Thomas and invited Thomas to touch Him (John 20:27), just as He invited the other disciples to do (Luke 24:39). There was no “apparent resurrection” or what “appeared to be his execution.” In fulfillment of numerous Old Testament prophecies, Jesus the Messiah died on the Cross for our sins, He was buried, and He rose again. I pray that you will come to know the Savior as I do.
          “That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)
          Thanks again for your civil tone—unfortunately, that is quite rare from those who disagree with me.

  6. Greetings, Tim just found your website,read some of you posts,with agreement.So far,but my belief is i believe that the only way into the kingdom,is the belief that jesus is the son of GOD,he is the way the truth and the light no one enters the father but through me.I believe jesus is what he says he is the son of GOD.In other words I dont believe in the trinity.But I can stand with believers that do,because we honor the same GOD. peace Ray

  7. We pray weekly, and I seek God then for what I should preach on following Sundays. Declaring the resurrection was what the Holy Spirit put on my heart to preach, and your article ministered to me in my preparation for tomorrow. The anointing of Jesus Christ that you have is merciful to me and my church (1 John 2. 27). May our God keep you well.

  8. Hi Tim, thanks so much for your clear teaching. These days many churches are cautious regarding preaching about sin. Christians are confused and need clear guidance especially in the light of “political correctness” and “religious tolerance”. Church leaders are easily intimidated and don’t want to be rapped over the knuckles for taking a stand on unpopular issues. The elephant in the room would be same-sex relationships. Christian family members are rejoicing in the recent legalization of same-sex marriages in California…I’m appalled! How do we address these issues without coming over like hate-mongers?
    Thank you for your informative articles
    Regards, Des Gray

    • Hi Des,
      There is much that can be said about this issue, but I’ll just point out a couple of things. First, homosexuality is certainly a sin. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments are very clear about that. I think it’s important to recognize that some people may be attracted to someone of the same sex, but they have chosen not to pursue that lifestyle, so same-sex attraction does not necessarily make one a homosexual. So how does one address the issue without sounding like a hate monger? I would say that we treat it like any other sin. I don’t think we should single it out as if it was the worst sin a person can commit. That’s what the other side wants us to do. I think we need to treat all sinners (that would be everyone) in a loving way. We can treat people with love and respect without condoning everything they do. A person who is involved in sin needs to see Christians who love them instead of Christians who despise them. My favorite passage on this topic is found in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11:

      9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

      Notice that Paul didn’t single out homosexuality as the big sin—it’s listed along with a bunch of other sinful behaviors. But the best part of this passage is found at the beginning of verse 11: “And such were some of you.” Some of the members at the church of Corinth were former thieves, drunkards, extortioners, and homosexuals. But they had been saved by Jesus Christ and were no longer any of those things.
      Think about it this way. What does an unbeliever who is a thief really need to hear? The gospel. What does an unbeliever who abuses people need to hear? The gospel. What does a homosexual person need to hear? The gospel. Jesus died on the Cross for all sins. We need to show the same sort of sacrificial love toward others—even homosexuals.
      I hope this helps.

  9. Hello Mr Chaffey
    About your article about the Wise Men, I thought they saw him in a house with his parents (Matt 2:11) This would indicate some time after his birth not the next day.

    Thanks
    Gail

    • Hi Gail,
      Regarding the timing of the magi’s visit, I think it would probably be many days after Jesus was born. In my article, We Three Kings, I just showed that the very earliest they could have visited would have been the following day. I co-authored another article that traces the timing of the events surrounding the nativity in which we place the magi’s visit sometime within the first year.
      The fact that they saw Him with His parents at a house would not rule out a visit on the next day since Jesus was probably born in the lower level of a house. Please see my article Born in a Barn (Stable)? for more details.
      Thanks!

      • The magi brought gold. This would have allowed Joseph to purchase a lamb as the required redemption (Leviticus 12:8). The fact that he and Mary offered two turtledoves or pigeons instead (Luke 2:24) suggests they were still poor at that time. I’ve concluded that Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth (Luke 2:39) and it was a house in Nazareth to which the magi were led. They were then warned to return to Parthia/Babylon and Joseph was directed to head for Egypt. By the time Herod found out (there would have been practically no time delay had the magi been in Bethlehem), the escapes had been effected.

        • https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/christmas/a-matter-of-time/

          You correctly note the significance of the timing of Joseph’s obtaining gold from the magi, but the item above then states: “The family returned to Bethlehem—not Nazareth, as some have suggested. After all, they were still in Bethlehem when the wise men later visited, and they apparently planned to return there following the flight to Egypt.” It was Luke who “suggested” they went to Nazareth after they performed the requirements of the Law. I see nothing in the Biblical narrative that forces the conclusion that the magi found Jesus in Bethlehem. Rather, they learned from Herod that the Christ was to be born there. The story does not say the star led them to Bethlehem and, as a matter of fact, had the star appeared over a house in Bethlehem, the magi were already so close that this “guidance” would have been worthless. However, had the star appeared over a house in Nazareth, which was 63 miles north, they would have had viable guidance.

          • Hi Steve,
            The follow-up article we wrote to A Matter of Time addressed this point. While there is a little wiggle room for differing views, I find it difficult to believe that they went back to Nazareth prior to fleeing to Egypt. The timing of events seems too tight and there is an indication that they weren’t headed to Nazareth after Egypt. When they returned from Egypt, it seems that they were heading somewhere else in Israel, particularly in Judea (Bethlehem seems likely) before being warned by God in a dream about Archelaus (Matthew 2:21–23).
            Here’s a link to that article: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-twisting-texts/
            There was one more follow-up article too, but I’m not sure you would have the same objections as this guy, and you are certainly far more civil: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/more-timeline-twisting/
            God bless!

          • Luke was a first-rate historian, and I find it difficult to believe he would have written “So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth” if what really happened was “So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to … Bethlehem, and then because Herod wanted to kill the child, they fled to Egypt, and then when Herod died they returned to Bethlehem, but because Archelaus was reigning over Judea, they returned to …Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.” Luke would not collapse all of that information; no good historian would. Secondly, we see that the magi “departed for their own country another way.” I’ve looked at a few maps and don’t see “another way” as an option from Bethlehem. They HAD to go past Jerusalem and down toward Jericho, and obviously Herod or one of his spies would have noticed. (I believe Josephus pointed out that the land was full of spies.) However, there is another way if they leave from Nazareth and it’s actually a more direct route. Going back to Jerusalem from Nazareth would have been out of the way.
            Could a star over a house in Bethlehem really guide the magi from Jerusalem? Finally, the record says they were afraid to go into Judea; a valid concern since Joseph was once again warned in a dream. This does not compel me to believe Joseph had any intention of living in Bethlehem. Rather, it suggests an immediate change in travel plans – not necessarily destination plans. He may have wanted to travel through Judea, or perhaps he wanted to stop on the way to Galilee to see family or friends.

          • Looks like I’ll have to recant or rework my last, since it appears you found in Luke 23 something I said Luke would never do. So I’ll take a closer look at that, but I’d still appreciate your response to the other points I raised and, more significantly, to “Trivializing Jesus” and the basic “should we celebrate Christmas?” question.

            Best,

            Steve

          • Steve,
            This sort of thing is found in plenty of places besides Luke 23—it’s really part of the nature of writing history. Yes, Luke was absolutely a first-rate historian, especially when his writing was inspired by the Holy Spirit. But he also frequently employed a technique known as “telescoping.” This occurs when a historian glosses over certain details and events, which sometimes will make it seem as if he is unaware of them and/or the events he wrote about happen one after the other in immediate succession when in reality, many other events occurred in between them. Luke does this with the Resurrection appearances in Luke 24 too. If you simply read through the last chapter of Luke it seems as if all of those events happened on the day of the Resurrection. Well, the first 43 verses describe events of that day, but verse 44 is probably begins Luke’s description of one of the conversations leading up to Christ’s Ascension (although that transition could also be at v. 46). Did Luke know that Jesus appeared to His disciples over the course of 40 days rather than all in one day? Of course he did—he tells us that in the opening lines of the book of Acts.
            So why would Luke telescope events like this? Well, he probably has the best reason to do it. Since Matthew and Mark were probably already written, and he was probably very familiar with these books (Luke 1:1–4), he did not need to explain all of the details that were already told elsewhere. Of course, he does share many of the same events, but frequently gives some extra details while glossing over others.
            When it comes to the birth narrative of Jesus, Luke seems to fill in many of the gaps that Matthew left out. Luke does not mention the visit of the magi or the flight to Egypt. In attempting to reconcile these two books, I believe the most likely place to put these events is immediately after Luke 2:38 and before v. 39. This makes sense of all the data, but there may be other ways to reconcile these details.
            Regarding the guidance of the star…they were initially guided to Jerusalem by the star (v. 2). The text doesn’t say that the star guided them along the way. It could be that they saw the star while they were in the East and they recognized it as the sign of the birth of the King of the Jews, so naturally they headed for Jerusalem. Once they are told that Bethlehem was to be the birthplace, they leave Jerusalem and rejoice when they see the star again, and it guides them directly to the house where Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were (Matthew 2:9–11). There is nothing in the narrative here to suggest that they went all the way to Nazareth at this point. If that were the case, and if Herod truly had spies all through the land, then he would have sent his soldiers to slaughter the children in Nazareth instead of Bethlehem. It makes more sense to me that the magi went to Bethlehem, and then found a way home that did not take them through Jerusalem. This would mean that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus remained in Bethlehem for at least 40 days after Christ’s birth, and then fled to Egypt from there. After Herod’s death, they started to return to Judea (I think Bethlehem), and upon entering the land, he was warned by God in a dream to take them somewhere else. That’s when he makes the decision to go to Nazareth, out of the reach of Archelaus.
            Like I said before, I think there are other ways to reconcile the accounts, but I believe this one makes the most sense.
            Concerning your article on trivializing Christ… For the most part, I think you are spot on. Too many Christians do get caught up in all the rush and traditions rather than focusing on using this time to share the gospel. I don’t think it’s fair to imply that every Christian does this—I know many who do not. It’s important to remind people of what our real focus should be during this time (and every time). It isn’t enough to simply keep Christ in Christmas, if by that we mean that we gotta fight for Nativity scenes and make sure that people say Merry Christmas. If it means that we tell people who Christ is and what He has done for us, not simply at His birth but also at His death and Resurrection, then I would say that you are on the right track.
            God bless!

  10. I looked up open theism and saw that you questioned or were opposed to it. If open theism means that we have freewill then how can our freewill be denied? Are we puppets that God is using for his amusement or part of his plan. Does he make people rape and murder and sin or do we have personal responsibility for our actions?
    After the Fall, Man did what he wanted to the point of God flooding the earth for Man was continually evil(separated from God).
    Christ Jesus died on the cross for ALL. We have to come to the point in our own lives where we
    Romans 10:9 confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
    Do I believe that God intimately knows our heart and what we will likely do? Absolutely! He gave us freewill so we may decide to come to Him and not by coercion. When he showed himself in the OT it didn’t work anyway as the people quickly found other gods.
    If I was an unbeliever and a follower of Christ told me we don’t have freewill and everything that has happened was God’s will I would run away.
    In the bond of peace.

    • Hi Mike,
      I am definitely opposed to open theism. A central tenet of this view is that God does not know everything that will happen in the future because (according to open theists) the future is not there to know yet. The Bible repeatedly emphasizes that God knows the future perfectly and it will come to pass exactly as He has said (Isaiah 41:21–29).
      That being said, I am also adamantly opposed to the idea that God controls all people so that they do not even have free will. We are not puppets. If we were only carrying out exactly what God made us do, then God would be the source of all evil—every rape, murder, and sin. This is not the God of the Bible who is called “holy, holy, holy” (Isaiah 6:3). I believe this is one of the major errors of Calvinism taken to its logical end.
      I am neither an open theist nor a Calvinist. Thankfully, one does not have to choose one of these two views. I believe that God does indeed know all things that will come to pass, and He knows them perfectly. He knew Adam and Eve would rebel, and He knew before He ever created anything that He would send Jesus Christ to die for the sins of all people, but He did not force Adam and Eve to rebel. I absolutely agree with you that Jesus died for every single person and that salvation was made possible for all (1 Timothy 4:10; 1 John 2:2), yet only those who receive Christ in faith will be saved. Some people say that this means a person can take credit for saving themselves, but that’s absurd since faith is not a work. Paul frequently contrasts the two.
      Open theists do believe that man has free will, but it is not the only theological position to hold this. Wesleyanism, Classic Arminianism, Free Will Baptists, and others also believe that God has given man free will. I would fit into the “others” category. I do agree with the Calvinist that we are born with a rebellious nature, and that we would never seek Him if He did not first make it possible for us to do so. I disagree with them in that I believe God makes it possible for everyone (not just the elect) to believe in Him. Those who accept His offer of salvation by faith will be saved, and those who reject it will be condemned.
      I have many good friends who are sincere believers that disagree with me, but these are the things I have been convinced of and convicted of as I read and study Scripture. While these differences can make for fascinating theological discussions, I think far too much time has been spent trying to convert fellow believers to our own way of thinking about these issues rather than reaching out to the lost. I know I’m guilty of doing just that, and I hope that it will not continue to be true of me.
      I hope this helps.

  11. I just want to say that your articles are SO refreshing! Thank you for not compromising God’s Word. I have to admit that my heart hurts so often when I hear of Christians being more influenced by man’s opinions rather than what God says. God is amazing and His Word is perfect! I want others to see that! So thank you again for speaking the truth in such love!

    • Deanna, thanks for the very encouraging words. I truly appreciate them. I pray that I will be able to continue to speak the truth in love. I’m convinced that far too often Christians try to be one without the other (love w/o truth or truth w/o love), but we’re aren’t being Christlike if we don’t do both. I strive to use my blog in a way that honors our Savior and I hope that others learn from that example. God bless!

    • I have just read your article highlighting the words of Mrs. Olsteen.
      Tomorrow during the morning message, my husband will be teaching the Biblical response to the idea of worship for “self”. I was quite interested in your life story as well, since our son who is a Hospice chaplain also is now cancer free after 4 years post surgery. His diagnoses came at age 29 and was followed by the replacement of his femur due to ewing sarcoma. I praise God for your writings, and for revealing his purpose daily in your life, in our son’s life, and in the life of my husband and myself.
      May God go before you in all you do.
      Darlene
      Pipe Creek, Texas

  12. Greetings Tim!

    We met at the Creation Museum earlier this year. My wife and I were visiting during our furlough and heard you speak concerning the Resurrection (I mentioned Licona’s book on the Resurrection).

    As we continue to work here in Kenya (a place where sound doctrine is often in short supply), God has been bringing people to my mind who are engaged in Christian Education. I simply wanted you to know that I thank God for you and how you are standing up for truth in a world that hates it. Keep standing upon God’s unchanging Word and preaching the unchanging Gospel! We are encouraged and continue to be encouraged through the ministry to which God has called you!

    May the Lord bless you and keep you! May He continue to fill you with the hope and power of the Resurrection!

    Till we no longer see in part!

    Phil

  13. Hi Tim, thanks for your page. I came across while looking for examples of verses taken out of context. Could you give an explanation of th rhema word? It seems like christians use the rhema principle to justify whatever they choose and apply out of context verses to suit their needs -simply by terming it a rhema word from God. Ps Are you the guy who was featured in Todd Friel’s Wretched TV? He mentioned your book which made mention of a selection of verses demonstrating God may indeed cause illness etc.

    • Hi David,
      Thanks for the kind words. I don’t believe I was the guy being talked about on Friel’s program. Perhaps he was talking about Tim Challies, a more popular blogger with almost as cool of a name as me. :)
      Regarding the term “rhema.” This word has been abused by many of the Word Faith preachers. Kenneth Hagin’s ministry or school was called Rhema. Bill Gothard made much of this term as well. I don’t think they viewed the term in precisely the same way, but they both abused the meaning. Basically, rhema means “word.” It appears several times in Scripture. Peter replied to Jesus’ instruction about throwing the net on the other side of the boat by saying, “Nevertheless, at your word (rhema)…” Hagin and other Word Faith folks made a big deal about it because they believe that a person can create with the words they speak. Bill Gothard, as far as I know, viewed rhema as a special word from God, as in the believer receiving special revelation from Him.
      I hope this helps.

    • So the Born Again of the Water in John 3 is not referring to Water Baptism–So Paul in Acts 16 was being hasty in Baptizing in Jailor after midnight–Why the rush since he had already Believed and as you say saved–What was Paul’s urgency–Was there a fear the Jailor might lose his life the next day-Every conversion in the New Testament always included Water Baptism -Even Jesus walked a long distance that He could be Baptized by John–When John hesitated Jesus explained it is to fulfill all righteousness–And last how do you baptize–Do you sprinkle, pour or immerse and if it is not necessary why argue over any difference and do you still use the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost or have you finally understood that His Name Shall Be Called Jesus for He shall save His people from their Sins–Prayerfully Consider

      • Charles, thanks for taking the time to read the post and for your comments. To claim that “every conversion in the New Testament always included Water Baptism” is a vast overstatement. First, the thief on the cross did not get baptized. Second, there are numerous conversions spoken of in the book of Acts where it does not tell us if the people were baptized (see Acts 13:12 and 17:34) for examples. I don’t doubt that these individuals were baptized at some point, but we aren’t told that in the text.
        How does my statement about “born of water” in John 3 mean that Paul was being hasty in Acts 16? What is the logical or exegetical connection here?
        Finally, I do believe that full immersion is the proper mode of baptism, but I do not believe the mode is as important as the reason for baptism.

        • Hi again, Tim –

          My question regarding baptism is this: “Is a person a candidate for baptism if they do not love Jesus Christ?” Outside the box, since loving Christ is never presented as a “condition.” But did Jesus come to give us a “formula” – a five-step procedure to avoiding hell? If the greatest commandment is to love the Lord with your whole heart, soul, mind and strength, then the greatest sin would be the violation of that commandment. If Christ came to show us the Father, then we know the one we are commanded to love. And if we meet Him and don’t love him, then we don’t really want Heaven, we just want to avoid the penalty for our sin.

          Most of the water-baptism-is-necessary people that I know are not secure in their salvation, but are Arminian, So even if they follow their 5-step formula perfectly, they still think it’s possible to be lost. My own conclusion is that “he who believes” in Mark 16 is baptized by the Holy Spirit and is saved. The “go and make disciples” of Matthew 28 is water baptism, since no one gets saved by being immersed and they obeying the commands of Christ. One must already be saved as a pre-condition to discipleship.

      • Charles, as important a topic as baptism is, it sounds to me as if you have an even bigger issue, namely, the Trinity. Judging by your closing comments, it appears that you are a believer in the Oneness doctrine. If God is triune, then denying this fact is a serious matter. If you believe that the Son did not exist until the Incarnation, then you are denying the deity of the Son, which is clearly taught in Hebrews 1.

        Consider Jesus’ words in John 5:23:
        “That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.”

        If the Son is God, then to deny His true identity is to deny Him the honor you owe Him. As as this Scripture tells us, if you don’t honor the Son, you don’t honor the Father either. I would encourage you to reconsider your view of the nature of God.

  14. Tim –
    I completed a dual MA in the fine arts and social advocacy in 2012 with an emphasis on utilizing the arts as catalysts for social justice. During my graduate research and beyond, I realized most methodologies/ideologies really just hack at the branches, not the roots. I wrote papers on the problem of human evil, but due to the mainstream scholarship of the university, I didn’t include the demon/satanic piece. Since then I have been researching the niphillim and appreciate finding your work. I will be ordering your thesis (have read your blogs) and have a question: My focus is to fight evil with good in utilizing life affirming creativity to facilitate community transformation, but sometimes the realities are so overwhelming – and although I believe God is bigger – I’m learning evil is deeply malevolent. If the niphillim are post flood, then they are on the earth today. I believe prayer is huge in the fight, – but what are ways Christ followers can take an informed stand against this kind of evil? I’m considering pursuing a PhD with this as a focus. – M. P.

    • Hi Maria,
      Thanks for your kind comments and taking the time to read my posts. I agree that most methodolgies/ideologies just hack at the branches instead of the roots. Paul says that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual forces (Eph. 6:12). Many Christians fail to remember this as we look at what is going on in our world.
      Regarding your comment about the post-Flood nephilim — it doesn’t necessarily follow that they would still be around. The book of Joshua tells us that Joshua wiped out all of the Anakim except for those in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Joshua 11:22). Goliath was from Gath, and these are the same places where David’s mighty men fought against giants (1 Chronicles 20:4–8). I think one could build a pretty strong case that the post-Flood nephilim were wiped out or died off in the distant past. If they were around today, we would be able to see them since they would be quite tall. :)
      You are right that prayer is huge in this fight. Look at Paul’s answer to your question in Ephesians 6:13ff. Take up the whole armor of God and stand firm. We know that He who is in us is greater than he who is in the world. It would be great to see revival in this country and around the world, and I would love to see the tide of evil overturned. I know that many Christians do not agree with my view on the end times, but I don’t believe we’ll see this kind of revival and turning away of evil until the Lord returns. Until that time, our job is to stand boldly for the truth no matter the cost. Be encouraged! We’re on the winning side. God bless!

  15. Hi, Tim –

    A mutual friend (my daughter, Jessica) suggested I check you out on the web since we have a huge number of common interests. We were living in Rochester when you were at MBC. Since then, we’ve transplanted to North Carolina.

    I do a daily program on BlogTalkRadio and the topic of the Nephilim (“as it was in the days of Noah”) are of interest to me. Please check me out and let me know if you’d be interested in being a guest on my program. In the meantime, I’ll check out your book.

    Best,

    Steve
    Anakypto Forum on BlogTalkRadio

    • Hi Steve,
      It’s good to hear from you. I just connected with Jessica on facebook a week or two ago. I hope all is well with you guys. I’ll be in touch concerning the program.

  16. Tim,

    I may be opening a can of worms here. But I would love to hear your opinion on the consmption of alcohol. I se you mention many times context. I was raised pentecostal. Point blank, drinking at all is a sin. I have searched and read every scripture on the subject I could find. Though I truly believe getting DRUNK is a sin. I do not believe drinking in moderation is. One scripture I have been thrown is judges 13:4 “now therefore beware, I pray the, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing.” Yes, when you read this scripture alone it seems pretty evident that you hould not drink. But if u read all of it you see it is an angel speaking to he mother of samson. informing her she is with child, and not to drink. This is only once scriptural example on the subject. But again, would love to hear your thoughts. God Bles.

    • Hi Brittany,
      That would be an interesting topic to address. There are certainly some strong opinions on it. I don’t know if someone can make a rock solid case that drinking in any and all circumstances is wrong (getting drunk definitely is). Paul told Timothy to drink some wine for his stomach ailments, and Jesus turned water into wine for people to consume. So I don’t believe a legalistic approach is the right one. However, there is also a danger of going too far the other direction. For those who think it is okay, they need to realize the huge ramifications their decisions can have (e.g., the example they are setting, the possibility of being a stumbling block for others, etc.). Personally, I never touch the stuff. I tell people that I’m drier than the Sahara. But that doesn’t mean that I condemn any of my fellow believers who choose to occasionally have a drink. That’s just scratching the surface of this topic, but I wanted to give you a few thoughts to go on.

  17. I just came across your blog. I enjoyed the explanation on Matthew, on the Romans verse, and the one about judging others. Yes, context is essential and application is pushing away from the context. I, myself, am all for context, so, I appreciated your comments on many verses like about the sons of GOD from the scroll of GENESIS 6. In the same way the fallen angels were active before the flood, the fallen angels will be–after the rapture of the CHURCH –very active before the judgment falling on earth. I think fallen angels has a role to get the race all messed up and GOD in both situation intervene. The plan of the devil is to crush GOD’s plan in any way or shape. That is only my opinion knowing there are other points out there.

  18. Hi Tim, thank you so much for your article on “Two or three are gathered..” I have held this opinion for a while but kept it to myself for fear of offending! There is another question I would like your response to: “For by His stripes we have been healed” has always been used to validate our requests for physical healing but I do’nt agree. I see the crucifiction of Christ as being a covenent regarding salvation. We know therefore that if someone sincerely asks Jesus for forgiveness and salvation, it is done. We dont doubt it for a minute. To use this scripture with physical healing, poses a problem to me as prayers for healing don’t always manifest in healing. My sister gets frustrated as she says the scripture applies to healing as well, but if we dont have the same certainty regarding prayers for healing, how do we know the new convert is saved? It is for that very reason I don’t think the two are covered by that scripture, just salvation. To my mind, it would have required a second covenant to pertain to healing!. When I pray for healing, I do it on the basis of James’ invitation James 5:14, 15 ” Is anyone sick among you…..I don’t see how we can piggyback anything onto salvation. Please respond.

    • Hi Desiree,
      I would agree with you about Isaiah 53. I do not believe that verse should be used to support physical healing. Despite what some people believe, we are never promised physical health in this life. The Bible tells us that Christians can expect persecution because the world hates us–this may include physical torment. Also, Hebrews 11 discusses people who had great faith, and near the end of the chapter, the writer talks about those who were destitute, tortured, scourged, stoned, sawn in two, or killed with the sword. It doesn’t work to say that they didn’t have enough faith–they are listed in the “faith hall of fame” (Hebrews 11).
      Can God heal people of physical ailments? Of course He can, but He never promised us that He would do that. Christ’s sacrifice, which is clearly depicted in Isaiah 53, was done to heal us of our spiritual problem–sin. While we still struggle with the flesh, believers have been forgiven of our sins and have a new nature that desires to please God.

  19. I am nearly finished with “Angels” by Ronald Showers, which you may be familiar with. He also supports the angelic infiltration doctrine. I first heard this from Robert Thieme over 40 years ago and was and remain persuaded that it is the only view that makes any sense, even if it seems repulsive to most. I’m sure that Satan’s fall and man’s fall was repulsive to God as well but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I am quite convinced that as the super natural tenor of the Bible began to wane and allegory became the more acceptable, palatable view of Scripture, the church has suffered immeasurably. Our understanding of these super-natural phenomena is never going to be complete this side of Heaven, but the Bible provides enough information for our faith to rest on. Jesus did many miracles yet there were still those who refused to believe. This is always going to be the case, unfortunately, until time is no more. I am thankful that you have thought this subject important enough to write a thesis on and have enjoyed your posts. I have a Biblesoft commentary which I enjoy very much for most study purposes but as you pointed out, on this subject, they are all wrong. I try not to rush to judgment because of it but sometimes it is a little irritating. For since early childhood God has always been Super Natural to me, and I believed in HIS omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience (I had to or else He wouldn’t have been any different from man, and God just had to be more than man. And as more information became available to me, through excellent teaching, and more blanks started filling in in my understanding, things my spirit had hungered for, I was fully persuaded my faith had been well placed. There’s been no turning back for me in this path, through rough waters and calm seas He’s ever been and remains faithful to me. Again many thanks.
    jennifer claxton

  20. Dear Tim,

    I publish an entertainment website for Christian teens and tweens at: http://www.clashentertainment.com/ We also feature a lot of apologetics/Bible and science posts so you can see why I would be interested in touching base with you. Please check out our website and, if you feel led contact me for further discussion.

    Sincerely,

    Ken Raney

  21. Hello Mr. Chaffey!

    I have a question that I hope would be answered soon.

    Arecibo Observatory sent out a radio message containing binary code in 1974 as a celebration to an area called M13, about 25,000 light years away. Back in August of 2011, a cornfield across the street received the same binary code.

    Thinks to Google: Arecibo Message, Arecibo reply, Arecibo Chilbolton

    What I wanted to know is, if there is really life out there… would that contradict the Bible? Could a Christian accept the maybe-fact that there is life other than our own?

    Thanks,
    Matt

    • Hi Matt,
      Thanks for taking the time to write. Re: alien life and the Bible. I outlined some of the problems with the idea of alien life in my post about ancient aliens. Although there is not one verse in Scripture that says, “There are no alien life forms elsewhere in the universe” we can make some reasonable deductions to show why this concept is contrary to the Word of God. Furthermore, the idea of alien life stems from an evolutionary worldview, so although a person can be a Christian and believe in aliens, it would be far better for that person to use God’s Word as the authority. In it we find that earth is unique and the focal point of God’s redemptive plan. There are no biblical reasons to believe in aliens, but there are several good reasons to reject it.
      Also, re: the Arecibo Message and Chilbolton circles. I would encourage you to read the response from SETI. Remember, this is a group that desperately wants to find traces of life elsewhere, so the fact that they reject these circles and the arguments they make against them are telling. I don’t agree with their evolutionary presuppositions, but they make a strong case for rejecting the Chilbolton formations.
      Thanks for reading.
      Tim

  22. Hello Tim. I am Doug from Cleveland. I met you at the creation museum Friday June 24 2011. My wife and kids were sitting in the front row for your GENESIS teaching. I came home to do homework today and this is what I was met with. I attend Kaplan University and currently taking a science class. SC300 Big Ideas in Science: Methods and Mutations. Thought you might like to read what they are teaching us.

    “Young-Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design

    Opposition to Darwin did not end in the nineteenth century. In the United States today, many vocal opponents to Darwin’s theory believe in young-Earth creationism, which is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Three central tenets of young-Earth creationism are:

    1. Earth and the universe were created relatively recently, no more than about 10,000 years in the past.

    2. All life-forms were created by God in a miraculous act, in essentially their modern forms.

    3. The present disrupted Earth’s surface and the distribution of fossils are primarily the consequence of a great catastrophic flood.

    These beliefs differ dramatically from many of the scientific ideas presented in this book. The big bang origin of the universe (Chapter 15), the origin of the solar system (Chapter 16), the span of geological history (Chapters 17 and 18), and the chemical origin and evolution of life (this chapter) are all at odds with these religious beliefs. It’s not surprising, therefore, that science and creationism have come into conflict. In particular, evidence in favor of evolution requires a very old Earth and a means for transforming one species into another. Darwin’s idea of natural selection, particularly as applied to the origin of human beings, is uncomfortable to many people because Homo sapiens cannot lay claim to a history that is intrinsically different from other species.

    In the early 1980s, the Arkansas State Legislature passed a law requiring that the biblical story of creation be taught alongside the theory of evolution in public schools. Federal courts eventually ruled that this law was an attempt to impose religious beliefs in the public schools, something expressly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. It is now against the law to teach creationism as part of any public school science curriculum.

    Young-Earth creationists then adopted a different strategy by trying to eliminate evolution from public school curricula. In 1999, for example, the Kansas State Board of Education had a majority of elected members sympathetic to the creationist position. They voted to eliminate any references to the big bang, Earth’s origin, historical geology, and biological evolution from statewide standardized science tests. That decision was overturned in 2001, when a new board was elected, but similar challenges continue to arise in many states and have reemerged in Kansas.

    The latest opposition to teaching evolution is in the guise of the “doctrine of intelligent design,” or ID. Proponents of ID argue that life on Earth is so extraordinarily complex that it could not possibly have emerged through any natural process. An intelligent engineer must have done the job (though ID advocates avoid talking about who designed the designers). In 2005 U.S. District Judge John E. Jones heard a case centering on the science curriculum in the town of Dover, Pennsylvania, and ruled that ID is simply another form of creationism. Consequently, intelligent design cannot be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in the public schools (Figure 25-21).

    AP/Wide World Photos.

    Figure 25-21 In December, 2005, in a case in the U.S. District Court involving the Dover Area High School, Judge John E. Jones ruled that intelligent design is based on a religious belief, and therefore should not be introduced into public school science classrooms.

    We maintain that it is reasonable, perhaps even desirable, to discuss different ways of knowing about the origin and evolution of life in classes on the history of ideas, or comparative religions, or even current events. However, we view efforts to eliminate the teaching of evolution or to promote the creationist agenda in a science classroom as misguided and a significant threat to the integrity of public science education. We argue that evolution is an essential unifying concept in biology and thus is a critical aspect of any scientific education. All students should be expected to understand the principle of evolution and to be familiar with the extensive observational evidence that scientists have discovered to support it, even if they don’t believe that evolution actually happened.

    To what extent do you think that parents or local school boards should have the right to decide what scientific theories and ideas are presented in schools? To what extent do you think parents ought to have the right to demand that opposing religious views be taught as well? Should the views of creationism, which are primarily based on one particular type of Christianity, be given special consideration? ”

    I am shocked at the teaching of “FACT” not theory. I am currently working on starting an evangelist ministry, starting with speaking to men, that leads with what God did to restore my life and my family and then tells the truth of scripture, and then delivers the Gospel as the ultimate truth and authority ovar all. I am excited to be given the chance to spread the message.
    Thank you for your story, your faithfulness, and your message. We are blessed by your work.
    BE GREAT.
    Douglas Boose

    • Hi Doug,
      It was great to meet you and your family yesterday at the museum. Thank you for the kind words and for your efforts to share the truth of God’s Word.
      Although the quote above is very slanted, it’s a bit gentler than I expected. They still try to portray it as a religion v. science debate, but really it is a worldview v. worldview. There are some inaccuracies as well, but that’s to be expected when you try to indoctrinate someone against the truth.
      I pray that God will bless you and your family as you serve Him in ministry and in your daily walks. Always remain faithful to God’s Word and He will use you in amazing ways. Let me know if/when you guys come to the museum or one of our conferences.

    • Hi Sean,
      I read through the article on the link you posted. Frankly, I think the guy’s “theory” is extremely far from biblical. There are so many things for which he has absolutely no evidence, and many of the claims are contrary to Scripture. For example, there was no life on other planets at the time life was created here. In fact, God made the earth first, and made the stars, planets, etc., three days later. He created life on earth and this planet is the focal point of His plans. God became a man to die for man on earth, and Hebrews tells us that He died for sinners “once for all.” So i do not believe there is sentient life on other planets.
      That being said, I plan to refute some of these ideas in an upcoming post on the Sons of God and the Nephilim. I do think there may be a connection between what happened in Genesis 6 and what many people consider to be alien activity. While I don’t believe aliens exist, I do think that demons can deceive people under this guise. It would not surprise me if that is what we have been seeing with the alien abduction phenomenon. I’ll write more on this within the next few weeks. Thanks for reading.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>