Tag Archive: History

News stories have been published around the world purporting to have evidence of “another” mistake in the Bible. However, once again the “experts” have only shown their bias and their failure to actually read all but one or two Bible verses-if that.


This time the “evidence” against the Bible concerns the Canaanites. Researchers believe they’ve found DNA evidence that ninety percent of modern day Lebanese are descended from the Canaanites. This, according to reporters as desperate to “disprove” the Bible as they are to “destroy Trump”, is evidence against the Bible, because according to the reports the Bible says the Canaanites were wiped out.

The Washington Post claims that “The Hebrew text offers one explanation for the destiny of the Canaanites: annihilation” (note 1). The obvious conclusion we’re supposed to make, based on the recent research, is that the Bible must be wrong. It continues:

Now a study of Canaanite DNA, published Thursday in the American Journal of Human Genetics, rules out the biblical idea that an ancient war wiped out the group.

Again, the Post is saying that the Bible is wrong because it says the Canaanites were wiped out but they’re still around.

This is, to put it very politely, an untruth. Yes, God wanted the Israelites to purge the land of Canaanites because of the evil they had descended to: killing babies in sacrifice, idolatry, sexual deviancy (sound familiar? See Deuteronomy 20:17-18). However, the Biblical record very clearly states that the Israelites failed in their mission, and did not, as the Post claims the Bible says, “wipe out the group” or “annihilate” the group, or destroy all their cities.

Here are a couple of examples of what the Bible really says happened, rather than the lies or the statements of very uninformed reporters, towards the end of the movement of the Israelites into the land:

“And Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer, so the Canannites lived in Gezer among them” (Judges 1:29);

“Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, or the inhabitants of Nahalol, so the Canaanites lived among them…” (Judges 1:30);

Asher did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron or the inhabitants of Sidon or of Ahlab or of “…(etc). (Judges 1:31).

Joshua chapter 9 tells the story of how an entire city of Canaanites survived by being deceptive.

As an aside, isn’t it interesting that what we are discussing is actually evidence FOR the Bible! The Canaanites did -and do- exist, in that very part of the world as recorded in the Bible.

Another error is seen in the Washington Post’s report. It states:

“University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman noted in a 2013 blog post that, beyond the Hebrew Bible …there are no references in any other ancient source to a massive destruction of the cities of Canaan.”

If this learned prof. had taken the trouble to look he would see, as we can see just from the few examples above, that the Bible says many Canaanite cities, including large ones such as Sidon, were not destroyed but continued to be inhabited.


One most notable Canaanite who the Bible very clearly tells us survived was Rahab, a prostitute. Rahab was the woman who hid the Israelite spies in Jericho. For her faith she and her family were spared and blessed by the invaders (Joshua 7:25). Not only did she and her family of Canaanites survive, according to the Bible book of Joshua, but Rahab was in the lineage of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:5).

James in the New Testament noted that Rahab’s faith caused her to be considered “righteous” in the eyes of the Lord (James 2:25). This is the way-the only way-you or I can be reconciled to God, and it’s the message of the New Testament as well as being the veiled message of the Old. Paul said:

“…by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8 ESV).

At least the UK’s Telegraph had the decency to print a correction in a similar report, though at the end, where most people don’t read. It said:

Correction: The original version of this story erroneously said the Bible claimed the Canaanites were wiped. However, elsewhere in the Bible, it says the elimination was not successful (2).

Anytime you read about “evidence” against the Bible or against the Creation, you need to do a little digging, and you’ll soon find that the so-called “evidence” is no more than bias and wishful thinking.

1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/27/ancient-dna-solves-mystery-of-the-canaanites-reveals-the-biblical-peoples-fate/?utm_term=.8ded561fb03c

2 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/07/28/study-disproves-bibles-claim-ancient-canaanites-wiped/




I know it’s very unfashionable to talk about war, but whether you know it or not, and whether you want to be or not, you’re in one…

One of my mother’s more common little adages was this one:
“All’s fair in love, war and politics”.
This wasn’t part of her personal ethos, but one of her wry observations. It’s not a statement of belief but a sad fact of life: people will slap, scrap, spit and slash to end up getting what they want, and have no sense of shame.
The culture war in the United States, which had already been heating up for decades, has reached a much higher level over the last eight years with President Obama’s “fundamental transformation”. Now it’s at the heart of the coming general election. The power to choose the next few supreme court judges is itself considered a prize worth slandering and lying to congress under oath for.
Don’t get me wrong here: while I can’t help waxing a little political, I’m not about to say that God votes for or supports one of the two main parties over the other, or that one political party is on the Lord’s side while the other isn’t. But I do believe that one of them leans a lot more towards a Biblical worldview while the other seems pretty determined to go in the opposite direction.

The founders warned that if the country ended up as a two-party state there would be a damaging culture war. John Adams said:
“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution” 1
George Washington in his farewell address, warning that the pittting of a very few parties against one another would eventually lead to despotism, said:
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.
“It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

Revenge…dissention…animosity…foreign influence…corruption…riots…despotism…


In truly Orwellian style, the bulk of the mainstream media, purporting to be conveying news are doing so in Soviet-style selectivity so as to produce the election result which they and their wealthy backers desire. They don’t even want a two-party race: to them Mrs. Clinton must win and continue that “fundamental transformation”.

The political and cultural war is inextricably linked to the war which rages unseen. I don’t mean that God supports one party over the other or that the devil and God are slogging it out to see who wins: Satan already knows he has no chance against the creator and sustainer of all things. I mean that there is a battle for your soul and for the soul of every individual: which way will you allow it to go?
My son wrote a fine piece on my blog recently about a sword of division (2). Among the many accusations against the words of Jesus which he quoted is the one that Jesus was advocating physical violence when he said:
“I did not come to bring peace but a sword…” (Matthew 10:34 NIV)
This is a metaphorical sword. The claim that Christanity advocates wanton violence comes from ignorance of the fact that Jesus said “Love your enemies”. It isn’t a call to physical violence, it’s an observation and a warning that Truth will naturally divide those who love it from those who hate it. There is no alternative, and there’s no middle ground. Even with your head in the sand, you’re on one side or the other.
The contemporary politically-correct view being surreptitiously foisted onto all of us-the globalist, universalist agenda-is that we should all cuddle up to the warmest, fuzziest common-denominator set of ideals and beliefs, which just happens to be the one espoused by the Democratic Party and many Republicans also, and forget those nasty old ideas that some things are sinful and will get you judged.

However, looking to our roots and our guiding light, the Old Testament refers to people and nations being sifted as wheat: the New Testament speaks of wheat being separated from weeds and of sheep being separated from goats. The word of God, says the writer of Hebrews:
“…penetrates even to dividing of soul and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).
There’s a humanity-wide separation going on (don’t believe what the politically-correct tell you: there are millions of Christians in the East and Middle-East) and there’s a battle for your very soul. The gospel of Jesus Christ is provided and intended to be your passage to the safe side and to victory.
God loves us and wants us to know Truth. That involves separating truth from falsehood, and it’s why Jesus Christ said:
“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24).
No, God isn’t a Republican and there have been and still are plenty of Republicans who have no regard for God or man. But there are concerted, determined moves within a certain party beginning with “D” to silence Christians-normally found to the right of the political spectrum; to support, condone and promote ungodly practices and passions; to blend and dissolve our culture with other ungodly cultures, and to usher into the West as many people hostile to the Christian gospel as possible.

I like the fact that Mr. Trump is opposing the politically-correct establishment rooted in both parties, along with their Ministry of Truth. I hope he wins the election.
It’s unavoidable: a wise choice has to be made this coming election…
1 Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780), “The Works of John Adams”, vol 9, p. 511
2 https://nickyfisher.com/2016/06/28/a-sword-from-the-lord/


A few years ago , while observing the world of politics and the affairs of men, the word ”lawlessness”, in its Biblical sense, began to pop into my mind…


Recently I’ve noticed several Christians commentators using the same word to help define the spirit of our times. Anyone who’s missed the proliferation of lawlessness either isn’t looking or doesn’t want to call it what it is.

I decided to do a little Biblical word study, and it seems the word “lawlessness”, used in my ESV and NIV versions, and translated “iniquity” in the KJV and some other versions, most often refers to a rejection of God’s moral law. However, it can also refer to legal injustice (NIV “Strongest Concordance”). We’ve seen a considerable fulfillment of both of these interpretations in recent times.

How is it that the former Secretary of State can lie to the Congress of the United States under oath and jeopardize national security with impunity, and still run for the office of President? (1). Why is most of the mainstream media so dismissive of the implications of her actions, as though they say nothing about her character and her fitness for the position of leadership of the free world? What will she get away with if she becomes President? How is it that so many potential voters can freely ignore such questions?

Surely the answer must be that we are now a lawless people: a civilization which sets its wishes and proclivities above truth and consequences. And it’s no surprise really, given the lawlessness of the administration over the last several years: the blatant ignoring of law and constitution, of history, of the will of the people, and of the religion which birthed and guided the nation for over two hundred years.

At the same time people who are elected to be public servants perpetuate a crass determination to deny life to multiplied millions of humans in favor of convenience, and now the promotion of and apologetic for a foreign god (Islam’s god) at the expense of liberty, truth and free speech. The consequences for the future of America are not good. Our leaders-who hardly deserve to be called leaders-are setting the worst possible example, first of all by so arrogantly fulfilling their own will, and secondly by showing no shame or remorse once discovered.

The elites who consider themselves our masters and our betters want to control us all in every way possible, and as Plato wrote, tyranny will be the end product. Millions of people died over the centuries in order to preserve and pass on to future generations the knowledge of the law of God, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. In many ways the entirety of World War II was a battle to preserve free, Christian civilization. Don’t believe me? Refer to this speech by Sir Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on June 4th 1940:

“I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization; upon it depends our own British life and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire” (2).


And just in case someone may think in these times of historical revisionism that Churchill was an anomaly-a rare fundamentalist wacko, consider the opening of a prayer read to the people of the United States by President Franklin D Roosevelt, on the eve of D-Day, 1944:

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity (3).

Notice that Roosevelt called the US a “Republic”. Even the fact that The US was established as a republic is being denied in some circles.


The truth that the knowledge of the law of God shaped western civilization (and much of that to the East also) is now being denied or deleted by presidents, politicians, professors and some church ministers. President Obama, apologizing to the Muslim world in his first days in office, declared that the US is “not a Christian nation”. How things have changed before and since then, with help from others who intend to bring about“fundamental transformation”.

Those who wish to impose their will on us all know very well that:

Those who control the present control the past, and those who control the past control the future” (4).


The goal of present-day political-correctness is to homogenize the world, to dilute or destroy the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to convince us that all religions and philosophies are equal. This, I believe, can also be termed “lawlessness”, because it rejects the supremacy of the ways of God, and because if everything is true, nothing is true: there is no objective law of God to shape our lives by and to govern our governments by. If everything is true there is no transcendent law of life by which the founders of the United States can make such statements as these:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” (5).

So I considered “lawlessness” and “iniquity” and the rejection of the ways of God, and in the course of my study realized that lawlessness isn’t something new-it’s been going on almost since day one of human existence. First Eve and then Adam were prompted to reject God’s law, which at that point consisted only of a simple command stating, in effect, “You can eat anything you like-just don’t eat from that tree there, or you’ll die”. The serpent convinced Eve that in this simple commandment, intended to give freedom of choice and love, God was intentionally spoiling not only her fun but her “right” to freedom of choice, and she and her mate rejected God’s law.


Later in Scripture we read about the Israelites doing essentially the same thing, also fulfilling the other definition of lawlessness involving legal injustice, to the extent that:

In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6).

Perhaps the most well-known use of the word “lawlessness”, the one my mind has been returning to, and the one frequently being referenced by others, is in Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians (2:3). It speaks of a “secret power” at work in the world, even in Paul’s time: it’s nothing new. However, it is something we can expect to increase as time goes on:

But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13”.

As Jesus put it:

… because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold” (Matthew 24:12 ESV).

That “secret power” of lawlessness will culminate in the appearance of a man (and the Bible does say “man”, not “woman”) who is lawlessness personified, and the spirit of his time a “rebellion”:

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him…that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed…” (2 Thess. 2:1-4).


There’s a resolution to the whole problem of lawlessness, and its ultimate expression, the “man of lawlessness, is already “doomed to destruction” (verse 4).

But it’s not just that one man who will be doomed to destruction. The one who deceived Eve and Adam, and many others since, will be “thrown into the lake of burning sulfur” (Revelation 20:10). Those who have willingly paid attention to him and rejected the ways of God will go the same way:

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened…The dead were judged according to what they had done…” (Revelation 20:11-15).

The only question remaining is, whose side are you on? Are you on the side of lawlessness and rebellion, or are you on God’s side? If you’ve lived a life of rebellion and lawlessness as I once did, there is forgiveness for you if you’re willing to change. Please see my post on the gospel of Jesus Christ:



1 http://aclj.org/executive-power/the-fbi-and-the-metastasizing-virus-of-deception

2 http://d-dayrevisited.co.uk/planning/american-armed-forces.html

3 http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/fdr-prayer.htm

4 George Orwell, “Nineteen Eighty Four”

5 From The Declaration of Independence

A Sword from the LORD


Hello! This is Nathan Fisher. I’ve seen my Dad publish a lot of fantastic articles here over the years glorifying God, and this seems like quite a bit of fun.

So anyway, on a more serious note, I was reading an article on the New York Times about “religion.” It correctly attributed the quote,

“I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,”

…to Jesus in Matthew 10:34. However, the author of the article, “How Well Do You Know Religion?,” implied that this shows the violent side of the Judeo-Christian tradition and that Christianity is as violent as or more violent than certain others towards outsiders. Was Jesus saying that He wanted Christians to convert by force, to oppress, or to conquer?

Unfortunately, this shows once again that the Bible has been misinterpreted. When Jesus first began to teach the gospel, He was hated, persecuted, and ultimately executed. This was the same for all of the apostles (except John) and the hundreds of Christians that came after. Those that wanted to preach Jesus’ real words to ordinary folk in their own language, such as William Tyndale, Martin Luther, and others were attacked and pursued.

When Jesus said the above quote, His intention was to show that the message He brought and His death and return to life would bring conflict and strife. His sword was metaphorical: a sword of division. It was not that it was His will to oppress non-Christians, but  who He was that would bring trouble. In the evil world we are in, good is not always accepted as what it is.

In fact, Jesus says, and I quote:

“For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’”(Matthew 10:35-36 NIV, quoted Micah 7:6)

…and this has happened in families throughout history, increasingly so as the events of Revelation draw near.

When He was arrested, the Messiah told Pilate,

My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews.” (John 18:36)

And another thing about violence, especially concerning the Old Testament:

“For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!” (Ezekiel 18:32)

The sword Jesus is describing was, and is, the violence stemming from the oppression of truth. However, the LORD has a plan to end this. We have the last chapter of history: Revelation.

August 2013 012



Oh yes, and lastly, as a comfort to all of us, Jesus told us,

“In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” (Jesus, John 16:33 NIV)

 (Once in a while I like to re-publish one of my favorite posts. Here it is…)

When I was a boy I wondered why, if evolution were true, did humans lose all their ape-like fir, then start lighting fires and putting on clothes?


(Abstractreacle: “Drops”)

Recently on TV I saw a priest of the great Darwin suggesting that pre-humans lost their hair because it was unattractive to those who wanted a mate, so that by “natural selection” humans had all their hair bred out of them over many thousands of years. The hairier specimens just couldn’t pull the girls, and I suppose that shivering in the cold and wearing smelly animal skin was much more sexy. How many thousands of years did it take them to develop the art of knitting to fend off the cold?

So does this answer my childhood question on the validity of human evolution? Hardly. You see, from my experience, while it’s clear that facial hair is not as fashionable as it was a few decades ago, most women just don’t dig balding men-they find baldness a turn off. And apparently the “other” primates still find hairy bodies a turn on-they aren’t losing their hair.

If this theory is true, we really should be elevating bald men to higher positions, since they are more highly evolved and therefore more intelligent. We should have a bald president and some bald politicians-perhaps they would do a better job than the hairy ones.

What a tricky theory evolution is, and I mean to say that word “tricky” as an extension of the word “trick”.

Did Charlie have a hard time finding a mate? He was bald, but he had a hairy face….


People, even those claiming to be enlightened and intelligent, are able to believe the silliest things. My sister, an atheist, told me that people get back-aches because humans haven’t been walking upright for long since we left the trees, so our bodies aren’t yet fully adjusted. Try telling that one to your boss next time you want the day off. And if it were true, it would mean that those who don’t get back-aches are more highly evolved. So, our next president should be bald and upright, with no history of back pain.

If my sister is right, I wonder how the first upright ape-man fared when he decided to stand:

“Ohhhh my DARWIN! This is excruciating (grunt)! Still, I’m determined to do it…I’m going to walk upright for the rest of my life if it kills me!”




%d bloggers like this: