The Pharisaical Spirit

Posted on October 28, 2018 by The Town Crier Outlet

God’s heart is grieved and rain falls from the sky when He sees the abuse and activity of a Pharisaical spirit at work in any church.* That rain is the tears of God and is not the rain of a blessing, but is the sadness of God expressing itself in nature. Those of His prophets who have the Holy Spirit can partake of this grief in their emotions, and they can weep like Jesus did, and cry, “O Jerusalem! Jerusalem! Thou that killest the prophets!” (Matt. 23:37). Who is it? It is the Pharisees that do this, but under that external façade, is a kind of religious demon, or group of demons, which I will call Pharisaical spirits (Matt. 12:45). The Pharisees mentioned in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are definitely not the first people to be under the influence of these evil spirits. Jesus implied that other people had been guided by these spirits before them—namely, their forefathers who had been responsible for slaying many of the Old Testament prophets (Matt. 23:29-36). In this they are shown to be prophet killers: in fact, if they could have their way, all of the activities of the Pharisaical spirit seem to point to the final outcome of stamping out the gift of prophecy, the influence of prophets, and drive toward the martyrdom of saints or the killing of prophets—not the least of which was the Son of God Himself. If they can’t physically kill a prophet, then they will try to fire him or ruin his reputation.

All of their malevolent words and actions are essentially persecuting in nature; but they also have the nature of trying to enter in contentious conversations with God’s prophets, to trap them in their words (Matt. 22:15-22), and finally build a case against them, so they can take some kind of formal action against them, and bring them into some kind of council and accuse them, and sentence them. They are very accusatory and litigious and they get a high off of this. They are heresy hunters for sure; but worse than that, they are also hunters of true prophets, and they can accomplish this just as easily as they attack rank heretics, by showing that these saints and prophets have dreams and visions that are not already written down in the Bible, and they can make the case that these prophets are going beyond what is written and are hence really heretics: merely because they’ve seen visions. This was what happened when David Wilkerson’s The Vision came out in 1973 and he lost a lot of his supporters in Assemblies of God leadership (Gary Wilkerson’s David Wilkerson, p. 174). The problem is, there is nothing in his series of visions that contradict the Word of God: in fact, they only served to enforce it, confirm it, and make more real the prophecies of God’s Word concerning the last days. I believe that when Annas, Caiaphas, and the Pharisees of the first century died, their demons flew out of their bodies, and sought other religious leaders to inhabit and influence; and I believe this has been going on for two thousand years (Matt. 12:43-45). You can see the face of the Pharisees in the corrupt Catholic priests before and during the Reformation; in the Anglican priests during the Puritan and Methodist revivals; you can find the Pharisaical spirit in the “proper” clergymen who opposed evangelical revivals in the United States from the Great Awakening to the Brownsville Revival.

As we wrap up this study on pastoral abuse, true Christians can only do themselves a favor to acknowledge what the Bible says concerning the marks of a Pharisaical spirit:

1. There is no fruit of the Spirit: no love, peace, or joy that surpasses understanding, no patience, no gentleness, or kindness, or goodness (Matt. 3:7; Gal. 5:22-23).

2. There is an element of showmanship, of being a religious show off: to make a public demonstration of their ability to pray, fast, or wear fine church clothes (Matt. 6:5, 16).

3. There is a nitpicky attitude, of making mountains out of molehills; focusing on minor issues, and ignoring major issues; being extremely judgmental of others who don’t fall in line with their foolish opinions and practices that don’t even center around true kindness or righteousness (Matt. 7:5).

4. They are prophet killers: either of their bodies or their reputations (Matt. 21:33-45).

5. They are adulterous: since they have no guidance or consolations of the Holy Ghost, what else can they do but resort to fornication or adultery for comfort? (Matt. 19:3; cp. 12:39).

6. They are authoritarian: they literally worship the idea of authority. They push others around, they are pushy, rude individuals; if they do attain to a level of leadership through arrogant self-promotion, then they imbibe the Pharisaical spirit at its greatest depth and give into a power trip that never goes away (Matt. 21:23).

7. They are unrepentant: and why should they repent? They think they are always right; and after all that hard work at getting into a place of authority, do you think they have the presence of mind to be humble and contrite or even transparent with others about their sins? No sir! (Matt. 21:32).

8. They obsess over the condition of their church building, in an unhealthy way. They seem to think that the building itself is more valuable than mystical experiences with the Holy Spirit. And so while they are busying themselves with blessing the house of God, praying for the house of God, and fundraising for the house of God—they also find the time to preach against charismatic prophets and mystics that might have found their way into their church (Matt. 12:6-7; 27:62).

9. They abuse their church members, if not physically, as that has happened in some very extreme cases—then definitely verbally and emotionally, and sometimes sexually. They can even bring themselves to go to bars, hang out with drunkards, and get drunk themselves, and be back in time for Sunday morning service (Matt. 24:49).

10. If they have to, then they will resort to bribes, lies, and false accusations to snuff out their enemies—no doubt, enemies that they have created by their annoying and controversial attitudes (Matt. 28:12).

11. They are in a state of damnation, on their way to Hell (Matt. 24:51).

12. They reject the deity of Christ and demonize the Holy Spirit: though I wouldn’t say that “Christian pharisees” always do this in doctrine, but definitely in practice (Matt. 9:3; 12:24).

13. Their hearts are far from God (Matt. 15:8);  they talk about sports a lot; and often have worldly, macho attitudes. Although I will admit the sports aspect is not mentioned in the gospels, nor do you see it often in church history, other than King James’ Book of Sports: which was originally a measure against nitpicky Puritans who preached against playing sports on Sunday, because they saw it as a violation of the Sabbath day’s rest. Still, in modern times, a Christian man can easily observe that other Christians or church leaders who happen to be football, baseball, or basketball fans, etc, or tend to fall in the “jock” category, tend to give into a lot of the same spirits or attitudes held in common with the Pharisees: namely–the spirits of competition, authoritarianism, abuse, aggression, murderous or violent spirits, one-upmanship, cockiness, pride, arrogance, showmanship, greed, etc. The references to football plays during church services and sermons are too innumerable to mention, far exceeding Paul’s passing reference that a failing boxer is beating into the air (1 Cor. 9:26), even as these worldly-minded men often do with their empty speeches. The Puritans mainly opposed football because of its violent nature:

In 1531 the Puritan preacher, Thomas Eliot, argued that football caused “beastly fury and extreme violence.” In 1572 the Bishop of Rochester demanded a new campaign to suppress this “evil game.” In his book, The Anatomie of Abuses (1583) Philip Stubbs argued that “football playing and other devilish pastimes…withdraweth us from godliness, either upon the Sabbath or any other day.” Stubbs was also concerned about the injuries that were taking place: “sometimes their necks are broken, sometimes their backs, sometimes their legs, sometimes their arms, sometimes one part is thrust out of joint, sometimes the noses gush out with blood…Football encourages envy and hatred…sometimes fighting, murder and a great loss of blood” (John Simkin, “Football and the Church” in The Encyclopedia of British Football, 1997).

14. They don’t practice what they preach: there’s a disconnect between orthodoxy and orthopraxy (Matt. 23:3).

15. They are sly political schemers, bent on entrapping and incriminating God’s prophets (Matt. 26:3).

 

*Most of my Biblical proofs on the Pharisees here are from the Gospel of Matthew.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Pharisaical Spirit

Donald Gee’s “Concerning Spiritual Gifts” – ch. 8 – Discerning of Spirits

Posted on October 21, 2018 by The Town Crier Outlet
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Donald Gee’s “Concerning Spiritual Gifts” – ch. 7 – The Gift of Prophecy

Posted on October 7, 2018 by The Town Crier Outlet

For further insights on charismatic heretics and prophetic mistakes, see Ronald Knox’s Enthusiasm, Eddie Hyatt’s 2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity, Jeff Doles’ Miracles and Manifestations, and John MacArthur’s Strange Fire (valuable for recent charismatic errors, although I disagree with his cessationist views).

22:00 – Correction: I didn’t mean the Oneida Community, I meant to refer to “The Kingdom,” at “Shiloh,” and the “Holy Ghost and Us Bible School” led by Frank Sandford. For more about that, see Churches That Abuse by Ronald Enroth.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Miraculous Gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14

Posted on October 5, 2018 by The Town Crier Outlet

Although it’s not the only place in the Bible that speaks of miraculous gifts, it is this section of Scripture that speaks of them as directly as possible for their use in the church. I’ve tried to veer away from verses that don’t deal with miraculous gifts, so that I can stay on subject as much as possible. I’ve consulted John Wesley and Adam Clarke.

Lordship Salvation: The Mark of a True Prophet

12:1-3: Lordship salvation: a sign of genuine miraculous gifts and prophets.

The Gifts of Revelation Defined

12:8-10: I’m inclined to believe that all nine of the miraculous gifts are gifts of revelation, but that they are different revelations for different purposes: the word of wisdom (interpretation, application, and direction), the word of knowledge (secret facts), faith (supernatural confidence for a miracle, protection, or financial providence: Adam Clarke says, “a peculiar impulse, as Dr. Whitby calls it, that came upon the apostles when any difficult matter was to be performed, which inwardly assured them that God’s power would assist them in the performance of it”; John Wesley calls it “miracle working faith” when commenting on 13:2; Clarke: “miraculous faith” on 13:3), gifts of healing (faith to pray for specific sicknesses), the working of miracles (supernatural confidence to pray or command specific nature miracles other than healings), prophecy (knowledge of future events; or just a general experience of revelation gifts; for the first view, Clarke says: “the predicting future events, such as then particularly concerned the state of the church and the apostles; as the dearth foretold by Agabus (Acts 11:28); and the binding of St. Paul, and delivering him to the Romans (Acts 21:10), and St. Paul’s foretelling his own shipwreck on Malta (Acts 27:25)”), the discerning of spirits (knowledge of the presence of specific kinds of evil spirits; faith for casting out demons by prayer in Jesus’ name), diverse kinds of tongues (inspired speech, evidence of the presence of God, unknown foreign language, angelic language, personal faith building), and the interpretation of tongues (a revelation that interprets the meaning of a tongue).

Miraculous Gifts Are Occasional Experiences, Not Constant Ones

12:11: Miraculous gifts are occasional, episodic experiences, and are not constant: they are given by the Holy Spirit on special occasions, in accordance with God’s will. This doesn’t mean that “occasionally” means rarely–certainly not for someone who regularly prays for healing, such as a Pentecostal evangelist like Smith Wigglesworth or a charismatic pastor like John Wimber.

Healers and Prophets: The Hands, Ears, and Eyes of Christ

12:14-21: Although hearing Gods voice, having dreams and visions, and the laying on of hands are not specifically mentioned in ch. 12, it seems that they are allegorically mentioned in 12:14-21–the “hands” could be healers in the body of Christ, the “ears” could be prophets who tend to hear God’s voice the most, and the “eyes” could be the prophets, visionaries, or seers, who have dreams and visions more often; and are more skilled in dream interpretation, like Joseph and Daniel. A view like this would make sense, because people tend to put healers and prophets up on a pedestal, but Paul is saying that all of Christ’s body parts are necessary for there to be a healthy church: we don’t just need Christ’s hands, ears, and eyes (the healers and prophets), we need others too, such as Bible teachers (pastors), and “deacons” such as ushers, charity workers, etc.

12:28: This verse definitely seems to suggest that Paul had prophets and healers on his mind in 12:14-21. It only seems natural for me to suggest Mike Bickle’s Growing in the Prophetic and John Wimber’s Power Healing for further teaching about the prophetic and healing ministries.

Speaking in the Unknown Tongues of Men and Angels

13:1-3: Since we know that Paul has speaking in tongues on his mind (12:28, 30; 13:8; ch. 14), it must mean that, although tongues come from the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4), they can come in the unknown foreign languages of man, as in Acts 2, or the unknown language of angels, which always require interpretation, as in 1 Corinthians 14. Although speaking in tongues may sound weird to some people–so much that they avoid them to maintain an air of respectability: if tongues are used as spiritual gifts, they can frame the mind for communion with the Holy Spirit, and become a vehicle for prophecy. Pentecostals have always believed that speaking in tongues is worth the sacrifice, while other Christian groups have tended to be more resistant to it. I think Paul would side with the Pentecostals on this point, because he said, “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues,” and, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you,” and, “Do not forbid speaking in tongues” (1 Cor. 14:5, 18, 39, NIV). But far be it from Paul to say, as some of the oneness Pentecostals do, that speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation!

Miraculous Gifts and the Spirit of Love

Gifts of prophecy, faith for miracles, generosity, and martyrdom are worth nothing to God–if not done in the spirit of love (1 Cor. 13:1-3): as an example of the opposite, take Moses when he struck the rock in anger at Meribah Kadesh (Num. 20; Deut. 32:51-52). God made a miracle of water gush out of the rock, but He punished Moses for his impatient, rude, and hateful attitude against the grumbling Israelites. Moses was not allowed to enter the Promised Land.

13:4-7: Love is defined as being rolled up in the virtues of patience, kindness, truth-seeking, protection, trust, hope, and perseverance; but love is distanced from such things as jealousy, bragging, rudeness, selfishness, bad temper, grudges, and evil.

Dreams and Visions: The Need for Interpretation

13:12: Clarke: “If there be a prophet-I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and I will speak unto him in a dream (Num. 12:6); Rab. Tanchum thus explains: “My Shechinah shall not be revealed to him, beaspecularia maira, in a lucid specular, but only in a dream and a vision…it appears that the rabbis make a great deal of difference between seeing through the lucid glass or specular, and seeing through the obscure one. The first is attributed only to Moses, who conversed with God face to face, i.e. through the lucid specular; and between the other prophets, who saw Him in dreams and visions, i.e. through the obscure specular.” Dreams and visions are symbolic and mysterious, and they require skill at interpreting and making sense of them, as with Joseph and Daniel. I think that Paul’s expression, “Now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part” 13:12, KJV), the glass is a kind of prophetic telescope, not entirely clear, and sort of hazy–that is, the mind–through which we experience dreams and visions. By this we are only given parts of information from the Holy Spirit, but are never given the whole picture at once: thus, even prophets still have to live by faith.

Miraculous Gifts Will Not Last Forever, But Love Will

13:8-13: Love is eternal, but miraculous gifts like prophecy and tongues are temporary–and are only of use to saints still alive on earth who are living by faith. It is because Christians are living in a probationary state on earth that God has designed for mysterious miracles and revelations to be His way of communicating spiritually with His people on earth. But once they are in Heaven, such mysteries will be removed and their rewards will be received.

The Gift of Prophecy and the Word of Knowledge

14:1: Especially the gift of prophecy–the all-encompassing phrase for the revelation gifts in 12:8-10. This phrase “the gift of prophecy,” has to include the word of knowledge, because Paul later says that “prophesying” reveals the secrets of people’s hearts (14:24-25). I think the way Paul is using the word “prophecy” in 14:1 is with a more general idea of having revelations and prophesying them in church, whereas in 12:10 it may be that he means “prophecy” to be the “knowledge of a future event” (see Clarke on 13:2), as when a prophet gives a prophecy of the future, like Simeon in the temple (Luke 2:34-35). Wesley saw it that way–defining the gift as “foretelling things to come.” My only reason for thinking this, is that Paul seems to be listing off different kinds of revelations that prophets can have in 12:8-10, and in that context, the word “prophecy,” when compared with the word “knowledge,” would seem to have the idea of future events as the only possible difference between the two words: these words are also differentiated in 14:6.

The Purposes of Prophecy

14:3: Strengthening, encouragement, and comfort are the three main purposes of prophecy. A closer examination of the Greek words will also reveal this entails exhortation, which can either be a summons to draw near to God or a call to repent from a secret sin. Edification is another translation of one of these words, which means to build up one’s faith in God.

The Purposes of Tongues

14:13-17: Speaking in tongues is a kind of supernatural speech: either a Spirit-filled prayer, song, worship, or prophecy (if interpreted). Clarke confused this whole passage by thinking that speaking in tongues was speaking in an instantly learned language, such as Hebrew. But this is not about learned languages, either naturally or supernaturally acquired. Several of the Azusa Street Pentecostals found out that this idea was a gross mistake, assuming the gift at first to be “missionary tongues,” that could be used to preach the Gospel in foreign countries. But tongues are only about spiritual speech and utterance (14:14-15), and when mystically interpreted by other visions, voices, or impressions, they can turn into revelations and prophecies. But mostly tongues are a kind of expression or outlet for a person who is receiving an outpouring of the Holy Spirit onto his body (see Acts 2, 10, and 19). Although a tongue speaker may speak in a foreign language temporarily (Acts 2), he still does not know the language, which is what makes the gift miraculous.

Taking Turns While Prophesying

14:30-33: Tongue interpretations and prophecies should only be shared by a maximum of three prophets per church service; and they must be respectful enough to take turns and not speak over one another. If a prophet notices another prophet has received a new revelation, because he stood up, then he should wrap up what he’s saying and let the other person prophesy next (14:30): this does not mean, as Wayne Grudem says, that prophets should rudely interrupt one another (The Gift of Prophecy, p. 59), and Clarke sadly follows suit. I agree with Matthew Henry that such an idea is an unnatural thought; and would assume that the Holy Spirit is silencing Himself in one prophet only to speak by another prophet about a different subject. I agree with Henry, when he says regarding 14:31: “That all might prophesy, one by one, or one after another, which could not be where anyone was interrupted and silenced before he had done prophesying; but might easily be if he who was afterwards inspired forbore to deliver his new revelation till the former prophet had finished what he had to say.” Patience, prophets! Patience! Scripture says to “prophesy in turn” (14:31), not to interrupt your fellow prophets. It must mean that a prophet should wrap up what he’s saying, once he sees another person give the signal to prophesy. The signal might have been standing up while everyone else is sitting down (14:30). The very idea that prophets should interrupt one another goes against 14:32-33, which says that revelations should be subjected to self-control, which implies they don’t have to be shared immediately. A prophet can wait a little to share what he saw, heard, or felt in the Spirit. Patience is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22), just as prophecy is a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:10); and it becomes God’s prophets to share their supernatural revelations in an orderly and peaceful way (14:33).

It seems that 14:32 excludes ecstatic prophecy as a legitimate means of revelation, because if prophecy could ever be ecstatic, then it would have to be out of one’s natural mental state, and not subject to self-control, as it is when a prophet receives a vision, mental image, voice, dream, or sudden impression of a thought popping into his head. Wesley said, “The impulses of the Holy Spirit, even in men really inspired, so suit themselves to their rational faculties, as not to divest them of the government of themselves, like the heathen priests under their diabolical possession. Evil spirits threw their prophets into such ungovernable ecstasies, as forced them to speak and act like madmen. But the Spirit of God left his prophets the clear use of their judgment, when, and how long, it was fit for them to speak, and never hurried them into any improprieties either as to the matter, manner, or time of their speaking.” There are some prophetic ministries that seem to operate ecstatically, but are in fact not really ecstatic–they are operating from strong and sudden impressions, but the prophetic minister expresses what he suddenly knows in an immature and seemingly uncontrolled way. If his eyes are open, and he is walking around from person to person sharing prophetic words, then he is still able to control his behavior. A lot of it comes across as a kind of grandiose showmanship, but he’s not without the ability to control his faculties. Immature as such a display can be, it is still possible such a prophecy could be from the Holy Spirit. An ecstatic prophet, however, is not able to control his faculties: his eyes are almost always closed, and he is in a kind of sleep, and he speaks without regard to what others are doing or saying, as it was with Edgar Cayce the “sleeping prophet.” That sort of thing, Wesley concludes, comes from an evil spirit that is counterfeiting the Holy Spirit.

You Should Be Pentecostal!

14:39: As in times of Pentecostal revivals, we should be eager to prophesy. But we should not be part of a church that forbids people from speaking in tongues, as is the case with many evangelical churches. We can have a tolerant attitude towards these members of the body of Christ, but if we are going to follow Paul’s direction here, then it means we should be part of a Pentecostal or charismatic church that does not forbid tongues, like the Assemblies of God and the Vineyard churches.

Bibliography

Clarke, Adam. “1 Corinthians 12-14.” The Adam Clarke Commentary.

Gee, Donald. Concerning Spiritual Gifts. 

Grudem, Wayne. The Gift of Prophecy.

Henry, Matthew. “1 Corinthians 14:30-31.” The Matthew Henry Commentary.

Milligan, Ira. Understanding the Dreams You Dream.

Randolph, Larry. Spirit Talk. 

Robeck, Cecil. The Azusa Street Mission and Revival.

Wesley, John. “1 Corinthians 12-14.” John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes.

Wigglesworth, Smith. Ever Increasing Faith.

Wimber, John. Power Healing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Donald Gee’s “Concerning Spiritual Gifts” – ch. 6 – Faith, Healing, and Miracles

Posted on September 30, 2018 by The Town Crier Outlet
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

8 Characteristics of Authoritarian Parenting – Kendra Cherry

Posted on September 18, 2018 by The Town Crier Outlet

Originally from here.

Authoritarian parenting is a parenting style characterized by high demands and low responsiveness. Parents with an authoritarian style have very high expectations of their children, yet provide very little in the way of feedback and nurture. Mistakes tend to be punished harshly. When feedback does occur, it is often negative. Yelling and corporal punishment are also commonly seen in the authoritarian style.

Brief History

During the 1960s, developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind described three different types of parenting styles based on her research with preschool-age children. One of the main parenting styles identified by Baumrind is known as the authoritarian parenting style.

Authoritarian parents have high expectations of their children and have very strict rules that they expect to be followed unconditionally. According to Baumrind, these parents “are obedience and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation.”

People with this parenting style often utilize punishment rather than discipline but are not willing or able to explain the reasoning behind their rules.

Characteristics of Authoritarian Parents

Baumrind believed that one of the major roles that parents play in a child’s life is to socialize them to the values and expectations of their culture. How parents accomplish this, however, can vary dramatically based upon the amount of control they attempt to exert over their children.

The authoritarian approach represents the most controlling style. Rather than valuing self-control and teaching children to manage their own behaviors, the authoritarian parent is focused on adherence to authority. Instead of rewarding positive behaviors, the authoritarian parent only provides feedback in the form of punishments for misbehavior.

These are eight of the most common characteristics of authoritarian parenting:

  1. Authoritarian parents tend to be very demanding, but not responsive. They have lots of rules and may even micromanage almost every aspect of their children’s lives and behaviors. Such rules apply to almost every aspect of life, from how kids are expected to behave in the home to how they should act in public. Additionally, they also have many unwritten rules that kids are expected to follow—even though these children receive little to no explicit instruction about these “rules.” Instead, children are simply expected to know that these rules exist.
  2. They don’t express much warmth or nurturing. Parents with this style often seem cold, aloof, and harsh. These parents are more likely to be nagging or yelling at their children rather than offering encouragement and praise. They value discipline over fun and tend to expect that children should simply be seen and not heard.
  3. Authoritarian parents utilize punishments with little or no explanation. Parents with this style usually have no problem resorting to corporal punishment, which often involves spanking. Rather than relying on positive reinforcement, they react swiftly and harshly when the rules are broken.
  4. They don’t give children choices or options. Authoritarian parents set the rules and have a “my way or the highway” approach to discipline. There is little room for negotiation and they rarely allow their children to make their own choices.
  5. They have little to no patience for misbehavior. Authoritarian parents expect their children to simply know better than to engage in undesirable behaviors. They lack the patience for explaining why their children should avoid certain behaviors and waste little energy talking about feelings.
  6. Authoritarian parents don’t trust their children to make good choices. While parents with this style have high expectations and strict rules, they also do not give their children much freedom to demonstrate that they can display good behavior and make good choices. Rather than letting their kids make decisions on their own and face the natural consequences for those choices, authoritarian parents hover over their kids in order to ensure that they don’t make mistakes.
  7. They are not willing to negotiate. Authoritarian parents don’t believe in gray areas. Situations are viewed as black and white and there is little to no room for compromise. Kids don’t get a say or a vote when it comes to setting rules or making decisions.
  8. They may shame their children to force them to behave. Authoritarian parents can be highly critical and may even use shame as a tactic to force children into following the rules. “Why do you always do that?,” “How many times do I have to tell you the same thing?,” and “Why can’t you do anything right?” are just a few of the phrases that these parents might use on a regular basis. Rather than looking for ways to build their children’s self-esteem, these parents often believe that shaming their children will motivate them to do better.
Effects

Parenting styles have been associated with a variety of child outcomes including social skills and academic performance.

The children of authoritarian parents tend to exhibit these effects:

  • They associate obedience and success with love
  • Some children display more aggressive behavior outside the home
  • Some children may act fearful or overly shy around others
  • Children often have lower self-esteem
  • Children have difficulty in social situations due to a lack of social competence
  • They tend to conform easily, yet may also suffer from depression and anxiety
  • They may struggle with self-control because they are rarely able to make choices and experience natural consequences

Because authoritarian parents expect absolute obedience, children raised in such settings are typically very good at following rules. However, they may lack self-discipline. Unlike children raised by authoritative parents, children raised by authoritarian parents are not encouraged to explore and act independently, so they never really learn how to set their own limits and personal standards. This can ultimately lead to problems when the parental or authority figure is not around to monitor behavior.

While developmental experts agree that rules and boundaries are important for children to have, most believe that authoritarian parenting is too punitive and lacks the warmth, unconditional love, and nurture that children need.

A Word From Verywell

The authoritarian style is characterized by lots of rules but little parental responsiveness. While an authoritarian approach might be effective in certain situations that require strict adherence to the rules, it can have negative consequences when overused as an approach to parenting.

If you notice that your own parenting style tends to be more authoritarian, consider looking for ways that you can begin incorporating a more authoritative style into your daily interactions with your children.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Donald Gee’s “Concerning Spiritual Gifts” – ch. 5 – The Word of Knowledge

Posted on September 16, 2018 by The Town Crier Outlet
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nothing To Say

Posted on September 4, 2018 by The Town Crier Outlet

Verse 1 – E 4p – alternate echo voice

I fell asleep and saw a meadow
With neon colors all around
I must’a leapt right through a window
Streams, mountains, and gold on the ground
Don’t tell me how to run my life
The Scriptures’ all I need for that
I left the earth, so full of strife
But I know that I am going back

Chorus – 8p 3p 6p 2p

I hate the world and sin
Competition’s ruined my day
Look to the cross and faith
Devil’s got nothin’ to say

Verse 2 – E 4p – alternate echo voice

Again I dreamed of the holy city
Saints and angels all around
Cares of the earth, they are alien
But they await for the trumpet sound
They flock in droves to worship Jesus
Best music you heard from a soul
With open eyes they praise the King
And shout, and scream, and give Him glory

Chorus (x2)

Break (x2) – Em(pick) 8p 4p 2p 

He’s got nothin’ to say
The blood washes it away
Still got nothin’ to say
The negative: blow it away
Ahhh
Ahhh Ahhh Ahhh Ahhh

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

It’s Like Job

Posted on September 2, 2018 by The Town Crier Outlet

Verse 1 – E 4p

Lord, You have Your ways
And I don’t like it
The devil’s lookin’ on
To see when I’ll slip
Lookin’ at my bank
And I know You’re there
But I can’t feel a thing
I’ll pray and I’ll stare

Chorus – E 4p

‘Cause You are Lord
You are Lord
You are Lord

Verse 2 – E 4p

Money isn’t there
But we’re not homeless
Must be in the air
Feel so helpless
Surprise us once again
In the desert
It comes rollin’ in
We did what we could

Chorus

Break (x4) – 8p 4p Em 1p

It’s like Job
Just like the book of Job

Chorus


Break

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Meteorite Impacts Might Have Caused the Flood of Noah – Michael Oard

Posted on August 29, 2018 by The Town Crier Outlet

Size of the craters

…Koeberl states that the earth would have undergone impact events an order of magnitude larger than the moon and experienced many more such events.3 There would be hundreds of objects with sizes similar to those that created the Imbrium and Orientale craters that must have struck Earth during the basin-forming era. Ryder also says that the earth would have undergone events an order of magnitude larger than the moon with many more impacts.29 Melosh suggests that there should be 100 impact structures with diameters greater than 1,000 km on Earth, based on the moon.21 

Samec calculates that the moon was hit by an asteroid swarm equivalent to a 70 km diameter solid asteroid.36,37 He divides this asteroid up into 23 equal chunks with sizes averaging 24.5 km in diameter, equal to the number of large impact basins, and calculates a crater average diameter of 850 km, which is close to the average of those large impact basins on the moon. Samec uses an average distribution, but in reality the sizes of the impactors would vary significantly around the mean diameter of 24.5 km resulting in a variety of crater diameters as observed on the moon. Using the moon as an analog and the average crater size, he obtains 310 collisions for the earth, each causing 740 km diameter craters.

However, he used the physical cross sectional area and not the gravitational cross section area. So, these 310 collisions would have to be multiplied by 1.4 to obtain 434 huge impacts greater than 740 km. The upshot of Samec’s and other’s research is that the earth should have been bombarded with several hundred impacts producing craters larger than 740 km in diameter.

Kring and Cohen believe that the LHB was by asteroids from a single dynamic reservoir.4 They estimate the earth was hit by 13 to 500 times more mass than the moon, depending upon size distribution among impactors. Just using the lower number of mass, they conclude that the earth had 22,000 impact craters during the LHB greater than or equal to 20 km, including about 40 impact basins about 1,000 km in diameter, and several with diameters of about 5,000 km! But scaling to Mars would predict 6,400 craters greater than or equal to 20 km, but there are 9,278 craters of those dimensions.

Shane Torgerson via WikimediaMeteorcrater
Figure 3. Meteor Crater, Arizona (USGS). The crater is 1.3 km in diameter and 170 m deep.
Figure4EulerCrater
Figure 4. Euler Crater, 28 km in diameter and 2.2 km deep, on the moon (NASA). Note the peak ring and the material that has slumped into the crater from its edge.
Figure5OrientaleCrater
Figure 5. Orientale Impact crater on the moon with three concentric rings (NASA). The diameter of the outer ring is 900 km.

So, Kring and Cohen’s numbers are probably low for the earth. There is the question of how Kring and Cohen came up with the result that the earth should have a few impact basins 5,000 km in diameter. They obviously extrapolated the SFD for the moon to the earth. The largest impact on the moon is South Pole-Aitken with a diameter of about 2,500 km (figure 6). Using more sophisticated analysis, Mars may have 20 craters larger than 1,000 km with five 2,639 to 3380 km in diameter.10 Since Mars has a smaller gravitational cross section than the earth, the earth should have significantly larger diameter craters than Mars. So there is justification for an extrapolation to the earth from Mars and the moon for a few large craters around 4,000 km in diameter or more, so a 5,000-km diameter crater is not too outlandish.

So, it is safe to conclude that the earth should have 36,000 impact craters with about 100 over 1,000 km, and a few with diameters of 4,000 to 5,000 km. Such a great bombardment would pulverize a larger portion of the earth surface.

When did Earth impacts occur?

When could such a bombardment occur in biblical Earth history? It is likely that very few impacts occurred after the Flood (assuming the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the very late Cenozoic), since there are only a few pristine impact craters, such as Meteor Crater (figure 3) that are clearly post-Flood.38 If even a small fraction of the 36,000 impacts occurred after the Flood (as well as before the Flood), all biology would have been wiped out.

In regard to possible impacts before the Flood, I accept Spencer’s analysis35 that the solar system was created stable with no impact structures. This seems logical to me, since everything was created very good, and meteorite bombardments do not seem to be very good phenomena, especially if there were organisms living on the earth at the time. So, it does not seem likely that there were two bombardments, one at the Creation or the Fall and a second during the Flood as advocated by Danny Faulkner.39 The moon was created on Day 4, so that any moon bombardment afterwards could hardly have missed the earth, in which case all or practically all newly-created organisms would have been wiped out. A bombardment at the Fall would also be devastating.

So, all these 36,000 impacts very likely occurred during the Flood, which I have maintained for a long time:

“Impact craters are common on the inner planets and our moon, which implies that the earth probably was bombarded at some time in the past. We find very few impact craters on the surface of the earth, indicating that catastrophic meteorite bombardment would have occurred either before the Flood or during the Flood. If the pre-Flood earth was a time of climatic and geographic stability, it is doubtful that the meteorite bombardment was before the Flood. The only possibility left is that the event occurred during the Genesis Flood.”40

All the solar system bodies were likely struck by the same event, as indicated by similar crater SFD statistics on the inner solar system, except for Venus. However, Venus likely has many more visible impacts than astronomers believe.12 

Based on the relative dating of the moon, it looks like most of the very large impacts struck right away on the near side of the moon (figure 7) with a rapid tailing off of impacts. The far side has only a few medium sized basins. Because of the 27.3-day rotation of the moon and the maria being spread horizontally over 45% of the lunar surface, mainly on the near side, Samec concludes that the large impacts on the moon occurred over a period within 12 days.37 

He prefers a much shorter time frame, probably over a span of a few days. These large impacts could be associated with the late LHB. (The LHB is controversial among astronomers, but this dispute does not concern creationists since the LHB depends upon whether there was an Early Heavy Bombardment that formed the moon and caused the magma ocean, both of which there is no evidence for and depend upon evolutionary speculation.)

Since the mare basalts likely flowed soon after the impacts and have much fewer impacts than the lunar highlands, the number of impacts must have decreased rapidly after the initial large barrage. Also, the radiometric dates between the LHB and the mare basalt show that the radiometric dates are highly exaggerated. Remember that relative dating, which seems reasonable, only gives the sequence of events and not the absolute time or the real time between events. So, it looks like the larger impacts struck at the very beginning of the Flood in a matter of a few days, or even less, and decreased rapidly afterwards with only a few small impacts after the Flood.35,41,42 We can also conclude from the near side moon impacts that the largest impactors came from one direction.

Impacts likely caused the Flood

So many impacts, some huge, would have provided a prodigious amount of energy to the earth. Such an amount of energy, especially delivered quickly and not over millions and billions of years, would have many effects on the earth. It is beyond the scope of this paper to estimate the effects of this energy, but regardless the amount would have been devastating. Since the Flood requires energy, meteorite impacts could easily provide the necessary energy to start and maintain the Flood. A number of creationists have suggested impacts as the source of this energy, regardless of whether catastrophic plate tectonics occurred later or not.35,36,37,39,41,42,43,44,45,46,47 

Where are the impact craters on Earth? If the earth had 36,000 impact craters greater than 30 km with more than 100 greater than 1,000 km in diameter and a few up to 4,000 to 5,000 km, then where is the evidence for all these craters? Only about 170 impact craters and structures, some buried, are claimed for the earth,3 mostly in the Paleozoic.41 The answer is that the tremendous tectonics, erosion, and deposition during the Flood would have altered or destroyed the vast majority of these craters.

Figure6AitkenImpactCrater
Figure 6. The South Pole-Aitken Impact crater on the moon (NASA). The basin is elliptical shaped with a diameter about 2,500 km and a depth of about 7 km.
Figure7NearSideMoon
Figure 7. The near side of the moon showing abundant large impact craters filled with basalt (NASA). There are only a few medium sized impact basins on the far side.

The Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments are mostly large sheets of strata that cover large areas, while the Cenozoic and Precambrian is more restricted, assuming the uniformitarian geological column. Since geologists have studied much of the sedimentary rocks either by direct observation or by seismic methods, very little evidence for impact structures has emerged.

So, it is not likely that a significant proportion of the 36,000 impacts will be found within sedimentary rocks. Therefore, it seems apparent that such a large amount of impacts will mainly have affected the Precambrian igneous rocks, which likely was the pre-Flood upper crust.

There are only 3 or 4 examples of Precambrian impact craters or structures.41 Because of all the Flood devastation, the evidence for a huge amount of impacts in the Precambrian likely would be found if we look for more subtle indicators. Regardless, it seems evident that most of the impacts will be associated with the Precambrian.

So, it looks like the beginning of the Flood would correspond to the Precambrian of the uniformitarian geological column.48 Much of the Precambrian and Phanerozoic sedimentary rocks likely are the deposits churned up by all the impacts and laid down after the initial chaos of the Flood mechanism.

Such a scenario goes along with two general diastrophic cycles recognized by Thom over the western United States.49 He recognized an Early Precambrian diastrophic time of basin subsidence and sedimentation, orogenic compression and folding with volcanism, regional vertical uplift, and planation of mountain system. Such energetic effects could be the result of the initial Flood impacts, since impacts would cause basins with mountains formed along the rims of the basins. The basin would then fill with sediments, and of course much volcanism would be expected with the impacts. The impact uplifted rims and isostatically uplifted basins would supply vertical tectonics. Very strong currents in water caused by the impacts could easily plane rocks.

The second diastrophic cycle is continuing today, according to Thom, but started with the deposition of thick Precambrian sediments and continued with the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentation. Then uplift has ensued with orogenic compression and folding with volcanism and planation, mainly in the late Mesozoic and Cenozoic.

Such a general sequence would correspond to the stages and phases of the Flood.50,51 in which the first diastrophism was caused by impacts, the mechanism of the Flood, followed by the deposition of all the debris churned up by that devastation in the later part of the Flooding Stage. The second diastrophism would correspond to the Retreating Stage with uplift and volcanism as the Floodwater retreated off the continents.

Knowing that the Flood would greatly modify the craters, we need to look for more indirect, subtle evidence for these impacts in Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks. One example of such subtle evidence could be ophiolite belts where mantle rocks were overthrust onto other rocks, especially if the ophiolite belt has a semicircular shape. The Oman ophiolite would fit an impact scenario.52 Another subtle piece of evidence probably is the ultrahigh-pressure minerals and microdiamonds now found in mountains areas all over the world.53 Ultrahigh-pressure minerals and microdiamonds can be formed by impacts. Otherwise the alternative is to rapidly push continental rocks well below 100 km and then rapidly exhume them, presenting a tectonic conundrum, especially for uniformitarians.

Summary and discussion

Mercury, Mars, and the moon have similar cratering histories.33 The moon is used as the standard by which to estimate the number of craters that bombarded the earth. The number of craters greater than 30 km calculated for the moon is about 1,900, which is a minimum because of the problem of saturation. In scaling from the moon to the earth, the difference in crater sizes must be taken into account. The earth’s stronger gravity will result in a transient crater only 2/3rds the size of one on the moon with the same velocity and size of impactor. However, the greater gravity of the earth will result in the crater becoming larger because of gravitational mass movement and slumping. So, the final crater size on the earth will be close to that on the moon.

Scaling the number of impacts from the moon to the earth is based mainly on the greater gravitational cross section of the earth. As a result, there should have been 36,000 craters greater than 30 km on the earth. Of these, by an extrapolation of the size-frequency distribution, about 100 craters greater than 1,000 km in diameter and a few up to 4,000 to 5,000 km in diameter should have occurred on Earth.

Since such a bombardment did not occur after the Flood because there are very few pristine craters, the bombardment must have been pre-Flood or during the Flood. But if pre-Flood, the devastation would have wiped out all biology on Earth. So, the only logical conclusion is that all these impacts occurred during the Flood. Based on the moon, it seems that the largest impacts must have occurred very early in the Flood, tailing off during the rest of the Flood with only a few post-Flood impacts. Such a bombardment would have enough energy to initiate the Flood, although many details need to be worked out. The evidence for such an impact bombardment very likely first affected the pre- Flood crystalline rocks and suggests that the Precambrian is early Flood.

The number of impacts that occurred during the Flood seems sound. However, there are many questions and additional areas of research beyond the scope of this article. Although impacts into the pre-Flood oceans would blast up plenty of water into the atmosphere and beyond for subsequent heavy rain,54 one issue is how such a bombardment caused the Flood. Another issue is whether the amount of energy is too devastating.

Of course, much subtle geological evidence should point to impacts, but this evidence, almost always interpreted within a non-impact uniformitarian framework, needs to be worked out within an impact model. It is to be expected that God protected the ark from asteroid impacts, but why does the Bible not directly mention impacts? Regardless, the number of impacts to bombard the earth, the objective of this paper, is the first step in developing a new model of the Flood, based on impacts.

—

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

  1. Chapman, C.R., Ryan, E.V., Merline, W.J., Neukam, G., Wagner, R., Thomas, P.C., Veverka, J. and Sullivan, R.J., Cratering on Ida, Icarus 120:77–86, 1996. Return to text.
  2. Greenberg, R., Nolan, M.C., Bottke, Jr., W.F., Kolvoord, R.A. and Veverka, J., collisional history of Gaspra, Icarus 107:84–97, 1994. Return to text.
  3. Koeberl, C., Impact processes on the early Earth, Elements 2:211–216, 2006. Return to text.
  4. Kring, D.A. and Cohen, B.A., Cataclysmic bombardment throughout the inner solar system 3.9–4.0 Ga, Journal of Geophysical Research 107(E2), 2002. Return to text.
  5. Neukum G., Ivanov, B.A. and Hartmann, W.K., Cratering records in the inner solar system in relation to the lunar reference system, Space Science Reviews 96:55–86, 2001. Return to text.
  6. Hartmann, W.K., Relative crater production rates on planets, Icarus 31:264, 1977. Return to text.
  7. Le Feuvre, M. and Wieczorek, M. A., Nonuniform cratering of the terrestrial planets, Icarus 197:300, 2008. Return to text.
  8. Stöffler, D., Ryder, G., Ivanov, B.A., Artemieva, N.A., Cintala, M.J. and Grieve, R.A.F., Crating history and lunar chronology, Reviews in Mineralogy & Geochemistry 60:519–596, 2006. Return to text.
  9. Stöffler, D. and Ryder, G., Stratigraphy and isotope ages of lunar geologic units: chronological stand for the Inner Solar System, Space Science Reviews 96:9–54, 2001. Return to text.
  10. Frey, H., Ages of very large impact basins on Mars: implications for the late heavy bombardment in the inner solar system, Geophysical Research Letters 35: L13203, 2008 | doi:10.1029/2008GL033515. Return to text.
  11. Schultz, P.H., Schultz, R.A. and Rogers, J., The structure and evolution of ancient impact basins on Mars, Journal of Geophysical Research 87:9,803–9,820, 1982. Return to text.
  12. Oard, M.J., Venus impacts are not evidence against an astronomical trigger for the Flood, J. Creation 23(3):98–102 Return to text.
  13. Valley, J.W., Pack, W.H. and King, E.M., A cool early Earth, Geology 30(4):351–354, 2002. Return to text.
  14. DeYoung, D. and Whitcomb, J., Our Created Moon: Earth’s Fascinating Neighbor, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2003. Return to text.
  15. Oard, M.J., Problems for ‘giant impact’ origin for the moon, J. Creation 14(1):6–7, 2000. Return to text.
  16. Baldwin, R.B., Was there ever a terminal lunar cataclysm? With lunar viscosity arguments, Icarus 184:308–318, 2006. Return to text.
  17. Hamilton, W.B., An alternative Venus; in: Foulger, G.R. and Jurdy, D.M. (Eds.), Plates, Plumes, and Planetary Processes, GSA Special paper 430, Boulder, CO, p. 904, 2007. Return to text.
  18. Bottke, W.F., Levison, H.F., Nesvorný, D. and Dones, L., Can planetesimals left over from terrestrial planet formation produce the lunar Late Heavy Bombardment?, Icarus 190:203–223, 2007. Return to text.
  19. Byrne, C.J., The Far Side of the Moon: A Photographic Guide, Springer Science, New York, NY, pp. 3–4, 194–200, 2008. Return to text.
  20. Ivanov, B.A., Mars/Moon cratering rate ration estimates. Space Science Reviews 96:91, 2001. Return to text.
  21. Melosh, H.J., Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process, Oxford University Press, New York, 1989. Return to text.
  22. Pierazzo, E. and Melosh, H.J., Understanding oblique impacts from experiments, observations, and modeling. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science 28:141–167, 2000. Return to text.
  23. Cintala, M.J. and Grieve, R.A.F., Scaling impact melting and crater dimensions: implications for the lunar cratering record, Meteoritics &Planetary Science 33:910, 1998. Return to text.
  24. Chyba, C.F. and Sagan, C., Comets as a source of prebiotic organic molecules for the earth Earth; in: Thomas, P.J., Chyba, C.F. and McKay, C.P., Comets and the Origin and Evolution of Life, Springer, New York, p. 159, 1997. Return to text.
  25. Hansen, V.L. and Young, D.A., Venus’s evolution: a synthesis; in: Cloos, M., Carlson, W.D., Gilbert, M.C., Liou, J.G. and Sorensen S.S. (Eds.), Convergent Margin Terranes and Associated Regions: A Tribute to W. G. Ernst, GSA Special Paper 419, Boulder, CO, pp. 255–273, 2007. Return to text.
  26. Strom, R.G., Chapman, C.R., Merline, W.J., Solomon, S.C. and Head III, J.W., Mercury cratering record viewed from MESSENGER’s first flyby, Science 321(5885):79, 2008. Return to text.
  27. Hartmann, W.K. and Neukum, G., Cratering chronology and the evolution of Mars, Space Science Reviews 96:165–194, 2001. Return to text.
  28. Norman, M.D., Duncan, R.A. and Huard, J.J., Identifying impact events within the lunar cataclysm from 40Ar-39Ar ages and compositions of Apollo 16 impact melt rocks, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 70:6032–6049, 2006. Return to text.
  29. Ryder, G., Mass flux in the ancient Earth-Moon system and benign implications for the origin of life on Earth, Journal of GeophysicalResearch 107(E4):1, 2002. Return to text.
  30. Elkins-Tanton, L.T., Hager, B.H. and Grove, T.L., Magmatic effects of the lunar late heavy bombardment, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 222:17–27, 2004. Return to text.
  31. Wilhelms, D.E., McCaulay, J.F. and Trask, N.J., The Geology of the Moon, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1348, WashingtonD.C., 1987. Return to text.
  32. Cohen, B.A., Swindle, T.D. and Kring, D.A., Support for the lunar cataclysm hypothesis from lunar meteorite impact melt ages, Science290(5497): 1754–1756, 2000. Return to text.
  33. Frey, H., Crustal evolution of the early Earth: the role of major impacts, Precambrian Research 10:195–216, 1980. Return to text.
  34. Frey, H., Origin of the Earth’s ocean basins, Icarus 32:235–250, 1977. Return to text.
  35. Spencer, W.R., Our solar system: balancing biblical and scientific considerations; in: Snelling, A. A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the SixthInternational Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship and Institute for Creation Research, Pittsburgh, PA and Dallas, TX, pp. 293–306, 2008. Return to text.
  36. Samec, R.G., Is the Moon’s orbit “ringing” from an asteroid collision event which triggered the Flood?; in: Snelling, A.A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship and Institute for Creation Research, Pittsburgh, PA and Dallas, TX, pp. 255–261, 2008. Return to text.
  37. Samec, R.G., On the origin of lunar maria, J. Creation 22(3):101–108, 2008. Return to text.
  38. DeYoung, D.B., Age of the Arizona meteor crater, Creation Research Society Quarterly 31(3):153–158, 1994. Return to text.
  39. Faulkner, D., A biblically based cratering theory, J. Creation 13(1):100–104, 1999. Return to text.
  40. Oard, M.J., Response to comments on the “Asteroid hypothesis for dinosaur extinction”, Creation Research Society Quarterly 31(1):12,1994. Return to text.
  41. Spencer, W.R., Catastrophic impact bombardment surrounding the Genesis Flood: in; Walsh, R. E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, technical symposium sessions, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 553–566, 1998. Return to text.
  42. Spencer, W.R. and Oard, M.J., The Chesapeake Bay impact and Noah’s Flood, Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(3):206–215, 2004. Return to text.
  43. Froede, Jr., C.R. and D.B. DeYoung, Impact events within the Young-Earth Flood Model, Creation Research Society Quarterly 33:23–34, 1996. Return to text.
  44. Hartnett, J., The ‘waters above’, J. Creation 20(1):93–98, 2006. Return to text.
  45. McIntosh, A., Taylor, S. and Edmondson, T., Reply to ‘Integrating Flood models?’, J. Creation 14(2):57, 2000. Return to text.
  46. Unfred, D.W., Asteroidal impacts and the Flood judgment, Creation Research Society Quarterly 21(2):82–87, 1984. Return to text.
  47. Parks, W.S., The role of meteorites in a creationist cosmology, Creation Research Society Quarterly 26(4):144–146, 1990. Return to text.
  48. Oard, M. and Froede, Jr., C., Where is the pre-Flood/Flood boundary?, Creation Research Society Quarterly 45(1):24–39, 2008. Return to text.
  49. Thom, Jr., W.T., Tectonic relationships, evolutionary history and mechanics of origin of the Crazy Mountain Basin, Montana; in: Graves, Sr., R.W. (Ed.), Billings Geological Society, Eight Annual Field Conference, Billings, MT, pp. 9–21, 1957. Return to text.
  50. Walker, T., A Biblical geological model; in: Walsh, R. E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, technical symposium sessions, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 581–592, 1994. Return to text.
  51. Oard, M.J., Flood by Design: Receding Water Shapes the Earth’s Surface, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2008. Return to text.
  52. Oard, M.J., What is the meaning of ophiolites?, J. Creation 22(3):13–15, 2008. Return to text.
  53. Oard, M.J., The uniformitarian challenge of ultrahigh-pressure minerals, J. Creation 20(1):5–6, 2006. Return to text.
  54. Spencer, W.R., Geophysical effects of impacts during the Genesis Flood; In: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth InternationalConference on Creationism, technical symposium sessions, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 567–579, 1998. Return to text.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment