Author: Tim Hayes

In the Bible it is written, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.” (Is 40:22) Some site this verse as evidence that Earth is flat and not a ball (sphere), since a different Hebrew word would be used here if the author wanted to describe a ball rather than a circle.

However, if we read the text carefully, it does not say that Earth is a circle, but it implies that Earth has a circle. The Hebrew word circle is also translated circuit (Job 22:14) and compass. (Pr 8:27) The Scripture appears to teach that both Earth and its Heaven (atmosphere) have a circuit, or a circular route they travel together … an orbit if you will … an idea consistent with our modern heliocentric model, which long preceded its discovery.

This should come as no surprise since there can be no real conflict between Science and Scripture if God is the Author of both. (1Ti 6:20) Only a Spherical Earth model accounts for the sun actually rising and setting from an earthly perspective while also providing for time zones, for each hour of our 24 hour day always occurring somewhere on Earth, disproving all Flat Earth models by contradiction.

Here is a video (9 min) demonstrating this fact in an experiment we can do at home which 3rd graders should easily understand. In a more in-depth article, we use this same approach to disprove all Flat Earth models mathematically, as well as provide direct proof of the size and shape of Earth by considering the consistent behavior of the stars, which demonstrates that Earth is a sphere about 25 thousand miles in circumference.

articles   ♦   blog

In the midst of arguably the most interesting election year in history, what principles should guide our voting? What is government’s role, and what types of laws are pleasing to God? Should we try to legislate morality, or let people do what they want in their personal lives so long as they aren’t harming others?

When Messiah returns He will institute holy government: He Himself will rule the nations from Jerusalem … with a rod of iron. (Re 19:15) It seems to me unlikely that He will enforce a different Law than Torah; He delights in it and expects us all to do the same. (De 4:5-6, 8)

Torah is God’s plumb line, our metric for evaluating moral goodness. The fact that many resist and rebel against God’s Law didn’t keep Him from requiring Israel to obey it, nor will this keep Him from imposing it on the rest of Mankind. (Re 2:26-27) Whether we like it or not, Torah will eventually be the law of the land. (Mi 4:2)

It would appear then that laws are good or bad based on how well they align with God’s law, and governments are good or bad according to how they represent God’s holy standard of righteousness.  (Ro 13:3-4)

The only real question then seems to be whether it makes sense for us to try to influence our culture and society to accept and conform to this standard or not. If “righteousness exalts a nation,” if “sin is a reproach to any people” (Pr 14:34), if we delight in God’s laws (Ro 7:22) and believe they are good (1Ti 1:8), and that anyone who breaks them is harming God, themselves and others (Ma 22:40), then the answer would appear to be “Yes.”

articles   ♦   blog

What binds us together as saints? What should comprise the glue of spiritual community and fellowship? (Ep 4:3)

Bonding through doctrinal alignment may seem reasonable, but this hinders honest questioning for fear we’ll be shunned or disciplined. Believers afraid to disagree can’t challenge each other, or encourage critical thinking and intellectual integrity, core virtues in any godly walk. But having no common beliefs at all makes fellowship impractical. Where’s the balance?

Identifying the core doctrines enabling healthy fellowship, while acknowledging that we’re all at different places in our journey, seems like quite a challenge; yet the biblical criteria are quite simply stated: basic agreement on the nature and work of Christ (2Jn 1:9-10), and a general willingness to follow and obey Him. (1Jn 3:10) Fleshing this out in our complicated world is non-trivial, but at least the guidelines are clear.

Let’s not fear walking alone, yet also seek out godly community and humbly leverage honest differences to edify one another. Let’s pursue thoughtful like-mindedness (1Co 1:10), not cobbling together a superficial shallowness out of coerced doctrinal agreement, but bonding in our common passion to pursue the living God, and helping each other do the same, “till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” (Eph 4:13)

articles   ♦   blog

When we say we’re going to do something, but then life happens and we’d rather not, what are the rules? When is it OK to change our mind?

Firstly, if no one’s affected then who cares? But anyone counting on us must approve or be compensated. It’s the golden rule in action; evidently, even God changes His mind like this from time to time. (Jon 3:10)

Simply stating our intent (“I will”) is not necessarily unconditional commitment; it’s not always a solemn promise … it’s not a vow. Most of the time there’s an unstated sense that we’re making a conditional promise, and that’s OK; life’s uncertain and we’re free to change our minds within reason.

Vows are different; we’re expected to think them through very carefully and only make those we intend before God to keep at all costs. (Nu 30:2) They imply a different level of commitment and thoroughness, one that’s not inconsistent with but enables the more flexible types of agreements that facilitate honest cooperation in an uncertain world.

Keeping our word is both a matter of love and a matter of dignity. God expects us to say what we mean and mean what we say. (Ja 5:12) This shouldn’t make us inflexible, but like Old Faithful, we must be dependable. (1Co 4:1-2)

articles   ♦   blog