November 2, 2015

From Gary... Topsy-turvey


For some reason I seem to be able to remember doing this.  Obviously, the memory is a quite dim one, but in today's crazy world, viewing the world in a topsy-turvy way is becoming normal. Sex changes are becoming a "normal" topic. Same sex marriages are "legal". Islam is infiltrating the US and murdering Christians on a world wide basis. We have high school graduates who can not write in cursive. Congress does nothing about our debt- but raise the legal debt limit (again and again). There is no longer a preponderance of two parent homes in America. Sin is not condemned; it is "legalized". Our police are "fair game" for anyone with an agenda. And, worst of all, God is being systematically removed from every aspect of our society!!! But, there was a time when the world was changing in another way... 

Acts, Chapter 17 (WEB)

1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue.  2 Paul, as was his custom, went in to them, and for three Sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures,  3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” 

  4  Some of them were persuaded, and joined Paul and Silas, of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and not a few of the chief women.  5 But the unpersuaded Jews took along some wicked men from the marketplace, and gathering a crowd, set the city in an uproar. Assaulting the house of Jason, they sought to bring them out to the people.  6 When they didn’t find them, they dragged Jason and certain brothers before the rulers of the city, crying, “These who have turned the world upside down have come here also,  7 whom Jason has received. These all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus!”  8 The multitude and the rulers of the city were troubled when they heard these things.  9 When they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.


Since it has happened once- it CAN HAPPEN AGAIN!!! Be a part of change for GODLINESS!!! Turn the world on its head- one person at a time.

ps. I like this kid's choice of books!!! I guess upside-down pictures of dogs makes sense!!!!

From Gary... Bible Reading November 2



Bible Reading  

November 2

The World English Bible

Nov. 2
Isaiah 25-28

Isa 25:1 Yahweh, you are my God. I will exalt you! I will praise your name, for you have done wonderful things, things planned long ago, in complete faithfulness and truth.
Isa 25:2 For you have made a city into a heap, a fortified city into a ruin, a palace of strangers to be no city. It will never be built.
Isa 25:3 Therefore a strong people will glorify you. A city of awesome nations will fear you.
Isa 25:4 For you have been a stronghold to the poor, a stronghold to the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shade from the heat, when the blast of the dreaded ones is like a storm against the wall.
Isa 25:5 As the heat in a dry place will you bring down the noise of strangers; as the heat by the shade of a cloud, the song of the dreaded ones will be brought low.
Isa 25:6 In this mountain, Yahweh of Armies will make all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of choice wines, of fat things full of marrow, of well refined choice wines.
Isa 25:7 He will destroy in this mountain the surface of the covering that covers all peoples, and the veil that is spread over all nations.
Isa 25:8 He has swallowed up death forever! The Lord Yahweh will wipe away tears from off all faces. He will take the reproach of his people away from off all the earth, for Yahweh has spoken it.
Isa 25:9 It shall be said in that day, "Behold, this is our God! We have waited for him, and he will save us! This is Yahweh! We have waited for him. We will be glad and rejoice in his salvation!"
Isa 25:10 For in this mountain the hand of Yahweh will rest. Moab will be trodden down in his place, even like straw is trodden down in the water of the dunghill.
Isa 25:11 He will spread out his hands in its midst, like one who swims spreads out hands to swim, but his pride will be humbled together with the craft of his hands.
Isa 25:12 He has brought the high fortress of your walls down, laid low, and brought to the ground, even to the dust.
Isa 26:1 In that day, this song will be sung in the land of Judah: "We have a strong city. God appoints salvation for walls and bulwarks.
Isa 26:2 Open the gates, that the righteous nation may enter: the one which keeps faith.
Isa 26:3 You will keep whoever's mind is steadfast in perfect peace, because he trusts in you.
Isa 26:4 Trust in Yahweh forever; for in Yah, Yahweh, is an everlasting Rock.
Isa 26:5 For he has brought down those who dwell on high, the lofty city. He lays it low. He lays it low even to the ground. He brings it even to the dust.
Isa 26:6 The foot shall tread it down; Even the feet of the poor, and the steps of the needy."
Isa 26:7 The way of the just is uprightness. You who are upright make the path of the righteous level.
Isa 26:8 Yes, in the way of your judgments, Yahweh, have we waited for you. Your name and your renown are the desire of our soul.
Isa 26:9 With my soul have I desired you in the night. Yes, with my spirit within me will I seek you earnestly; for when your judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness.
Isa 26:10 Let favor be shown to the wicked, yet he will not learn righteousness. In the land of uprightness he will deal wrongfully, and will not see Yahweh's majesty.
Isa 26:11 Yahweh, your hand is lifted up, yet they don't see; but they will see your zeal for the people, and be disappointed. Yes, fire will consume your adversaries.
Isa 26:12 Yahweh, you will ordain peace for us, for you have also worked all our works for us.
Isa 26:13 Yahweh our God, other lords besides you have had dominion over us, but by you only will we make mention of your name.
Isa 26:14 The dead shall not live. The deceased shall not rise. Therefore have you visited and destroyed them, and caused all memory of them to perish.
Isa 26:15 You have increased the nation, O Yahweh. You have increased the nation! You are glorified! You have enlarged all the borders of the land.
Isa 26:16 Yahweh, in trouble they have visited you. They poured out a prayer when your chastening was on them.
Isa 26:17 Like as a woman with child, who draws near the time of her delivery, is in pain and cries out in her pangs; so we have been before you, Yahweh.
Isa 26:18 We have been with child. We have been in pain. We gave birth, it seems, only to wind. We have not worked any deliverance in the earth; neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen.
Isa 26:19 Your dead shall live. My dead bodies shall arise. Awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust; for your dew is like the dew of herbs, and the earth will cast forth the dead.
Isa 26:20 Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you. Hide yourself for a little moment, until the indignation is past.
Isa 26:21 For, behold, Yahweh comes forth out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity. The earth also will disclose her blood, and will no longer cover her slain.
Isa 27:1 In that day, Yahweh with his hard and great and strong sword will punish leviathan, the fleeing serpent, and leviathan the twisted serpent; and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.
Isa 27:2 In that day, sing to her, "A pleasant vineyard!
Isa 27:3 I, Yahweh, am its keeper. I will water it every moment. Lest anyone damage it, I will keep it night and day.
Isa 27:4 Wrath is not in me, but if I should find briers and thorns, I would do battle! I would march on them and I would burn them together.
Isa 27:5 Or else let him take hold of my strength, that he may make peace with me. Let him make peace with me."
Isa 27:6 In days to come, Jacob will take root. Israel will blossom and bud. They will fill the surface of the world with fruit.
Isa 27:7 Has he struck them as he struck those who struck them? Or are they killed like those who killed them were killed?
Isa 27:8 In measure, when you send them away, you contend with them. He has removed them with his rough blast in the day of the east wind.
Isa 27:9 Therefore, by this the iniquity of Jacob will be forgiven, and this is all the fruit of taking away his sin: that he makes all the stones of the altar as chalk stones that are beaten in pieces, so that the Asherim and the incense altars shall rise no more.
Isa 27:10 For the fortified city is solitary, a habitation deserted and forsaken, like the wilderness. The calf will feed there, and there he will lie down, and consume its branches.
Isa 27:11 When its boughs are withered, they will be broken off. The women will come and set them on fire, for they are a people of no understanding. Therefore he who made them will not have compassion on them, and he who formed them will show them no favor.
Isa 27:12 It will happen in that day, that Yahweh will thresh from the flowing stream of the Euphrates to the brook of Egypt; and you will be gathered one by one, children of Israel.
Isa 27:13 It will happen in that day that a great trumpet will be blown; and those who were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and those who were outcasts in the land of Egypt, shall come; and they will worship Yahweh in the holy mountain at Jerusalem.
Isa 28:1 Woe to the crown of pride of the drunkards of Ephraim, and to the fading flower of his glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fertile valley of those who are overcome with wine!
Isa 28:2 Behold, the Lord has a mighty and strong one. Like a storm of hail, a destroying storm, and like a storm of mighty waters overflowing, he will cast them down to the earth with his hand.
Isa 28:3 The crown of pride of the drunkards of Ephraim will be trodden under foot.
Isa 28:4 The fading flower of his glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fertile valley, shall be like the first-ripe fig before the summer; which someone picks and eats as soon as he sees it.
Isa 28:5 In that day, Yahweh of Armies will become a crown of glory, and a diadem of beauty, to the residue of his people;
Isa 28:6 and a spirit of justice to him who sits in judgment, and strength to those who turn back the battle at the gate.
Isa 28:7 They also reel with wine, and stagger with strong drink. The priest and the prophet reel with strong drink. They are swallowed up by wine. They stagger with strong drink. They err in vision. They stumble in judgment.
Isa 28:8 For all tables are completely full of filthy vomit and filthiness.
Isa 28:9 Whom will he teach knowledge? To whom will he explain the message? Those who are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts?
Isa 28:10 For it is precept on precept, precept on precept; line on line, line on line; here a little, there a little.
Isa 28:11 But he will speak to this nation with stammering lips and in another language;
Isa 28:12 to whom he said, "This is the resting place. Give rest to weary;" and "This is the refreshing;" yet they would not hear.
Isa 28:13 Therefore the word of Yahweh will be to them precept on precept, precept on precept; line on line, line on line; here a little, there a little; that they may go, fall backward, be broken, be snared, and be taken.
Isa 28:14 Therefore hear the word of Yahweh, you scoffers, that rule this people in Jerusalem:
Isa 28:15 "Because you have said, 'We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol are we in agreement. When the overflowing scourge passes through, it won't come to us; for we have made lies our refuge, and we have hidden ourselves under falsehood.' "
Isa 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh, "Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone of a sure foundation. He who believes shall not act hastily.
Isa 28:17 I will make justice the measuring line, and righteousness the plumb line. The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters will overflow the hiding place.
Isa 28:18 Your covenant with death shall be annulled, and your agreement with Sheol shall not stand. When the overflowing scourge passes through, then you will be trampled down by it.
Isa 28:19 As often as it passes through, it will seize you; for morning by morning it will pass through, by day and by night; and it will be nothing but terror to understand the message."
Isa 28:20 For the bed is too short to stretch out on, and the blanket is too narrow to wrap oneself in.
Isa 28:21 For Yahweh will rise up as on Mount Perazim. He will be angry as in the valley of Gibeon; that he may do his work, his unusual work, and bring to pass his act, his extraordinary act.
Isa 28:22 Now therefore don't be scoffers, lest your bonds be made strong; for I have heard a decree of destruction from the Lord, Yahweh of Armies, on the whole earth.
Isa 28:23 Give ear, and hear my voice! Listen, and hear my speech!
Isa 28:24 Does he who plows to sow plow continually? Does he keep turning the soil and breaking the clods?
Isa 28:25 When he has leveled its surface, doesn't he plant the dill, and scatter the cumin seed, and put in the wheat in rows, the barley in the appointed place, and the spelt in its place?
Isa 28:26 For his God instructs him in right judgment, and teaches him.
Isa 28:27 For the dill are not threshed with a sharp instrument, neither is a cart wheel turned over the cumin; but the dill is beaten out with a stick, and the cumin with a rod.
Isa 28:28 Bread flour must be ground; so he will not always be threshing it. Although he drives the wheel of his threshing cart over it, his horses don't grind it.

Isa 28:29 This also comes forth from Yahweh of Armies, who is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in wisdom.

Nov. 2
1 Timothy 2

1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and givings of thanks, be made for all men:
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in high places; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and reverence.
1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;
1Ti 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all; the testimony in its own times;
1Ti 2:7 to which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth in Christ, not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
1Ti 2:8 I desire therefore that the men in every place pray, lifting up holy hands without anger and doubting.
1Ti 2:9 In the same way, that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and propriety; not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing;
1Ti 2:10 but (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works.
1Ti 2:11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I don't permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;
1Ti 2:15 but she will be saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety. 

The Mayan Calendar and the End of the World by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1103

The Mayan Calendar and the End of the World

You’ve no doubt heard the hubbub: Supposedly, the ancient Mayans predicted that the world will end on December 21, 2012 at 11 p.m. A recent poll found that “nearly 10% of people believe that the year 2012 on the Mayan calendar signifies an apocalyptic collapse” (“New Mayan…,” 2012). What is one to make of such claims? How concerned ought we to be?
In reality, the only reliable source of information concerning end-time events is the Bible. It is, in fact, the only book on the planet of divine origin (cf. Butt, 2007). All other books that claim to be from the one true God do not bear up under objective scrutiny. Only the Bible possesses the attributes of inspiration. Only the Bible can provide humans with accurate insight into the future. That being the case, one would hardly expect a pagan, idolatrous civilization to serve as a legitimate source for ascertaining the truth regarding the end of the world.
So what does the Bible say on the matter? Throughout the thousands of years of human history, bona fide representatives of the one true God frequently predicted future events with complete accuracy. The Old Testament is filled with prophecy and prediction concerning a host of historical occurrences—all of which came true as predicted (cf. Thompson, 2003). In stark contrast, however, the Bible goes out of its way to avoid setting a date for the end of the world. In fact, Jesus stated unequivocally the truth on the matter: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only” (Matthew 24:36, emp. added).
But why? Since the Bible contains hundreds of prophecies of future events, why would God refrain from giving signs, indicators, and predictions concerning the end of the world? For one thing, it would be unfairto do so, because it would give people living long before the end the advantage of knowing Jesus would not come in their day. It would be contrary to God’s nature since it would imply that He is partial.
Speaking in A.D. 30, Jesus stressed very firmly that, while there would be clear signs heralding the destruction of Jerusalem 40 years later in A.D. 70 by the Romans (Matthew 24:1-35), He was equally adamant that no such signs would mark the end of the world and His second coming (Matthew 24:36-25:46). In stark contrast, the return of Jesus and the end of the world will be comparable to Noah’s day:
But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be (Matthew 24:37-39, emp. added).
The return is also compared to the arrival of a thief: “[I]f the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect” (Matthew 24:43-44, emp. added; cf. 2 Peter 3:10—“[T]he day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night.”). Jesus further declared: “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming” (Matthew 25:13). [NOTE: The quibble that suggests that Jesus merely meant that you cannot know the hour or day, but that you can know the year or the general time, sidesteps the force of these verses and evades the very point that Jesus was making, i.e., the time of the end is unpredictable and unknown to humans.]

MAYAN CALENDAR DETAILS

So what are the specific details surrounding the Mayan calendar? One must turn to the experts—the scholars who have spent their lives studying Mayan civilization. The fact is that they speak with one accord. The 2012 hype comes—not from the studied authorities of Mayan civilization—but, as noted by Susan Gillespie, University of Florida anthropologist, “from media and from other people making use of the Maya past to fulfill agendas that are really their own” (MacDonald, 2007). Maya archaeoastronomer and curator of the Florida Museum of Natural History, Susan Milbrath, explained: “It would be impossible [that] the Maya themselves would have known that” (MacDonald). What’s more, she says, “we have no record or knowledge that they would think the world would come to an end at that point” (emp. added).
The facts of the matter are that December 21, 2012 on the Mayan Long Count calendar is simply the day that the calendar will go to what scholars call the next “b’ak’tun” or cycle. Sandra Noble, executive director of the Mesoamerican research organization FAMSI, noted that “for the ancient Maya, it was a huge celebration to make it to the end of a whole cycle” (“The Long…,” n.d.). Hence, she considers the alleged December 2012 hoopla to be “a complete fabrication and a chance for a lot of people to cash in” (“The Long…”). The Mayan calendar simply shows the ancient Mayans’ fascination with ongoing “cycles of time”—with no indication that they even entertained the notion of the end of the world (Vance, 2012). Further, scholars have just recently discovered wall writings in Guatemala show Mayan calendars that go well beyond 2012 (Vergano, 2012; Potter, 2012).

NOTHING NEW

Indeed, such sensational allegations are not new. Legion are the instances over the last 2,000 years in which individuals and groups have set “firm” dates for the end of the world. Consider a few. [NOTE: The following is taken from “Library of Date Setters…,” n.d.] Events leading up to the year A.D. 1000 were viewed by many as harbingers of the end. These included a solar eclipse in 968 that created panic in the German army of Emperor Otto I and Hailey’s Comet in 989. The decade preceding January 1, 1000 saw people giving their worldly goods to the poor, pilgrims massing in Jerusalem to meet Jesus, buildings left in disrepair, fields unplanted, and even criminals released from jails. Thirty years later, the approach of A.D. 1033 was believed by many to be the onset of the millennium, since they thought it marked 1,000 years since the crucifixion of Christ. A terrible famine struck France in 1030, together with an eclipse and a massive earthquake the same year, convincing many of an imminent end, eliciting penitential processions, including a mass pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
To Londoners in 1666, the end of the world must have seemed self-evident. In addition to the bubonic plague, which killed some 100,000 people, the Great Fire of London swept the city the same year. Since 1666 was a millennium (1,000 years) coupled with the mark of the beast (666), many were firmly convinced the end was near. In 1843, William Miller attracted much attention and many followers when he announced the return of Christ between 1843 and 1844. Though a spectacular meteor shower in 1833 was seen as a harbinger, the predicted date of March 21, 1843 passed without incident. In 1910, the return of Hailey’s Comet was again seen by some to be an indication of the end. Impetus was gained when the Earth actually passed through the comet’s gaseous tail. Charles Taze Russell, along with the establishment of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, commenced an end-times movement that has repeatedly set the time of the end, the first in 1914—with many to follow. With each failure, recalculations are made and theology is adjusted accordingly.
Circumstances surrounding the formal establishment of the modern state of Israel in May of 1948 unleashed a flood of endless predictions, speculations, and allegations that continue to this day—all claiming the end is near. These include Hal Lindsey (Late Great Planet Earth, 1970); Ron Reese (“In the Twinkling of an Eye”); Moses David (The Children of God); the True Light Church; Walter Simmons (The Day of the Lord, 1978, The Final Warning Sign); Bill Maupin (Lighthouse Gospel Tract Foundation); Edgar Whisenant (“Rapture in Rosh Hashanna”); David Koresh and the Branch Davidians; John Hinkle (Christ’s Church, Los Angeles); and Harold Camping (Are You Ready?). And of course, Y2K unleashed a whole new round of doomsday conmen who proposed everything from massive natural disasters (e.g., Jack Van Impe), to WWIII, and worldwide shutdown of computer systems.
While most of these would-be prophets have claimed affiliation with Christianity, the non-Christian community has had its own share of prognosticators—including the Harmonic Convergence predicted by New Age proponents in 1987; California psychic Sheldon Nidle, who predicted 16 million space ships would converge on Earth in 1996; the International Association of Psychics in 1997, who claimed that 92% of their 120,000 members had the same end-time vision; a Russian scientist who, relying on Nostradamus prophecies, predicted the end in 1997 in the form of a shifting of the Earth’s axis, causing massive flooding and the arrival of aliens; the Sacerdotal Knights of National Security who predicted an alien invasion November 11, 1997; psychic Edgar Cayce who alleged the end in 1998 with massive disruption to the Earth; psychic Charles Criswell King who predicted the end in 1999; and many, many others. In fact, the present hype surrounding the Mayan calendar comes largely from New Age writers misinterpreting the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar (cf. Lawrence Joseph’s Apocalypse 2012: A Scientific Investigation Into Civilization’s End; spiritual healer Andrew Smith’s The Revolution of 2012: Vol. 1, The Preparation; and Daniel Pinchbeck’s 2012; see “The Truth About…,” n.d.).
Gamaliel rightly warned his contemporaries concerning those who would lead people astray 2,000 years ago:
For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody. A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away many people after him. He also perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed (Acts 5:36-37).
Even regarding the signs that Jesus said would precede the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, He warned: “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it” (Matthew 24:23, emp. added). Why? Jesus said, “For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be” (Matthew 24:27). Similarly, when God brings about the end of time, no one will need any input from any other human to know of its occurrence; the end will be so cataclysmic that it will be evident to all (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10).
While the world may well end this month—it will not be due to the Mayan calendar or any other would-be prophet knowing it. But do not take the scholars word for the truth about the Mayan calendar. Just wait until 11:00 p.m. December 21 to see for yourself. When the alleged end fails to materialize, rather than breathe a sigh of relief and go on your merry way, you would do well to turn to the Bible for the unchanging truth and solid rock of God’s Word. We are again reminded of the unerring words of the Savior of the world in His assessment of His return:
Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect (Matthew 24:42-44, emp. added).
Are you ready?

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
“Library of Date Setters for End of the World” (no date), http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm.
“The Long and Short Count ‘Mayan Calendar,’” Spanish Institute of Merida,http://www.simerida.com/courses/longandshortcalendar.php.
MacDonald, G. Jeffrey (2007), “Does Maya Calendar Predict 2012 Apocalypse?” USA Today, March 27,http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-03-27-maya-2012_n.htm.
“New Mayan Calendar Artifacts Discovered” (2012), June 29, FoxNews.com, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/06/29/new-mayan-calendar-artifacts-discovered/#ixzz22WYnFYg8.
Potter, Ned (2012), “Oldest Known Maya Calendar Found; No Signs of 2012 Doomsday,” ABC News, May 11, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/05/oldest-known-maya-calendar-found-no-signs-of-2012-doomsday/.
Thompson, Bert (2003), In Defense of the Bible’s Inspiration, http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/idobi.pdf.
“The Truth About the ‘Mayan Calendar,’” Spanish Institute of Merida,http://www.simerida.com/courses/mayancalendar.php.
Vance, Erik (2012), “Mayan Calendar: World Will Not End In December 2012, Expert Says,” Scientific American, July 8, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/08/mayan-calendar-world-will_n_1655135.html.
Vergano, Dan (2012), “Newly Discovered Mayan Calendar Goes Way Past 2012,” USA Today,http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/story/2012-05-08/maya-apocalypse-calendar-2012/54879760/1.

What You Can Never Know Based on a Fossil by Kyle Butt, M.A.



http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1102

What You Can Never Know Based on a Fossil

Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution Is True, purports to be a compendium of a vast amount of evidence that proves evolution to be a “fact.” The book does not accomplish its purpose, but it does offer some clear insight into the flaws that riddle the theory of Darwinian evolution and the thinking of those who support it. One of the easiest errors to spot is the way that evolutionists “date” animals in the fossil record.
Although the millions-of-years time frame is inherently flawed (see DeYoung, 2005), I will use it in this article just as the evolutionists use it. I will do so to show that, even using their own thinking, their conclusions are illogical. First, evolutionists remind us of the fact that the record of the rocks and the fossils it contains are a mere scintilla of the animals that actually lived on the planet. Since the chances of a particular organism actually fossilizing are so low, Coyne concluded: “[W]e can estimate that we have fossil evidence of only 0.1 percent to 1 percent of all species—hardly a good sample of the history of life!” (2009, p. 22). Evolutionists often insert this kind of statement into their writings to explain away the billions of “transitional” fossils that should fill the record if Darwinian evolution were true. Yet, in spite of this admission, evolutionists such as Coyne treat the fossil record as a perfect representation of life when it is in their “best interests.” Then they proceed to use it to tell us when certain organisms arose or disappeared from our planet.
For instance, Coyne stated: “Until about 390 million years ago, the only vertebrates were fish. But, 30 million years later, we find creatures that are clearly tetrapods: four-footed vertebrates that walked on land” (p. 36). Coyne is alleging, based on when certain fossils “appear” in the record, that no tetrapods existed “390 million years ago.” The fossil record, however, could only be used to date the “appearance” of an organism if it were perfectly complete. Could it be that tetrapods lived much earlier but did not fossilize? Certainly. In fact, we discover on a regular basis that when a fossil “appears” or “disappears” in the fossil record tells us absolutely nothing about when it actually lived.
Take the coelacanth fish as an example. Supposedly, this lobe-finned fish “disappeared” from the Earth about 70 million years ago. This thinking was based on the idea that the fish did not appear in the fossil record that “dated” from 70 million years ago to the present. In 1938, however, fishermen found a living coelacanth (Lyons, 2007). Coyne stated: “Groups like whales and humans have evolved rapidly, while others, like the coelacanth ‘living fossils,’ look almost identical to ancestors that lived hundreds of millions of years ago” (2009, p. 4, emp. added). So, we have a fish that lived “70 million” years ago, is still alive today, and left no trace in the fossil record for “70 million” years. Thinking critically about this, could it also be that these fish lived “70 million” years before they appear in the fossil record? Absolutely.
In his discussion of lobe-finned fish and land living vertebrates, Coyne wrote: “If there were lobe-finned fishes but no terrestrial vertebrates 390 million years ago, and clearly terrestrial vertebrates 360 million years ago, where would you expect to find transitional forms? Somewhere in between” (p. 37). But wait, why does Coyne suggest there were no terrestrial vertebrates 390 million years ago? Because we have not found any in the fossil record. But that means nothing due to the limitations of the fossil record, which Coyne and host are quick to point out when they are explaining the lack of transitional fossils. Could it be that terrestrial vertebrates lived “70 million years” before we find them in the fossil record? Definitely.“When” we see an organism in the fossil records gives us zero understanding of when it actually appeared or disappeared from the Earth.
Again, Coyne suggests: “Humans are newcomers to the scene—our lineage branches off from that of other primates only about 7 million years ago, the merest sliver of evolutionary time” (p. 28). Yet in order to remain consistent, Coyne and others can tell us nothing about our lineage “branching off” based on the lack of human fossils in certain layers. In fact, from their admission about the incomplete fossil record, could we surmise that humans might have lived “millions of years” before we find them preserved in the record? Yes, indeed.
This flaw in evolutionary thinking manifests itself remarkably well in Coyne’s assessment of the Laotoli footprints. In 1976, Andrew Hill found an 80-foot trail of footprints that were “virtually identical to those made by modern humans walking on soft ground” (Coyne, 2009, p. 202). Even though these footprints match those of modern humans, they were attributed to Australopithecus afarensis. Coyne explained: “the trail dates from around 3.6 million years ago, a time when A. afarensis was the only hominin on record” (p. 202, emp. added). If the fossil record is so sketchy that lobe-finned fish can squeak by unnoticed for 70 million years, could it be that “modern humans” were around three or four “million” years earlier than their initial appearance in the fossil record? Yes. So, which makes more sense: (1) that modern humans lived “before” their first appearance in the fossil record, or (2) that a chimp-like creature such as A. afarensismade an 80-foot trail of footprints that is “virtually identical to those made by modern humans walking on soft ground”? Since we know that a creature’s appearance in the fossil record can tell us nothing about the time a creature appeared on Earth, the reasonable conclusion is that “modern” humans were around before evolutionists assert they were—and therefore are not relatives of the Australopithecines.
In February 2006, the media was awash with news about Castorocauda lutrasimilis, a beaver-like animal that supposedly lived 164 million years ago. The creature was so interesting because it was over 100 million years out of place. According to the evolutionary thinkers, such creatures did not exist until 64 million years ago based on their absence from the fossil record (Butt, 2006). Coyne stated: “Sixty million years ago there were plenty of fossil mammals, but no fossil whales. Creatures that resemble modern whales show up 30 million years later” (2009, p. 49). Of course, all this statement can mean is that whales don’t “show up” in the fossil record until 30 million years later. But that means absolutely nothing about when they lived. They could have been on the Earth “70 million years” before they show up in the fossil record (using their flawed millions-of-years scheme). For Coyne to state that he knows when they arose on Earth based on when they are found in the fossil record is nothing short of deception, based on his own acknowledgement that the fossil record is incomplete.
We see, then, that evolutionists cannot tell us one thing about when a creature arose on Earth—based on its fossils. Neither can evolutionists tell us one thing about when a creature went extinct—based on fossils. A fossil can never tell you a beginning “date” or extinction “date.” And yet the most educated and applauded evolutionists in the world, such as Jerry Coyne, persist in falsifying their information by stating that they know when a certain creature arose or disappeared—based on the fossil record.  For Coyne to assert: “all the evidence—both old and new—leads ineluctably to the conclusion that evolution is a fact,” but then use such irrational “evidence” as proof of evolution, shows a glaring misconception in his idea of what a “fact” is.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2006), “One Little Beaver Demolishes 100 Million Years,”http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1787.
Coyne, Jerry (2009), Why Evolution Is True (New York: Viking).
DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Lyons, Eric (2007), “What Else ‘Living Fossils’ Reveal,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2294.

Gorilla Genome Reveals Interesting Discovery by Joe Deweese, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1093

Gorilla Genome Reveals Interesting Discovery

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxillary staff scientist Dr. Deweese holds a Ph.D. from  Vanderbilt University in Biochemistry.]
With the rapid advancement of genome sequencing technology, researchers have dramatically increased the number of genomes that have been completely sequenced in the last few years. This genomic information has vastly increased our knowledge of living organisms. Recently, researchers reported the complete genome sequence of gorillas (Scally, et al., 2012).
Evolutionists consider gorillas to be one of our “closest” living evolutionary relatives, second only to chimpanzees (Scally, et al.). One of the goals of genome sequencing is to examine whether the sequence supports the proposed evolutionary relationships. Comparisons of the nucleotide sequences have been used to generate hypothetical relationship trees (sometimes called “trees of life”). [NOTE: Comparing nucleotide sequences is similar to comparing letters between two books; more letters in the same order leads to the sequences being considered “more similar”—which evolutionists interpret as a reflection of evolutionary relationship. It should be noted that sequences that are only present in one of the “books” and not the other are ignored—thus, these are often not included in calculations of “similarity.” This and other technical details can result in a misunderstanding of the true amount of differences between organisms (cf. Cohen, 2007).]
What did they learn from this work? By comparing the already available human and chimpanzee sequences, the researchers concluded that 70% of the human and chimp genomes are more similar to each other than to the gorilla (Scally, et al.). However, 15% of the gorilla sequence was more similar to the human sequence than the chimpanzee sequence, and the remaining 15% of the gorilla sequence was closer to the chimpanzee sequence than the human sequence (Flatow, 2012; Smith, 2012).
Based upon the prevailing view of the evolutionary “tree,” the 15% higher similarity between humans and gorillas would not be predicted since humans would have more recently broken off from our supposed chimpanzee relatives. Thus, the DNA sequence would reasonably be expected to reflect this relationship. In order to explain the anomalies among chimp, gorilla, and human DNA, the concept of “incomplete lineage sorting” has been employed (Scally, et al.). According to this concept, interbreeding between early chimps, gorillas, and humans continued to occur for some time after the initial “split.” The interpretation is that different regions of the genomes reflect varying degrees of relatedness to the evolutionary “relatives” resulting from the interbreeding. This finding is not an isolated incident. A 2007 study found that 23% of the human genome shares “no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee” (Ebersberger, Galgoczy, et al., 2007).
To boil these results down, researchers have found that some DNA sequences in humans, chimps, and gorillas are very similar, while other regions are not. In essence, some of the DNA could be interpreted to suggest relationship, while other parts do not support—and even contradict—these alleged relationships. A much simpler interpretation of DNA sequence similarities between various living organisms would be that humans, gorillas, and chimps are not evolutionarily related at all, and that common sequences represent common design features that were implemented by God for various creatures that share common biological processes, environments, and anatomy. Sequence similarities across species, then, reflect the preservation of key regions of DNA over time because of the essential functions encoded by these regions rather than evolutionary relationship. In fact, this concept can be used to identify potential functions for unexplored or poorly understood regions of various genomes by comparison with regions of known function in other organisms [NOTE: for a review of recently identified DNA functions, see Shapiro and von Sternberg, 2005 and Wells, 2011].  In this discussion, it is essential to recognize the difference between the facts and the interpretations placed on those facts.
Interestingly, there has been a slowly growing discontent regarding the concept of a universal tree of life, which is used to catalog evolutionary relationships. While still firmly holding to evolution, some scientists have suggested what would amount to a major overhaul of the concept, including some evolutionists who hold that there was not a single common ancestor of all life (Bapteste, Susko, et al., 2005; Doolittle, 2009; McInerney, Pisani, et al., 2011). While evolutionists continue to debate their interpretations of the facts, it will be interesting to watch for the next genomic breakthrough as God’s Word continues to be upheld by the evidence.

REFERENCES

Bapteste, E., E. Susko, et al. (2005), “Do Orthologous Gene Phylogenies Really Support Tree-Thinking?”BMCEvolutionary Biology, 5:33.
Cohen, J. (2007), “Evolutionary Biology. Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” Science, 316[5833]:1836.
Doolittle, W.F. (2009), “The Practice of Classification and the Theory of Evolution, and What the Demise of Charles Darwin’s Tree of Life Hypothesis Means for Both of Them,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364[1527]:2221-2228.
Ebersberger, I., P. Galgoczy, et al. (2007), “Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, 24[10]:2266-2276.
Flatow, I. (2012), “Gorilla Genome Sheds Light On Human Evolution,” Science Friday, http://www.npr.org/2012/03/09/148306985/gorilla-genome-sheds-light-on-human-evolution.
McInerney, J.O., D. Pisani, et al. (2011), “The Public Goods Hypothesis for the Evolution of Life on Earth,”Biology Direct, 6:41.
Scally, A., J.Y. Dutheil, et al. (2012), “Insights into Hominid Evolution from the Gorilla Genome Sequence,”Nature, 483[7388]:169-175.
Shapiro, J.A. and R. von Sternberg (2005), “Why Repetitive DNA is Essential to Genome Function,”Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 80[2]:227-250.
Smith, K. (2012), “Gorilla Joins the Genome Club,” Nature News, http://www.nature.com/news/gorilla-joins-the-genome-club-1.10185.
Wells, J. (2011), The Myth of Junk DNA (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press).

Clearing-Up "Contradictions" about Jehovah in Genesis by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1090

Clearing-Up "Contradictions" about Jehovah in Genesis

The infinite attributes and actions of God are no small matter to consider. In truth, man could never meditate on anything greater. We marvel, as did the apostle Paul, at “the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!” (Romans 11:33). We are awestruck by His eternality. We tremble at the thought of His omnipotence. We humbly bow before Him Who knows our every thought. As David recognized, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me” (Psalm 139:6). Experientially speaking, as finite beings, we will never be able to fully grasp the wonders of God. As Jehovah Himself said, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways…. For as the heavens are higher than the Earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9). Yet, how thankful we are that God chose to reveal certain things to us about Himself (cf. Deuteronomy 29:29; 1 Corinthians 2:10-16), which, as much as is humanly possible, we can come to know. He is love (1 John 4:8). He is logical (1 Corinthians 14:33). He is just (Acts 10:34-35). He is worthy of all praise, honor, and obedience (Psalm 18:3; Matthew 10:34-39). He is everything that His inspired Word reveals that He is.
Oftentimes, however, passages of Scripture are cited by Bible critics as “proof” of the Book’s errancy and of the contradictory portrait that the inspired writers allegedly painted of God. In his 2009 debate with Kyle Butt on the existence of God, atheist Dan Barker spent nearly two-thirds of his opening 15-minute speech listing 14 alleged “inconsistencies” among Bible verses that allude to various characteristics and actions of God. Four of those 14 “contradictions” were from the book of Genesis (Butt and Barker, 2009). Dennis McKinsey, in his book titled Biblical Errancy, spent 44 pages listing numerous charges against God and the Bible’s statements about Him. Sixteen of those 44 pages referred a total of 37 times to alleged problematic passages in the book of Genesis (McKinsey, 2000, pp. 133-177). On his Web site attempting to expose the Bible and the God of the Bible as frauds, R. Paul Buchman listed 83 “contradictions” involving “God’s Nature” and 142 about “God’s Laws” (2011). Fifty-one times he referred to Genesis.
Legion are those who claim that the Bible paints an inexplicable, paradoxical portrait of God. When the Scriptures are honestly and carefully examined, however, all such criticisms of the Creator and His Word are shown to be either mere misunderstandings or artificially contrived contradictions. Consider some of the most frequently cited allegations against Jehovah in Genesis.

DOES JEHOVAH REALLY KNOW EVERYTHING?

Numerous passages of Scripture clearly teach that God is omniscient. The Bible declares that the Lord “knows the secrets of the heart” (Psalm 44:21), that His eyes “are in every place” (Proverbs 15:3), and that “His understanding is infinite” (Psalm 147:5). Of Jehovah, the psalmist also wrote:
O Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off. You comprehend my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O Lord, You know it altogether…. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it. Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there (139:1-4,6-8).
The New Testament reemphasizes this truth, saying, “God is greater than our heart, and knows all things” (1 John 3:20, emp. added). “[T]here is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13). Not only does He know the past and the present, but the future as well (Acts 15:18; cf. Isaiah 46:10). There is nothing outside of the awareness of God.
If God knows (and sees) everything, some have questioned why certain statements exist in Scripture that seem to indicate otherwise. Why was it that God questioned Cain regarding the whereabouts of his brother Abel if He already knew where he was (Genesis 4:6)? Why did the Lord and two of His angels ask Abraham about the location of his wife if He is omniscient (Genesis 18:9)? And, if God knows all and sees all, why did He say to Abraham concerning Sodom and Gomorrah: “I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know” (Genesis 18:21, emp. added; cf. Genesis 22:12)? If God is omniscient, why would He need to “go” somewhere to “see whether” people were wicked or not? Does God really know everything?
First, when critics claim that the questions God asked Cain or Sarah (or Satan—cf. Job 1:7; 2:2) suggest that God’s knowledge is limited, they are assuming that all questions are asked solely for the purpose of obtaining information. Common sense should tell us, however, that questions often are asked for other reasons. Are we to assume that God was ignorant of Adam’s whereabouts when He asked him, “Where are you?” (Genesis 3:9). At the beginning of God’s first speech to Job, God asked the patriarch, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?” (38:4). Are we to believe that God did not know where Job was when He created the world? Certainly not! What father, having seen his son dent a car door, has not asked him, “Who did that?” Obviously, the father did not ask the question to obtain information, but rather to see if the son would admit to something the father knew all along. When a dog owner, who comes home from work and sees the arm of his couch chewed to pieces, points to the couch and asks his puppy, “Did you do that?” are we to think that the owner really is asking the question for his own benefit?
On occasion, Jesus used questions for the same purpose. When He questioned the Pharisees’ disciples and the Herodians regarding whose inscription was on a particular coin, it clearly was not because He did not know (Matthew 22:15-22). Likewise, when Jesus asked the multitude that thronged Him, “Who touched Me?” (Luke 8:45), it was not because the woman who touched Him was hidden from Him (Luke 8:47). Jesus knew the woman was made well by touching His garment before she ever confessed to touching Him (Mark 5:32). Thus, His question was intended to bring attention to her great faith and His great power (Mark 5:34). Truly, in no way are the questions God asks mankind an indication of His being less than divine.
What about Jehovah’s statement to Abraham recorded in Genesis 18:21? Did He not know the state of Sodom and Gomorrah prior to His messengers’ visit (Genesis 18:22; 19:1-29)? Did He have to “learn” whether the inhabitants of these two cities were as evil as some had said? Certainly not. Moses and the other Bible writer’s usage of phrases such as “I will know” (Genesis 18:21) or “now I know” (Genesis 22:12) in reference to God, actually are for the benefit of man. Throughout the Bible, human actions (such as learning) frequently are attributed to God for the purpose of helping finite beings better understand Him. This kind of accommodative language is called anthropomorphic (meaning “man form”). When Jehovah “came down to see the city and the tower” built at Babel (Genesis 11:5), it was not for the purpose of gaining knowledge. Anthropomorphic expressions such as these are not meant to suggest that God is not fully aware of everything. Rather, as in the case of Babel, such wording was used to show that He was “officially and judicially taking the situation under direct observation and consideration, it having become so flagrant that there was danger (as in the days of Noah) that the truth of God’s revelation might be completely obliterated if it were allowed to continue” (Morris, 1976, p. 272). Almighty God visited Sodom and Gomorrah likely “for appearance’ sake, that men might know directly that God had actually seen the full situation before He acted in judgment” (Morris, p. 342). As Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown noted in their commentary on Genesis: “These cities were to be made ensamples to all future ages of God’s severity, and therefore ample proof given that the judgment was neither rash nor excessive (Ezek 18:23; Jer 18:7)” (1997).
Similar to how God instructs man to pray and make “known” to Him our petitions for our benefit (Philippians 4:6), even though He actually already knows our prayers and needs before they are voiced (Matthew 6:8),for our profit the all-knowing God sometimes is spoken of in accommodative language as acquiring knowledge.

WAS GOD'S NAME "JEHOVAH" MADE KNOWN TO THE PATRIARCHS?

Skeptics not only criticize the Bible’s teaching about God’s knowledge; they are also critical of what Scripture says man has known (via revelation from God) in the past. You would find it odd if someone you had known very well for years said, “you did not know him.” You might think this friend had become a liar or a lunatic if he indicated that you were not aware of his name, even though you had known his first and last name for many years. Skeptics claim we should be equally bothered by what the Bible says, because it indicates that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not know God by His name, Jehovah, even though the book of Genesis indicates that they did.
After Moses first visited Pharaoh regarding the release of the Israelites from bondage, God assured Moses that the Israelites would be liberated. He then added: “I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them” (Exodus 6:2-3, emp. added; NOTE: All Scripture citations in this section are taken from the American Standard Version). The difficulty that Bible students have with this statement is that the name “Jehovah” (HebrewYahweh; translated LORD in most modern versions) appears approximately 160 times in the book of Genesis. Furthermore, “Jehovah” is used between Genesis chapters 12-50 (which deal mainly with the families of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) more than 100 times.
After God provided a ram for Abraham to sacrifice (instead of his son, Isaac) on Mount Moriah, Genesis 22:14 says, “Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh. As it is said to this day, in the mount ofJehovah it shall be provided” (emp. added). Years later, Isaac asked his son Jacob (who was deceiving his father in hopes of receiving a blessing), “How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son? And he said, because Jehovah thy God sent me good speed” (Genesis 27:20, emp. added). How could God tell Moses that “by my name Jehovah I was not known to them” (Exodus 6:3), if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were well aware of the name Jehovah, and even used it in their conversations? Is God a liar? Does the Bible contradict itself on this point? What reasonable answer can be given?
There is no denying the fact that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were aware of God’s name, Jehovah (Yahweh) [cf. Genesis 15:7; 22:14,24-35,40,42,48,56; 24:50,51; 26:22; 27:20; 49:18; etc.]. As John J. Davis wrote: “[I]n the book of Genesis…the name of Yahweh is introduced in a way which utterly precludes the supposition that it is used proleptically, or that it is anything but a correct account of the incident and the actual term employed” (Davis, 1963, 4[1]:34). Based upon the number of times the word (Yahweh) appears in Genesis, and the various ways in which it was used, including being a part of compound names that have specific meanings (e.g., Jehovah-jireh, meaning “Jehovah will provide”), it is unwise to argue that the patriarchs in Genesis were unaware of the name Jehovah. So what is the answer to this alleged problem?
Although Bible critics and unbelievers may scoff at any attempt to explain Moses’ statement, which they believe is irresolvable, the fact is, a logical explanation exists. The expressions “to know the name of Jehovah” or simply “to know Jehovah” frequently mean more than a mere awareness of His name and existence. Rather, “to know” (from the Hebrew word yada) often means to learn by experience. When Samuel was a boy, the Bible reveals that he “ministered before/unto Jehovah” (1 Samuel 2:18; 3:1), and “increased in favor both with Jehovah, and also with men” (2:26). Later, however, we learn that “Samuel did not yet know Jehovah, neither was the word of Jehovah yet revealed unto him” (1 Samuel 3:7, emp. added). In one sense, Samuel “knew” Jehovah early on, but beginning in 1 Samuel 3:7 his relationship with God changed. From this point forward he began receiving direct revelations from God (cf. 1 Samuel 3:11-14; 8:7-10,22; 9:15-17; 16:1-3; etc.). Comparing this new relationship with God to his previous relationship and knowledge of Him, the author of 1 Samuel could reasonably say that beforehand “Samuel did not yet know Jehovah” (3:7).
According to Gleason Archer, the phrase “to know that I am Jehovah” (or “to know the name of Jehovah”) appears in the Old Testament at least 26 times, and “in every instance it signifies to learn by actual experience that God is Yahweh” (1982, pp. 66-67). In the book of Exodus alone, the expression “to know” (yada) appears five times in relation to Jehovah, and “[i]n every case it suggests an experiential knowledge of both the person and power of Yahweh. In every case the knowledge of Yahweh is connected with some deed or act of Yahweh which in some way reveals both His person and power” (Davis, 4[1]:39). For example, in one of the passages that has drawn so much criticism, God stated: “I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God, who bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians” (Exodus 6:7, emp. added). Later, after God already had sent ten plagues upon the Egyptians (Exodus 7:14-12:30), parted the Red Sea (Exodus 14), and miraculously made bitter water sweet (Exodus 15:22-25), He said to Moses, “I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread: and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God”(Exodus 16:11-12, emp. added). After several more weeks, God said to Moses on Mount Sinai: “And they shall know that I am Jehovah their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell among them: I am Jehovah their God” (Exodus 29:46, emp. added). Did the Israelites not know Who Jehovah was by this time? Without question, they did. “They had already learned of Him as deliverer; now they would know Him as their provider” (Davis, 4[1]:39).
Notice also what Isaiah prophesied centuries after the time of Moses.
Now therefore, what do I here, saith Jehovah, seeing that my people is taken away for nought? They that rule over them do howl, saith Jehovah, and my name continually all the day is blasphemed. Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore (they shall know) in that day that I am he that doth speak; behold, it is I (Isaiah 52:5-6, emp. added).
More than 100 years later, following Judah’s entrance into Babylonian captivity, God foretold of their return to Judea and spoke to them through the prophet Jeremiah. He said: “Therefore, behold, I will cause them to know, this once will I cause them to know my hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is Jehovah” (Jeremiah 16:21, emp. added). Are we to gather from these statements that Israel and Judah were not aware of God’s name (Jehovah) before this time in their history? Certainly not. Obviously, something else is meant by the expression “to know (or not know) the name of Jehovah.” In truth, it is a Hebrew idiom that “generally signifies knowledge of some particular act or attribute of Yahweh as it is revealed in His dealing with men” (Davis, 4[1]:40; see also Bullinger, 1898, p. 554).
Even in modern times it is possible for someone to know a person’s name or office without really“knowing” the person (or understanding his/her office). Imagine a group of foreigners who had never heard of Michael “Air” Jordan before meeting him at a particular convention a few years after his retirement from the NBA. They might come to know his name in one sense, but it could also be said that by his name “Air Jordan” they really did not know him. Only after going to a gym and watching him dunk a basketball by jumping (or “flying” in the air) from the free throw line, and seeing him in his original “Air Jordan” shoes, would the group begin to understand the name “Air Jordan.”
Admittedly, at first glance, the many references to “Jehovah” in the book of Genesis may seem to contradict Exodus 6:3. However, when one realizes that the Hebrew idiom “to know” (and specifically “to know” a name) frequently means more than a mere awareness of a person, then the difficulty disappears. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew God as Creator and sovereign Ruler of the Universe. But it would not be until centuries later, when God fulfilled the promises made to these patriarchs by delivering the nation of Israel from Egyptian bondage, that the full import of the name Jehovah would become known.

DID GOD TEMPT ABRAHAM?

One of the most criticized passages throughout the centuries in the book of Genesis has been chapter 22. In recent years, relentless Bible critic Dan Barker has alleged that he “knows” the God of the Bible cannot exist because “there are mutually incompatible properties/characteristics of the God that’s in this book [the Bible—EL] that rule out the possibility of His existence.” One of the scriptures that Barker frequently cites as proof of the Bible’s alleged inconsistent portrait of God is verse one of Genesis 22 (Barker, 1992, p. 169; Barker, 2008, p. 230; Butt and Barker, 2009). According to the King James translation of this passage, Genesis 22:1 affirms that “God did tempt Abraham” (KJV) to sacrifice his son Isaac. However, since James 1:13 says: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil,neither tempteth he any man” (KJV, emp. added), Barker has insisted that God is like a married bachelor or a square circle—He cannot logically exist, if He both tempts and does not tempt.
If Genesis 22:1 actually taught that God really tempted Abraham to commit evil and sin, then the God of the Bible might be a “square circle,” i.e., a logical contradiction. But, the fact of the matter is, God did not tempt Abraham to commit evil. Barker and others have formulated this argument based upon the King James Version and only one meaning of the Hebrew word (nissâ) that is used in Genesis 22:1. Although the word can mean “to tempt,” the first two meanings that Brown, Driver, and Briggs give for nissâ in theirHebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament is “to test, to try” (1993). Likewise, the Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (1997) defines the word simply “to test” (Jenni and Westermann, 1997, 2:741-742). The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament agrees that nissâ is best translated, whether in secular or theological contexts, as “testing” (Botterweck, et al., 1998, 9:443-455). For this reason, virtually all major translations in recent times, including the NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, and RSV, translate Genesis 22:1 using the term “tested,” not tempted.
When David put on the armor of King Saul prior to battling Goliath, the shepherd realized: “I cannot walk with these, for I have not tested (nissâ) them” (1 Samuel 17:39, emp. added). Obviously, this testing had nothing to do with David “tempting” his armor; he simply had not tested or tried on Saul’s armor previously. God led Israel during 40 years of desert wanderings “to humble…and test” them (Deuteronomy 8:2, emp. added), not to tempt them to sin. Notice also the contrast in Exodus 20:20 between (1) God testing man and (2) trying to cause man to sin. After giving Israel the Ten Commandments, Moses said: “Do not fear; for God has come to test (nissâyou, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin” (Exodus 20:20, emp. added). If one were to use Barker’s reasoning that nissâ must mean “to tempt,” regardless of the context, then he would have to interpret Exodus 20:20 to mean that God tempted Israel to sin, so that they would not sin—which would be an absurd interpretation.
When a person interprets the Bible, or any other book, without recognizing that words have a variety of meanings and can be used in various senses, a rational interpretation is impossible. Many alleged Bible contradictions are easily explained simply by acknowledging that words are used in a variety of ways (as they are today). Is a word to be taken literally or figuratively? Must the term in one place mean the exact same thing when in another context, or may it have different meanings? If English-speaking Americans can intelligibly converse about running to the store in the 21st century by driving a car, or if we can easily communicate about parking on driveways, and driving on parkways, why do some people have such a difficult time understanding the various ways in which words were used in Bible times? Could it be that some Bible critics like Barker are simply predisposed to interpret Scripture unfairly? The evidence reveals that is exactly what is happening.
Rather then contradicting James 1:13, Genesis 22:1 actually corresponds perfectly with what James wrote near the beginning of his epistle: “My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing” (1:2-4, emp. added). By instructing Abraham to sacrifice his promised son (cf. Hebrews 11:17), God gave Abraham another opportunity to prove his loyalty to Him, while Abraham simultaneously used this trial to continue developing a more complete, mature faith.

SEEING JEHOVAH "FACE TO FACE"

Another attack that skeptics have levied against God, Genesis, and the inspired writers, involves the theophanies of God. Throughout the book of Genesis, Moses recorded where Jehovah “appeared” to man several times. He appeared to Abraham at about the age of 75 (12:7). He appeared to him again about a quarter of a century later (17:1). Prior to His destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, God appeared to Abraham in Mamre (18:1). The Lord also appeared to Isaac and Jacob (26:2; 26:24; 35:9). In Genesis 32:30, after wrestling with God, Jacob even exclaimed, “I have seen God face to face” (emp. added). Such appearances of Jehovah in Genesis have caused some to question the reliability of the Bible, and in particular the book of Genesis (Wells, 2012). How could God have appeared to man, and spoken to him “face to face,” when other biblical passages clearly teach that God’s face cannot be seen (Exodus 33:20-23; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12)?
Although in modern times words are regularly used in many different senses (e.g., hot and cold, good and bad), Bible critics have dismissed the possibility that the terms in the aforementioned passages were used in various ways. Throughout Scripture, however, words are often used in different ways. In James 2:5, the term “poor” refers to material wealth, whereas the term “rich” has to do with a person’s spiritual well-being (cf. Lyons, 2006). In Philippians 3:12,15, Paul used the term “perfect” (NASB) in different senses. Although Paul had attained spiritual maturity (“perfection”) in Christ (vs. 15), he had not yet attained the perfect “final thing, the victor’s prize of the heavenly calling in Christ Jesus” (Schippers, 1971, 2:62; cf. Philippians 3:9-11). Similarly, in one sense, man has seen God, but in another sense he has not.
Consider the first chapter of John where we learn that in the beginning Jesus was with God and “was God” (1:1; cf. 14,17). Though John wrote that Jesus “became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14), he indicated only four sentences later that “no one has seen God at any time” (1:18; 1 John 4:12). Was Jesus God? Yes. Did man see Jesus? Yes. So in what sense has man not seen God? No human has ever seen Jesus in His true image (i.e., as a spirit Being [John 4:24] in all of His fullness, glory, and splendor). When God, the Word, appeared on Earth 2,000 years ago, He came in a veiled form. In his letter to the church at Philippi, the apostle Paul mentioned that Christ—Who had existed in heaven “in the form of God”—“made Himself of no reputation,” and took on the “likeness of men” (2:6-7). Mankind saw an embodiment of deity as Jesus dwelt on Earth in the form of a man. Men saw “the Word” that “became flesh.” Likewise, when Jacob “struggled with God” (Genesis 32:28), He saw only a form of God, not the spiritual, invisible, omnipresent God Who fills heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:23-24).
But what about those statements which indicate that man saw or spoke to God “face to face”? Jacob said, “I have seen God face to face” (Genesis 32:30). Gideon proclaimed: “I have seen the Angel of the Lord face to face” (Judges 6:22). Exodus 33:11 affirms that “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” First, although these men witnessed great and awesome things, they still only saw manifestations of God and a part of His glory (cf. Exodus 33:18-23). Second, the words “face” and “face to face” are used in different senses in Scripture. Though Exodus 33:11 reveals that God spoke to Moses “face to face,” only nine verses later God told Moses, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live” (33:20). Are we to believe that the author of Exodus was so misguided and careless that he wrote contradictory statements within only nine verses of each other? Surely not. What then does the Bible mean when it says that God “knew” (Deuteronomy 34:10), “spoke to” (Exodus 33:11), and “saw” man “face to face” (Genesis 32:30)?
A logical answer can be found in Numbers 12. Aaron and Miriam had spoken against Moses and arrogantly asked: “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?” (Numbers 12:2). God then appeared to Aaron and Miriam, saying: “If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; and he sees the form of the Lord” (Numbers 12:6-8, emp. added). Notice the contrast: God spoke to the prophets of Israel through visions and dreams, but to Moses He spoke, “not in dark sayings,” but “plainly.” In other words, God, Who never showed His face to Moses (Deuteronomy 33:20), nevertheless allowed Moses to see “some unmistakable evidence of His glorious presence” (Jamieson, et al., 1997), and spoke to him “face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (33:11), i.e., He spoke to Moses plainly and directly.

CONCLUSION

Neither the book of Genesis nor the Bible as a whole reveals “mutually incompatible characteristics of God” as modern-day skeptics have alleged. In actuality, many comments by the enemies of God reveal their devious, dishonest handling of Truth (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:2; 2 Timothy 2:15). Think about it: If skeptics can work “side by side” with a colleague without literally working inches from him (Barker, 2008, p. 335), or if he can see “eye to eye” with a fellow atheist without ever literally looking into the atheist’s eyes, then can they not understand that, for example, God could speak “face to face” with the patriarchs and prophets of old without literally revealing to them His full, glorious “face”? Indeed, it is the inconsistent allegations of the critic that should be under scrutiny. He readily accepts the understandable, non-discrepant differences in many modern-day writings, yet loudly protests against similar logical, explainable differences in Scripture.
Skeptics’ assertions in no way prove that the God of the Bible does not exist or that the Bible is unreliable. In fact, the opposite is true. The more that skeptics test the Scriptures, trying to find flaws of all kinds, the more evidence comes to light that it is actually of Divine origin (see Butt, 2007).
“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8).

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion Foundation).
Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (1998), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles B. Briggs (1993), A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Buchman, R. Paul (2011), “1001 Contradictions and Discrepancies in the Christian Bibles,” http://www.1001biblecontradic-tions.com/index.html.
Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), The Butt/Barker Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Davis, John J. (1963), “The Patriarchs’ Knowledge of Jehovah: A Critical Monograph on Exodus 6:3,”Grace Theological Journal, 4[1]:29-43, Winter.
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westerman (1997), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Lyons, Eric (2006), “Answering the Allegations,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=539.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).
Morris, Henry M. (1976), The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Schippers, R. (1971), TelosThe New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Wells, Steve (2012), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/seen.html.