March 7, 2016

From Mark Copeland... "ACTS OF THE APOSTLES" Chapter Twenty


                         "ACTS OF THE APOSTLES"

                             Chapter Twenty

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS CHAPTER

1) To review Paul's travels in Macedonia and Greece, during the 3rd
   journey

2) To note Paul's preaching until midnight and then talking until
   daybreak, after Eutychus falls out of the third floor window

3) To review Paul's travels from Troas to Miletus

4) To examine Paul's meeting with the Ephesian elders while in Miletus

SUMMARY

After the uproar in Ephesus had ceased, Paul gathered the disciples and
exhorted them; he then departed for Macedonia.  [During this period, 2
Corinthians may have been written.]  Paul provided much exhortation
throughout the region.  He then arrived in Greece and remained some
three months.  [Romans may have been written at this time.] As Paul
planned to sail to Syria, the Jews plotted against him.  He decided to
return through Macedonia.  The seven brethren traveling with Paul
travelled on to Troas, while Paul went to Philippi.  Luke joined Paul,
and they met the seven brethren in Troas.  (1-6)

The traveling group remained in Troas for seven days.  Paul preached on
Sunday until midnight, for they had gathered to "break bread."  Paul
planned to depart on the next day.  A young man, Eutychus, was sitting
in the window.  He was overcome with sleep, and fell from the third
floor window.  He was taken up dead.  Paul went down and "fell on him."
Eutychus was made alive.  Paul broke bread with them, and continued
talking with them until daybreak.  They were greatly comforted that
Eutychus was alive. (7-12)

Paul traveled from Troas to Assos by foot, while his companions sailed
there.  Paul joined them aboard ship in Assos.  Over some four days,
they sailed to/near:  Mitylene, Chios, Samos, and Miletus.  Paul
decided to sail past Ephesus, as he desired to be in Jerusalem on the
day of Pentecost. (13-16)

While at Miletus, Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus.
Paul reviewed his labors (history) with them:  he had served the Lord
with humility, tears and trials; he taught publicly and house-to-house;
he taught Jews and Greeks; and, he taught repentance toward God and
faith toward Christ.  Paul spoke of his future.  He was to go "bound in
the Spirit" to Jerusalem.  "Chains and tribulations" awaited him there.
In light of these things, Paul focused on his work to continue
proclaiming the Gospel.  He wanted to finish his race "with joy."  He
told the elders that they would not see his face anymore.  Paul
declared that he was "innocent of the blood of all men," as he had not
failed to declare to them the "whole counsel of God."  Paul exhorted and
warned them as elders; they were to follow his example.  Paul admonished
them to "take heed" unto themselves and to all the flock, over which
they were overseers.  They were to feed the church.  Paul warned them
that "wolves" would enter in, "not sparing the flock."  Some, even among
them, would arise to draw away the flock - "wherefore, watch ye."  Paul
reminded them that he had warned them day and night for three years.
Paul then commended them to God and to His Word, which is "able to build
you up."  Paul reminded them of his example of providing for himself and
those that were with him; laboring in this way, enabled them to provide
for the weak.  Paul then prayed with them and bade them farewell.  They
were weeping and sorrowful that they would not see him again.  They then
escorted him back to the ship for his departure.  (17-38)

OUTLINE

I. TRAVELS IN MACEDONIA AND GREECE (1-6)

   A. PAUL BADE FAREWELL TO THE EPHESIAN BRETHREN (1)
      1. Paul called the disciples to himself and said, "Goodbye"
      2. Paul departed to Macedonia

   B. PAUL ENCOURAGED THEM IN MACEDONIA AND GREECE, THEN TO TROAS (2-6)
      1. Paul traveled throughout Macedonia and encouraged them
      2. He then spent three months in Greece
      3. Paul planned to sail to Syria; the Jews plotted against him
         a. He decided to return through Macedonia
         b. Seven brethren accompanied Paul 
             (messengers, see 1 Cor.16:3)
         c. The seven traveled on to Troas, while Paul went to Philippi
         d. Through the use of "us" and "we," it is noted that Luke
            joined Paul in Philippi
         e. Paul and Luke joined the others at Troas, five days later

II. PAUL PREACHED IN TROAS (7-12)

   A. PAUL PREACHED ON SUNDAY UNTIL MIDNIGHT (7-8)
      1. The travelers remained in Troas for seven days
      2. When the disciples assembled "to break bread," Paul preached
      3. He preached until midnight
      4. Paul planned to depart on the next day

   B. EUTYCHUS FELL OUT OF THE WINDOW (9-12)
      1. The young man, Eutychus, was sitting in the window
      2. He was overcome by sleep and fell from the third floor window
      3. Eutychus was taken up dead
      4. Paul went down and "fell on him"
      5. Eutychus was made alive
      6. Paul broke bread and continued talking with them until
         daybreak; they were comforted - Eutychus was alive

III. TRAVELING FROM TROAS TO MILETUS (13-16)

   A. PAUL MET THE OTHERS IN ASSOS AND BOARDED THE SHIP (13-14)
      1. Paul traveled from Troas to Assos by foot; his companions
         sailed by ship
      2. Paul joined them aboard ship at Assos
      3. Over some four days, they traveled to/near:
         a. Mitylene
         b. Chios
         c. Samos
         d. Miletus
      4. Paul decided to sail past Ephesus, as he desired to be in
         Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost

IV. MEETING WITH THE EPHESIAN ELDERS (17-38)

   A. PAUL REVIEWED HIS HISTORY WITH THE EPHESIAN ELDERS (17-21)
      1. While at Miletus, Paul called for the elders from Ephesus
      2. Paul reviewed his labors while he was in Ephesus
         a. He served the Lord with humility, tears and trials
         b. He taught publicly and house-to-house
         c. He taught Jews and Greeks
         d. He taught repentance toward God and faith toward Christ

   B. PAUL SPOKE OF HIS FUTURE (22-27)
      1. Paul was going to Jerusalem "bound in the Spirit"
      2. "Chains and tribulations" awaited him
      3. In light of these things, Paul focused on his work to continue
         to proclaim the Gospel, and to finish his race "with joy"
      4. He noted that they would not see his face anymore
      5. Paul declared that he was "innocent of the blood of all men,"
         as he had not failed to declare to them the "whole counsel of
         God"

   C. PAUL EXHORTED AND WARNED THEM AS ELDERS OF THE EPHESIAN CHURCH;
      THEY WERE TO FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE (28-35)
      1. Paul admonished the elders to "take heed" unto themselves and
         to all the flock, of which they were overseers
      2. They were to "shepherd the flock"
      3. Paul warned them that "wolves" would enter in, "not sparing the
         flock"
      4. Some, even among them, would arise to draw away the flock
      5. "Wherefore, watch ye"
      6. Paul reminded them that he had warned them day and night for
         three years
      7. Paul commended them to God and to His Word, which was "able to
         build you up"
      8. Paul reminded them of his example of providing for himself and
         those with him; laboring in this way, enabled them to provide
         for the weak

   D. PAUL PRAYED WITH THE ELDERS AND BADE THEM FAREWELL (36-38)
      1. Paul kneeled and prayed with them
      2. They all wept, sorrowed that they would not see Paul again
      3. They escorted Paul back to the ship

REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE CHAPTER

1) What are the main events in this chapter?
   - Paul's travels in Macedonia and Greece (1-6)
   - Paul preached in Troas (7-12)
   - Travelling from Troas to Miletus(13-16)
   - Meeting with the Ephesian Elders (17-38)

2) When the uproar had ceased in Ephesus, who did Paul call for? (1)
   - Called for the disciples and exhorted them (1)

3) Paul departed Ephesus and went where?  And, where next? (1-2)
   - Macedonia (1)
   - Greece (2)

4) As Paul planned to sail to Syria, what did the Jews do? How did he
   change his plans? (3)
   - They plotted against him (3)
   - He determined to return through Macedonia (3)

5) How many companions were traveling with Paul?  Where did they go
   ahead before Paul? (4-5)
   - Seven brethren (4)
   - They went ahead to Troas and waited (5)

6) What can be noted by the use of the pronouns, "we" and "us" in this
   passage? (5-6)
   - The writer, Luke, had joined the travelers (13)

7) Upon which day of the week and for what purpose had they gathered
   together? (7)
   - They gathered together on the first day of the week - Sunday (7)
   - They had gathered together to "break bread" (Lord's Supper) (7)

8) How long did Paul prolong his message? (7)
   - Until midnight (7)

9) Where was Eutychus and what happened to him? (9-12)
   - Sitting on the window sill (9)
   - Sank into a deep sleep (9)
   - Fell from the third floor window (9)
   - He was picked up dead (9)
   - Paul went down and fell upon him, embracing him (10)
   - He was alive again (12)

10) Where did the travelers sail to? How did Paul travel there? (13)
   - Assos (13)
   - Paul traveled by land (13)

11) List the locations they sailed to/near from Assos to Miletus?
    (14-15)
   - Assos, Mitylene, Chios, Samos, and Miletus (14-15)

12) What was Paul's reason for sailing past Ephesus? (16)
   - He was hurrying to be in Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost (16)

13) While in Miletus, who did Paul call to meet with him? (17)
   - The elders of the church in Ephesus (17)

14) Briefly list Paul's history with the Ephesians that he reviewed with
    them. (18-21)
   - He served the Lord with humility, tears and trials (19)
   - He taught publicly and house-to-house (20)
   - He taught Jews and Greeks (21)
   - He taught repentance toward God and faith toward Christ (21)

15) What did Paul say was in his future? (22-27)
   - He was going to Jerusalem "bound in the Spirit" (22)
   - "Chains and tribulations" awaited him (23)
   - In light of these things, Paul focused on his work to continue to
     proclaim the Gospel and to finish his race "with joy" (24)
   - He noted that they would not see his face anymore (25)
   - Paul declared that he was "innocent of the blood of all men," as he
     had not failed to declare to them the "whole counsel of God"
     (26-27)

16) How did Paul exhort and warn the elders? Whose example were they to
    follow? (28-35)
   - Paul admonished the elders to "take heed" unto themselves and to
     all the flock, of which they were overseers (28)
   - They were to "shepherd the flock" (28)
   - Paul warned them that "wolves" would enter in, "not sparing the
     flock" (29)
   - Some, even among them, would arise to draw away the flock (30)
   - "Wherefore, watch ye" - be on the alert (31)
   - Paul reminded them that he had warned them day and night for three
     years (31)
   - Paul commended them to God and to His Word, which was "able to
     build you up" (32)
   - Paul reminded them of his example of providing for himself and
     those with him; laboring in this way, enabled them to provide for
     the weak (33-35)

17) After Paul exhorted and warned the elders, what did he do? (36)
   - He knelt down and prayed with them (36)

18) What were they especially grieved over? (37-38)
   - Over the word that he had spoken, that they would see his face no
     longer (38)
 

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2015

eXTReMe Tracker 

From Mark Copeland... "ACTS OF THE APOSTLES" Chapter Nineteen


                         "ACTS OF THE APOSTLES"

                            Chapter Nineteen

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS CHAPTER

1) Note that those only baptized in John's baptism, were taught to
   believe in Jesus and were baptized in His name

2) Examine how Paul taught in the area of Ephesus for some two years

3) Review what happened when false teachers (exorcists) attempted to
   cast out evil spirits in the name of Jesus

4) Examine the uprising caused by Demetrius and his fellow silversmiths

SUMMARY

When Paul arrived in Ephesus, he found some disciples who had only been
baptized in John's baptism.  He instructed them that they should believe
on Jesus.  When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus.  Paul laid his hands on them, and they received the Holy
Spirit.  They spoke in tongues and prophesied. (1-7)

Paul spoke boldly about the kingdom of God in the synagogue in Ephesus
for three months.  Some were hardened and spoke evil of "the Way."  Paul
then went to the school of Tyrannus, reasoning daily with the disciples.
Paul continued this for two years.  [Galatians may have been written at
this time.]  All of Asia heard the Word of the Lord.  (8-10)

God worked miracles through Paul.  Even handkerchiefs and aprons brought
from Paul drove out diseases and evil spirits.  Some itinerant Jewish
exorcists called on the name of the Lord Jesus to drive out evil
spirits.  Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, did this as well.
An evil spirit in a man recognized the name of Jesus and Paul, but did
not recognize them.  The man with the evil spirit leaped on them,
overpowered them and prevailed against them.  They fled naked and
wounded.  Both Jews and Greeks heard of this in Ephesus, and the name of
the Lord was magnified.  Many who practiced magic brought their books
together and burned them.  The books were worth about fifty thousand
pieces of silver.  The word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed.
(11-20)

Paul purposed in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem and then to Rome.  He
sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia, while he remained in Asia.  [1
Corinthians may have been written at this time.]  A great commotion
occurred about the Way.  Demetrius, a silversmith, called together those
of similar occupation.  Recognizing they prospered greatly from this
trade of making idols, he warned that Paul was preaching that the idols
were "not gods which are made with hands."  He proclaimed that
their trade was in danger, and even the temple of the goddess Diana was
in danger.  He claimed this preaching was happening throughout Ephesus,
and across most of Asia.  The people were stirred up, became angry, and
cried out, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!"  They seized Gaius and
Aristarchus, Paul's traveling companions.  Paul wanted to go into the
crowd, but the disciples would not allow it.  The crowd was in great
confusion.  The Jews put Alexander forward to speak, but when the crowd
realized he was a Jew, they cried out for about two hours, "Great is
Diana of the Ephesians!"  The city clerk calmed the crowd.  He told
Demetrius and his fellow craftsman to take their cases to the open
courts, and that any other inquiry should be made in a lawful assembly.
This assembly was a disorderly gathering, and they were in danger of
being called in question.  He then dismissed the assembly.  (21-41)

OUTLINE

I. PAUL IN EPHESUS (1-41)

   A. PAUL FOUND SOME DISCIPLES IN EPHESUS (1-7)
      1. Paul discovered they had only been baptized in John's baptism
      2. They needed to "believe" on Christ Jesus [implies obedience]
      3. They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus
      4. Paul laid his hands on them to impart gifts of the Holy Spirit
         on them - spoke in tongues and prophesied

   B. PAUL SPOKE IN THE SYNAGOGUE (8-10)
      1. Paul spoke boldly in the synagogue for 3 months about the
         kingdom of God
      2. Some were hardened and did not believe - spoke evil of "the
         Way"
      3. Paul departed from them, withdrew the disciples and taught in
         the school of Tyrannus
      4. Paul continues there 2 years - all in Asia heard the Word of
         the Lord

   C. MIRACLES AND THE SEVEN SONS OF SCEVA (11-20)
      1. Handkerchiefs and aprons brought from Paul drove out diseases
         and evil spirits
      2. Traveling Jewish exorcists called on the name of the Lord Jesus
         to cast out evil spirits
      3. Seven sons of Sceva did the same - man with evil spirit
         overpowered them - exposed them as false
      4. This caused many to believe and magnify Jesus
      5. Many magicians came together to burn their magic books
      6. The Word of the Lord "grew mightily and prevailed"

   D. AN UPROAR AT EPHESUS (21-41)
      1. Paul planned to go to Jerusalem, and then to Rome.
      2. He sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia, while he remained
         in Asia.
      3. Demetrius, a silversmith, stirred up the people, because Paul
         was preaching that the idols were "not gods which are made with
         hands."
      4. The people became angry, rushed into the theater, and cried
         out, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!"
      5. The city clerk calmed the crowd
         a. He told Demetrius and the others to take their cases to the
            open courts
         b. He then dismissed the assembly

REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE CHAPTER

1) What are the main events in this chapter?
   - Paul taught those who were only baptized in John's baptism (1-7)
   - Paul taught in the synagogue and the school of Tyrannus (8-10)
   - Miracles performed by Paul and the seven sons of Sceva (11-20)
   - Uproar brought on by Demetrius and the other silversmiths (21-41)

2) What two questions did Paul ask the disciples he first encountered in
   Ephesus? (2-3)
   - Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? (2)
   - Into what then were you baptized? (3)

3) When Paul told them they should "believe on Jesus," what did they do?
   (5)
   - They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (5)

4) Paul taught in the synagogue and in the school of Tyrannus for more
   than 2 years.  What were the results of his efforts? (10)
   - All who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews
     and Greeks (10)

5) What were brought from Paul's body to heal the sick and drive out
   evil spirits? (12)
   - Handkerchiefs or aprons (12)

6) What did the itinerant Jewish exorcists take upon themselves to do,
   when driving out evil spirits? (13)
   - Call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits
     (13)

7) What resulted when the seven sons of Sceva attempted this? (14-16)
   - Evil spirit said, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?"
     (15)
   - The man in whom the evil spirit resided leaped on them, overpowered
     them, and prevailed against them. They fled out naked and wounded.
     (16)

8) When this became known to those in Ephesus, what resulted? (17-20)
   - Fear fell on them all and the Lord's name was magnified (17)
   - Many who practiced magic brought their books together and burned
     them (19)
   - The word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed (20)

9) Where did Paul purpose in the Spirit to go? (21)
   - Jerusalem and then to Rome (21)

10) Where did Paul send Timothy and Erastus? (22)
   - Macedonia (22)

11) What did Demetrius tell his fellow silversmiths that Paul had
    persuaded almost all Asia? (26)
   - "They are not gods which are made with hands" (26)

12) What did Demetrius say could happen as a result? (27)
   - Their trade was in danger of falling into disrepute (27)
   - The temple of Diana may be despised (27)
   - Diana's magnificence may be destroyed (27)

13) When the crowd rose up, what did they cry? (28)
   - "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!"

14) When the crowd rushed into the theater, what did Paul want to do?
    Was he allowed?  By whom? (30)
   - Paul wanted to go in to the people (30)
   - The disciples would not allow him (30)

15) Who finally quieted the crowd? (35)
   - The city clerk (35)

16) How did the city clerk say the image came to be in Ephesus? (35)
   - The image fell down from Zeus (35)

17) Where did the city clerk tell Demetrius and his fellow silversmiths
    to take their cases? What if there were other inquiries?  (38-39)
   - To the open courts and proconsuls (38)
   - Other inquiries were to be determined in the lawful assembly (39)

18) What was this assembly in danger of? (40)
   - May be called in question for today's uproar (40)
   - There was no reason for this disorderly gathering (40)

19) What did the city clerk then do? (41)
   - Dismissed the assembly (41)

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2015

eXTReMe Tracker 

Islam Says a Husband May Beat His Wife by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=731

Islam Says a Husband May Beat His Wife

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


The politically correct climate of American culture is characterized by a host of self-contradictory and nonsensical viewpoints. One example is the way the left is vociferous in its support and defense of the spread of Islam via the construction of mosques and permission to teach about Islam in public schools. The left quickly steps forward and loudly condemns anyone who would dare to raise a finger of concern about the impact of Islam on the American way of life.
Yet, ironically, the social liberal, who disdains Christian morality, gives a “free pass” to Islam on some of the very issues for which it has viciously opposed the Christian moorings of American society. The “women’s lib” movement of the 1960s is a glaring example. The fight for “women’s rights” and the equal status of women in the home and on the job has been a hallmark of the liberal establishment. And yet, incredibly, the Islamic world has been known since its inception to consign women to an inferior status and to exert a degrading influence on them. How many female advocates of “women’s lib” would be willing to wear what Muslim women are required to wear around the world? How many “liberated women” in America would be willing to be subjected to a polygamous husband who relegates her to one among several other of his wives? And how many American women would be in favor of implementing the Quran’s teaching regarding the right of the husband to beat his wife? Read it for yourself in Mohammed Pickthall’s celebrated Muslim translation:
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great (Surah4:34, emp. added; cf. 4:11; 2:223,228,282; 38:45; 16:58-59; see also Brooks, 1995; Trifkovic, 2002, pp. 153-167).
A host of Islamic translations confirm this translation. The words in bold above are rendered in Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation: “refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly).” Ahmed Raza Khan’s translation reads: “do not cohabit with them, and (lastly) beat them.” Abul A’la Maududi has “remain apart from them in beds, and beat them.” Wahiduddin Khan “refuse to share their beds, and finally hit them.” Muhamad Abib Shakir has “leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them.” Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar reads: “do not sleep with them and beat them.” The Saheeh International translation reads: “forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.” Hassan Qaribullah and Ahmed Darwish have: “desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness).” Ali Quli Qarai’s rendering reads: “keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them” (Tanzil Project, 2007-2014).
As if these instructions were not enough to awaken the sensibilities of the political/moral left, consider further the penalty enjoined by the Quran for the adulterer, keeping in mind that the practice of adultery is commonplace among the anti-Christian establishment of our nation (Bonewell, 2012).
The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.... And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony—They indeed are evildoers (Surah24:2,4, emp. added).
Are those who believe Islam ought to be accommodated and encouraged to participate fully in the political and educational framework of the nation willing to allow Sharia law to become the law of the country?

REFERENCES

Ali, Abdullah Yusuf (1934), The Meaning of the Holy Quran (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications), 2002 reprint.
Bonewell, Kelly (2012), “Adultery: Just the Statistics,” The End of All Our Exploring,http://www.kellybonewell.com/psychology/adultery-just-the-statistics/.
Brooks, Geraldine (1995), Nine Parts of Desire (New York, NY: Anchor Books).
Tanzil Project (2007-2014), http://tanzil.net/#4:34.
Trifkovic, Serge (2002), The Sword of the Prophet (Boston, MA: Regina Orthodox Press).

BLOOD—The Liquid of Life by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=843

BLOOD—The Liquid of Life

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


Blood always has been a curious substance whose vast mysteries and capabilities have yet to be fully explored. Doctors in the twenty-first century transfuse it, draw it, separate it, package it, store it, ship it, and sell it. And, although modern-day scientists have not uncovered completely all of the wonders of blood, they have discovered that it is the key to life. Without this “liquid of life,” humans and animals would have no way to circulate the necessary oxygen and proteins that their bodies need in order to survive and reproduce. Hemoglobin found in the red blood cells carries oxygen to the brain, which in turn uses that oxygen to allow it to control the entire body. A brain without oxygen is like a car without gas or a computer without electricity. Blood makes all of the functions in the body possible.
In the past, ignorance of blood’s value caused some “learned” men to do tragic things. For instance, during the middle ages, and even until the nineteenth century, doctors believed that harmful “vapors” entered the blood and caused sickness. For this reason, leeches were applied to victims of fever and other illnesses in an attempt to draw out blood containing these vapors. Also, the veins and arteries located just above the elbow were opened, and the patient’s arms were bled to expunge the contaminated blood. George Washington, the first President of the United States, died because of such misplaced medical zeal.
Maybe you have seen a red and white striped, twirling pole at the entrance to a barbershop. In the middle ages, barbers did much more than cut hair. They also performed minor surgeries (such as tooth extractions). One of their most frequent feats was bloodletting. Barbershops generally kept on hand a fresh supply of leeches—stored in a basin on top of the pole.
But what does all this have to do with the Bible? Thousands of years before the lethal practice of bloodletting was conceived, mankind had been informed by God that blood was indeed the key to life. In Leviticus 17:11, Moses wrote: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” Because red blood cells carry oxygen (due to hemoglobin in the cells), life is made possible. In fact, we know today that human red blood cells carry approximately 270,000,000 molecules of hemoglobin per cell. If there were any less, there would not be enough residual oxygen to sustain life after, say, a hard sneeze or a hefty pat on the back.
Today, we understand completely the truthfulness of Moses’ statement that “the life of the flesh is in the blood.” But how did an ancient shepherd like Moses come to know such information? Just a lucky guess? How could Moses have known almost 3500 years ago that life was in the blood, while it took the rest of the scientific and medical community thousands of years (and thousands of lives!) to discover this truth? That answer, of course, is that Moses was guided by the Great Physician—and therein lies the difference between life and death.

Atheism and Liberal, Missouri by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1447

Atheism and Liberal, Missouri

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


In the summer of 1880, George H. Walser founded the town of Liberal in southwest Missouri. Named after the Liberal League in Lamar, Missouri (to which the town’s organizer belonged), Walser’s objective was “to found a town without a church, [w]here unbelievers could bring up their children without religious training,” and where Christians were not allowed (Thompson, 1895; Becker, 1895). “His idea was to build up a town that should exclusively be the home of Infidels...a town that should have neither God, Hell, Church, nor Saloon” (Brand, 1895). Some of the early inhabitants of Liberal even encouraged other infidels to move to their town by publishing an advertisement which boasted that Liberal “is the only town of its size in the United States without a priest, preacher, church, saloon, God, Jesus, hell or devil” (Keller, 1885, p. 5). Walser and his “freethinking” associates were openly optimistic about their new town. Excitement was in the air, and atheism was at its core. They believed that their godless town of “sober, trustworthy and industrious” individuals would thrive for years on end. But, as one young resident of that town, Bessie Thompson, wrote about Liberal in 1895, “...like all other unworthy causes, it had its day and passed away.” Bessie did not mean that the actual town of Liberal ceased to exist, but that the idea of having a “good, godless” city is a contradiction in terms. A town built upon “trustworthy” atheistic ideals eventually will reek of the rotten, immoral fruits of infidelity. Such fruits were witnessed and reported firsthand by Clark Braden in 1885.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Saturday, May 2, 1885
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Saturday, May 2, 1885
Braden was an experienced preacher, debater, and author. In his lifetime, he presented more than 3,000 lectures, and held more than 130 regular debates—eighteen of which were with the Mormons (Carpenter, 1909, pp. 324-325). In 1872, Braden even challenged the renowned agnostic Robert Ingersoll to debate, to which Ingersoll reportedly responded, “I am not such a fool as to debate. He would wear me out” (Haynes, 1915, pp. 481-482). Although Braden was despised by some, his skills in writing and public speaking were widely known and acknowledged. In February 1885, Clark Braden introduced himself to the townspeople of Liberal (Keller, 1885, p. 5; Moore, 1963, p. 38), and soon thereafter he wrote about what he had seen.
In an article that appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, titled “An Infidel Experiment,” Braden reported the following.
The boast about the sobriety of the town is false. But few of the infidels are total abstainers. Liquor can be obtained at three different places in this town of 300 inhabitants. More drunken infidels can be seen in a year in Liberal than drunken Christians among one hundred times as many church members during the same time. Swearing is the common form of speech in Liberal, and nearly every inhabitant, old and young, swears habitually. Girls and boys swear on the streets, playground, and at home. Fully half of the females will swear, and a large number swear habitually.... Lack of reverence for parents and of obedience to them is the rule. There are more grass widows, grass widowers and people living together, who have former companions living, than in any other town of ten times the population.... A good portion of the few books that are read are of the class that decency keeps under lock and key....
These infidels...can spend for dances and shows ten times as much as they spend on their liberalism. These dances are corrupting the youth of the surrounding country with infidelity and immorality. There is no lack of loose women at these dances.
Since Liberal was started there has not been an average of one birth per year of infidel parents. Feticide is universal. The physicians of the place say that a large portion of their practice has been trying to save females from consequences of feticide. In no town is slander more prevalent, or the charges more vile. If one were to accept what the inhabitants say of each other, he would conclude that there is a hell, including all Liberal, and that its inhabitants are the devils (as quoted in Keller, 1885, p. 5).
According to Braden, “[s]uch are the facts concerning this infidel paradise.... Every one who has visited Liberal, and knows the facts, knows that such is the case” (p. 5).
As one can imagine, Braden’s comments did not sit well with some of the townspeople of Liberal. In fact, a few days after Braden’s observations appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he was arrested for criminal libel and tried on May 18, 1885. According to Braden, “After the prosecution had presented their evidence, the case was submitted to the jury without any rebutting evidence by the defence (sic), and the jury speedily brought in a verdict of ‘No cause for action’ ” (as quoted in Mouton, n.d., pp. 36-37). Unfortunately for Braden, however, the controversy was not over. On the following day (May 19, 1885), a civil suit was filed by one of the townsmen—S.C. Thayer, a hotel operator in Liberal. The petition for damages of $25,000 alleged that Clark Braden and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an article in which they had made false, malicious, and libelous statements against the National Hotel in Liberal, managed by Mr. Thayer. He claimed that Braden’s remarks, published in the St. Louise Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, “greatly and irreparably injured and ruined” his business (Thayer v. Braden). However, when the prosecution learned that the defense was thoroughly prepared to prove that Liberal was a den of infamy, and that its hotels were little more than houses of prostitution, the suit was dismissed on September 17, 1886 by the plaintiff at his own cost(Thayer v. Braden). Braden was exonerated in everything he had written. Indeed, the details Braden originally reported about Liberal, Missouri, on May 2, 1885 were found to be completely factual.
It took only a few short years for Liberal’s unattractiveness and inconsistency to be exposed. People cannot exclude God from the equation, and expect to remain a “sober, trustworthy” town. Godlessness equals unruliness, which in turn makes a repugnant, immoral people. The town of Liberal was a failure. Only five years after its establishment, Braden indicated that “[n]ine-tenths of those now in town would leave if they could sell their property. More property has been lost by locating in the town than has been made in it.... Hundreds have been deceived and injured and ruined financially” (Keller, p. 5). Apparently, “doing business with the devil” did not pay the kind of dividends George Walser (the town’s founder) and the early inhabitants of Liberal desired. It appears that even committed atheists found living in Liberal in the early days intolerable. Truly, as has been observed in the past, “An infidel surrounded by Christians may spout his infidelity and be able to endure it, but a whole town of atheists is too horrible to contemplate.” It is one thing to espouse a desire to live in a place where there is no God, but it is an entirely different thing for such a place actually to exist. For it to become a reality is more than the atheist can handle. Adolf Hitler took atheism to its logical conclusion in Nazi Germany, and created a world that even most atheists detested. Although atheists want no part of living according to the standards set out by Jesus and His apostles in the New Testament, the real fruits of evolutionary atheism also are too horrible for them to contemplate.
Although the town of Liberal still exists today (with a population of about 800 people), and although vestiges of its atheistic heritage are readily apparent, it is not the same town it was in 1895. At present, at least seven religious groups associated with Christianity exist within this city that once banned Christianity and all that it represents. Numerous other churches meet in the surrounding areas. According to one of the religious leaders in the town, “a survey of Liberal recently indicated that 50% of the people are actively involved with some church” (Abbott, 2003)—a far cry from where Liberal began.
There is no doubt that the moral, legal, and educational systems of Liberal, Missouri, in the twenty-first century are the fruits of biblical teaching, not atheism. When Christianity and all of the ideals that the New Testament teaches are effectively put into action, people will value human life, honor their parents, respect their neighbors, and live within the moral guidelines given by God in the Bible. A city comprised of faithful Christians would be mostly void of such horrors as sexually transmitted diseases, murder, drunken fathers who beat their wives and children, drunk drivers who turn automobiles into lethal weapons, and heartache caused by such things as divorce, adultery, and covetousness. (Only those who broke God’s commandments intended for man’s benefit would cause undesirable fruit to be reaped.)
On the other hand, when atheism and all of its tenets are taken to their logical conclusion, people will reap some of the same miserable fruit once harvested by the early citizens of Liberal, Missouri (and sadly, some of the same fruit being reaped by many cities in the world today). Men and women will attempt to cover up sexual sins by aborting babies, children will disrespect their parents, students will “run wild” at home and in school because of the lack of discipline, and “sexual freedom” (which leads to sexually transmitted diseases) will be valued, whereas human life will be devalued. Such are the fruits of atheism: a society in which everyone does that which is right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6)—a society in which no sensible person wants to live.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Phil (2003), Christian Church, Liberal, Missouri, telephone conversation, April 7.
Barnes, Pamela (2003), St. Louis Post-Dispatch, telephone conversation, March 12.
Becker, Hathe (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.
Brand, Ida (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.
Carpenter, L.L. (1909), “The President’s Address,” in Centennial Convention Report, ed. W.R. Warren, (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company), pp. 317-332. [On-line], URL: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/wwarren/ccr/CCR15B.HTM.
Haynes, Nathaniel S. (1915), History of the Disciples of Christ in Illinois 1819-1914 (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company), [On-line], URL: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/nhaynes/hdcib/braden01.htm, 1996.
Keller, Samuel (1885), “An Infidel Experiment,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Special Correspondence with Clark Braden, May 2, p. 5.
Moore, J.P. (1963), This Strange Town—Liberal, Missouri (Liberal, MO: The Liberal News).
Mouton, Boyce (no date), George H. Walser and Liberal, Missouri: An Historical Overview.
Thayer, S.C. v. Clark Braden, et. al. Filed on May 19, 1885 in Barton County Missouri. Dismissed September 10, 1886.
Thompson, Bessie (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Are the Genealogies of the Bible Useful Chronologies? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1143


Are the Genealogies of the Bible Useful Chronologies?

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


Q.

I have heard it said that biblical genealogies are so filled with gaps that they are “useless” in matters of chronology. Is this true, or do the genealogies provide accurate chronological information as well? Can these genealogies be trusted in matters of chronology?

A.

Through the years, religionists who have become enamored with (and who have ardently defended) pseudoscientific attempts to date the Earth in evolutionary terms of billions of years, have stated that the biblical genealogies must not be used for chronological purposes because they allegedly contain “huge gaps” that render them ineffective for that purpose. In so commenting, most writers reference the classic work of William H. Green (1890) in this area. The work of Green on Old Testament genealogies usually is highly acclaimed, and accepted uncritically, by those who wish to place “gaps” (of whatever size) in the biblical genealogies. The argument usually goes something like this (to quote one writer): “Unfortunately for those who wish to attach a precise date on some historical events by using genealogies, their attempts are thwarted.” Thus, we are asked to believe that the genealogies are relatively useless in matters of chronology.
However, these same writers usually evince a complete omission of more recent work in this area—work which has shown that much of what Green had to say is at best incomplete, and at worst, irrelevant. When one discusses the genealogies, he does his audience (or reader) a disservice if he omits a discussion of Luke’s genealogy. Some are quick to talk about Genesis 5 and 11, but rarely do you see a discussion of Luke’s material (often it is conspicuously missing from any such discussions on genealogical materials). One performs a further disservice if he does not point out two very important points that come to bear on this whole discussion. First, to use the words of Arthur C. Custance:
We are told again and again that some of these genealogies contain gaps: but what is never pointed out by those who lay the emphasis on these gaps, is that they only know of the existence of these gaps because the Bible elsewhere fills them in. How otherwise could one know of them? But if they are filled in, they are not gaps at all! Thus, in the final analysis the argument is completely without foundation (1967, p 3).
If anyone should want to find “gaps” in the genealogies, it certainly would be a man like Custance, who spent his life desperately searching for ways to allow the Bible to contain an “old Earth” scenario. Yet even he admitted that the argument that the genealogies contain sizable gaps is ill-founded.
Second, and this point cannot be overemphasized, even if there were gaps in the genealogies, there would not necessarily be gaps in the chronologies therein recorded. The question of chronology is not the same as that of genealogy! This is a major point overlooked by those who accuse the genealogies of being “useless” in matters of chronology. The “more recent work” alluded to above, which sheds additional light on the accuracy of the genealogies, comes from James B. Jordan’s timely articles (1979, 1980). Jordan has done an extensive review of the work of Green, and has shown Green’s arguments to be untrustworthy in several important respects. To quote Jordan:
Gaps in genealogies, however, do not prove gaps in chronologies. The known gaps all occur in non-chronological genealogies. Moreover, even if there were gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, this would not affect the chronological information therein recorded, for even if Enosh were the great-grandson of Seth, it would still be the case that Seth was 105 years old when Enosh was born, according to a simple reading of the text. Thus, genealogy and chronology are distinct problems with distinct characteristics. They ought not to be confused (p. 12).
Much recent material has confused these two issues. For example, one writer stated: “Obviously, abridgment of the genealogies has taken place and these genealogies cannot be chronologies,” when exactly the opposite is true, as Jordan’s work accurately documents. Matthew, for example, was at liberty to arrange his genealogy of Christ in three groups of 14 (making some “omissions”) because his genealogy was derived from complete lists found in the Old Testament. In the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, remember also that the inclusion of the father’s age at the time of his son’s birth is wholly without meaning unless chronology is intended! Else why would the Holy Spirit provide such “irrelevant” information?
There can be little doubt that some have painted a distorted picture for audiences and readers when suggesting to them that substantial “gaps” occur in the biblical genealogies. Such distortion occurs, for example, when it is suggested that genealogy and chronology are one and the same, for they most certainly are not.
In addition, there are other major points that should be made available on these topics. Observe the following information in chart form. Speaking in round figures, from the present to Jesus is 2,000 years—a matter of historical record that no one doubts. From Jesus to Abraham is 2,000 years; that, too, is a matter of historical record which is well known. Each of those figures is extractable from secular history.
Present to Jesus2,000 years
Jesus to Abraham2,000 years
Abraham to Adam? years
The only figure now lacking is that representing the date from Abraham to Adam. Since we know that Adam was the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45), and since we know that man has been on the Earth “from the beginning of the creation” (Mark 10:6, the Lord speaking; Romans 1:20-21, Paul speaking), if it were possible to obtain the figures showing how long it has been from Abraham to Adam, we would have chronological information giving us the relative age of the Earth (since we know that the Earth is only five days older than man—Exodus 20:11; 31:17; Genesis 1-2).
The figure for the time span between Abraham and Adam, of course, is not obtainable from secular history, since those records were destroyed in the Great Flood. Fortunately, however, we are not dependent on the records of secular history for such information; the biblical record provides that material for us. Note the following (and this is why Luke’s genealogy is so critically important in this discussion). In Luke’s genealogy, he listed 55 generations between Jesus and Abraham. We know from secular history (as documented by archaeology—see Kitchen and Douglas, 1982, p. 189) that this time frame covered only about 2,000 years. Between Abraham and Adam, Luke listed only twenty generations. And no one doubts that from the present to Jesus has been about 2,000 years. So, our chart now looks like this:
Present to Jesus2,000 years
Jesus to Abraham2,000 years (55 generations)
Abraham to Adam? years (20 generations)
From this chronological information it is an easy matter to use the 20 generations from Abraham to Adam to determine the approximate number of years contained therein. In round numbers, the figure is 2,000. That completes the chart, which then appears as follows:
Present to Jesus2,000 years
Jesus to Abraham2,000 years (55 generations)
Abraham to Adam2,000 years (20 generations)
Of course, some have argued that there are “gaps” in the genealogies. But where, exactly, would those gaps be placed, and how would they help? Observe the following: No one can put any usable gaps between the present and the Lord’s birth; secular history records that age-information for us. No one can put any usable gaps between the Lord and Abraham; secular history also records that age-information for us. The only place one could try to place any “usable” gaps (viz., usable in regard to extending the age of the Earth) would be in the 20 generations represented between Abraham and Adam. Yet note that actually there are not 20 generations available for inserting “gaps,” because Jude (14) noted that “Enoch was the seventh from Adam.” Examining the Old Testament genealogies establishes exactly that. Enoch was the seventh, beginning from Adam, which then provides us divinely inspired testimony (from Jude) on the accuracy of the first seven of the names. That leaves only 13 generations remaining into which any “gaps” could be placed. Wayne Jackson has observed that in order to get the Earth back only to the time of the evolutionary age of man (approximately 3.6 million years as suggested by the late Mary Leakey and her present-day colleagues), one would have to place 291,125 years in between each of the remaining 13 generations (1978). It does not take an overdose of either biblical knowledge or common sense to see that this quickly becomes ludicrous to the extreme for two reasons. First, who could believe (knowing anything about proper exegesis and hermeneutics) that the first seven of these generations could be so exact, and the last thirteen be so inexact? Second, what good would all of this time do anyone? All it would accomplish is the establishment of a 3.6-million-year-old Earth; evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, and progressive creationists need a 4.6-billion-year-old Earth. So, in effect, all of this inserting of “gaps” into the biblical text is much ado about nothing!
And therein lies the point. While it may be true on the one hand to say that a precise age of the Earth is unobtainable from the genealogies, at the same time let us hasten to point out that using the best information available to us from Scripture, the genealogies hardly can be extended (via “gaps”) to anything much beyond 6,000 to 7,000 years. For someone to leave the impression (even if inadvertently) that the genealogies do not contain legitimate chronological information, or that the genealogies are full of “gaps” that render them impotent, is to misrepresent the case and distort the facts.

REFERENCES

Custance, Arthur (1967), The Genealogies of the Bible, (Ottawa, Canada: Doorway papers #24).
Green, William H. (1890), “Primeval Chronology,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 47:294-295, April. Reprinted inClassical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1972).
Jackson, Wayne (1978), “The Antiquity of Human History,” Words of Truth, 14[18]:1, April 14.
Jordan, James B. (1979) Creation Social Sciences & Humanities Quarterly, 2[2]:9-15.
Jordan, James B. (1980) Creation Social Sciences & Humanities Quarterly, 2[3]:17-26.
Kitchen, K.A. and J.D. Douglas, eds. (1982) The New Bible Dictionary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale), second edition.

“Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began” by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3825


“Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began”

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


Twenty years ago, John Horgan, staff writer for Scientific American, wanted to write an article titled, “Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began.” His editor at the time did not like the title and changed it. Horgan has waited 20 years, however, and the original editor is gone who did not like his title, so he simply re-used it for an article he wrote in February of 2011, two decades later (Horgan, 2011). The fact that Horgan could accurately say that the scientific community did not have a clue 20 years ago about the origin of life, and the situation has not changed in two decades of intense research, speaks volumes about the false theory of evolution and its explanation of the origin of life.
The reason that “scientists don’t have a clue how life began” is because those whom Horgan is labeling as “scientists” have prejudicially eliminated the only viable option for the origin of life. What Horgan means is that scientists who believe in evolution cannot give any plausible, naturalistic scenario that would make life possible. Horgan mistakenly equates “scientists” with “evolutionary scientists.” The fact of the matter is, thousands of scientists across the country know exactly how life began—God created life during the six-day Creation week. In fact, we at Apologetics Press have several highly qualified staff and auxiliary scientists who have studied the evidence and know how life began.
The quandary that Horgan and evolutionary scientists are in arises from the fact that, according to evolution, life had to spontaneously generate from non-living chemicals—and there is no plausible naturalistic accounting for this. To defend his position that “scientists” do not have a clue, Horgan explained that the idea of DNA molecules forming spontaneously has major problems: “DNA can make neither proteins nor copies of itself without the help of catalytic proteins called enzymes. This fact turned the origin of life into a classic chicken-or-egg puzzle: Which came first, proteins or DNA?” (2011). Horgan then noted that origin-of-life scientists have postulated that RNA might be the answer to the beginning of life. But he concluded: “The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out—literally—speculation” (2011). The far out ideas to which Horgan eluded are notions that life was dropped off by aliens, or that microbes from outer space “seeded” our planet. Horgan correctly observed that such outlandish suggestions only “push the problem of life’s origin into outer space. If life didn’t begin here, how did it begin out there?”
In his concluding paragraph, Horgan wrote: “Creationists are no doubt thrilled that origin-of-life research has reached such an impasse…but they shouldn’t be. Their explanations suffer from the same flaw: What created the divine Creator? And at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life’s mystery instead of blaming it all on God” (2011). Horgan is exactly right when he says that scientists (read that “evolutionary scientists”) do not have a clue how life began. He is wrong, however, to insist that the evolutionary scenario of life’s origin rests on the same footing as the concept of creation. The origin-of-life research has not shown that a naturalistic origin for life is merely improbable; instead, it has shown that it is impossible—life does not and cannot spontaneously generate from non-living chemicals. That being the case, the only truly “scientific” idea left would be to follow the evidence where it leads—to an intelligent, supernatural creator. Antony Flew, at one time the world’s foremost atheistic philosopher, came to just such a conclusion when he wrote: “The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind” (2007, p. 132).

REFERENCES

Flew, Antony and Roy Varghese (2007), There Is No God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne).
Horgan, John (2011), “Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began,” Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28.

Abortion and the Self-Contradiction of Political Correctness by Dave Miller, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2107

Abortion and the Self-Contradiction of Political Correctness

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


In May 2004, 16-year-old Erica Basoria asked her boyfriend, Gerardo Flores, to stomp on her belly, since she did not want to give birth to his twin sons, and her own efforts to kill her babies had been unsuccessful. Flores complied and subsequently was arrested on the basis of Texas’ 2003 Prenatal Protection Act which extends the protections of the entire criminal code to “an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth” (“State Homicide Laws...,” 2006). His lawyer argued that the Texas law used to prosecute was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Flores received a double capital murder conviction with two concurrent life sentences, making him ineligible for parole for 40 years—a ruling that was upheld by the Texas Ninth Court of Appeals (Ertelt, 2007).
Wait a minute. If Flores had been to medical school, he would have been legally free to employ barbaric instruments of torture to butcher the children in the womb. Or he could have pulled the babies’ bodies from his girlfriend’s womb, leaving only their heads, jammed scissors into their skulls to make a hole, and then sucked out their brains with a suction tube (see “Abortion Methods,” n.d.). But, no, young Flores did not have access to such sophisticated “education” and “expertise.” He simply stomped on his girlfriend’s stomach. Now he’s doing time for most of the rest of his life, while hundreds of abortion doctors continue to practice their deadly trade to the tune of 54 million+ babies since 1972—while being paid enormous sums of money (“Abortion in the...,” n.d.).
Such is the moral confusion, hypocrisy, and self-contradiction, or shall we say insanity, that grips America by its spiritual throat, brought on by the forces of political correctness over the last half century. The innocent blood that has been shed in the United States of America cries out for justice and retribution—which one day will surely be meted out (Proverbs 6:17). As Thomas Jefferson declared: “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever” (1787, Query XVIII). Or as Solomon affirmed: “The violence of the wicked will destroy them, because they refuse to do justice” (Proverbs 21:7). The God of the Bible eventually “administers justice for the fatherless” (Deuteronomy 10:18). “The Lord executes righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed” (Psalm 103:6).

REFERENCES

“Abortion Methods” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://readthetruth.com/abortion-methods.htm.
“Abortion in the United States: Statistics and Trends” (no date), National Right to Life, [On-line],URL: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html.
Ertelt, Steven (2007), “Texas Appeals Court Upholds Law Protecting Pregnant Women, Babies,” Life News, January 29, [On-line], URL: http://www.lifenews.com/state2046.html.
Jefferson, Thomas (1787), Notes on the State of Virginia, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm.
“State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims” (2006), National Right to Life, December 30, [On-line], URL: http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html.

Does God Dwell in Light or Darkness? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2659&b=1%20Samuel

Does God Dwell in Light or Darkness?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the February 12, 2009 Butt/Barker Debate on the existence of the God of the Bible, atheist Dan Barker spent nearly two-thirds of his opening 15-minute speech alleging that the Bible’s portrayal of God is contradictory. Barker alleged several discrepancies (most all of which we have answered elsewhere on our Web site), including that God cannot logically dwell in light and darkness. Twelve minutes and five seconds into his first speech, Dan Barker asserted:
Does God live in light or does God live in darkness? First Timothy 6: “The King of kings, Lord of Lords dwelling in the light which no man can approach.” James 1:17: He’s “the Father of lights” and on and on we see God is light. There’s no darkness in him at all. However, in 1 Kings 8: “Then spake Solomon: “The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.” First Samuel 22: “He made darkness pavilions round about Him, dark waters and thick clouds of the sky.” Psalm 18:11: “He made darkness his secret place.” So, God lives in light. God lives in darkness.
Do these verses paint a contradictory picture of God? Not at all.
First, the Bible uses the terms “light” and “darkness” in several ways and in a variety of contexts. God’s dwelling place in the spiritual realm of the heaven of heavens is filled with “unapproachable light” (1 Timothy 6:16), because His unrestrained glory illuminates it (Revelation 21:23). God made light in the physical Universe during the six-day Creation and “called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night” (Genesis 1:5). He made the Sun, Moon, and stars on day four of Creation, thus making Him the “Father of lights” (James 1:17). Jesus was miraculously transfigured before three of His apostles and “His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light” (Matthew 17:2). The psalmist referred to light in the sense of divine instruction: “The entrance of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple” (119:130). Conversely, the psalmist referred to those who “do not know, nor...understand,” as those who “walk about in darkness” (82:5). While addressing the subjects of sin and righteousness, the apostle John used the terms light and darkness symbolically: “God is light (i.e., holy) and in Him is no darkness (i.e., sin)” (1 John 1:5). This same apostle referred to Jesus as “the Light” throughout his gospel account (1:4-9; 8:12; 9:5; 12:34-36,46), and Matthew recorded that Jesus spoke of His disciples as “the light of the world” (5:14-16), reflectors of His righteousness.
Notice that Barker never hinted at the different ways in which the word “light” and “darkness” are used in Scripture. He simply positioned a phrase like that found in James 1:17 regarding God being the Creator (“Father”) of lights against the poetic statement found in Psalm 18:11 (“He made darkness his secret place”) and expected his listeners to believe they are contradictory. But the fact is, God being the Father of the Sun, Moon, and stars made on day four, has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether God dwells in darkness or light. What God has created and where God dwells are two different things. One cannot fault Scripture when a critic compares apples and oranges. For there to be a legitimate contradiction, the same thing must be under consideration.
Second, the passage in 1 Kings 8:12 that Barker noted (“The Lord said that he would dwell in thick darkness”—KJV) is not discussing God’s dwelling place in the heaven of heavens. First Kings 8:12-13, along with 2 Chronicles 5:13-14, discuss God’s presence in the physical temple of God in Jerusalem. Just as “the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” in the days of Moses (Exodus 40:34), so “the house of the Lord [the temple], was filled with a cloud” (2 Chronicles 5:13). Similarly, the highly poetic wording in Psalm 18 and 1 Samuel 22 (a quotation of Psalm 18) pictures God, not on His majestic, glorious throne in heaven, but as One Who “came down” from heaven (Psalm 18:9), “flew upon the wings of the wind” (18:10), and delivered his servant David from his enemies while making “darkness His secret place” and “His canopy...dark waters” (18:11). As H.C. Leupold commented:
The picture is that of a violent storm—a figure so frequently used in the Scriptures to furnish the accompaniment of God’s approach, He Himself being as it were housed in the storm. From the time of Sinai onward these figures become standard (cf. Exod. 19:16-18; Judg. 5:4,5; Ps. 68:7;77:16-18; Is. 29:6; 30:27ff.; etc.). As the storm sweeps near, He is in it. The thick storm clouds are the material upon which He rides (1959, pp. 166-167).
Once again, when a person takes the time to carefully inspect Dan Barker’s allegation that the Bible paints a contradictory picture of God, the sincere truth seeker will discover the vacuousness of his charges. Time and again, both in his debate with Kyle Butt on the existence of the God of the Bible and in his writings, Barker has disregarded the fact that for a legitimate contradiction to exist, one must be referring to the same person, place, or thing, at the same time, in the same sense (for more information, see Lyons, 2003 and 2005).
REFERENCES
Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), The Butt/Barker Debate (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Leupold, H.C. (1959), Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Lyons, Eric (2003), The Anvil Rings: Volume 1 (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Lyons, Eric (2005), The Anvil Rings: Volume 2 (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).