June 29, 2016

A two way street by Gary Rose









If you already haven't guessed it, dogs are on my mind. Why? I talked with my brother Dave this morning and his dog Jack is in a lot of pain because of extensive knee surgery performed yesterday. We didn't talk long; Dave was too tired because he was up all night caring for his animal.

As I look at the pictures, two things come to mind. First, a dog's life cycle is much shorter than a human being, so I must realize that they just might die before I do; this I must try to accept. Second, If they could speak "human", they just might say- "Live, Love, Bark". Why? Because they want the very best for us and they show it in "dog" language everyday. 

Remember these things the next time you come home and your animal gets all excited to see you, or puts his head on your lap when he sees you are sick, or licks you face (my dog pal likes toes).

The Bible says...

1 Corinthians, Chapter 13 (WEB)
 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things.  12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I was also fully known.  13 But now faith, hope, and love remain—these three.The greatest of these is love. (emp. added, GDR)

I know dogs only have the intelligence of a young child, so I am certain they cannot read, but somehow they have that "love" thing down perfectly.

Having a dog is a two way street- they learn a lot from you and hopefully you can do the same from them... 

Just sayin...

Bible Reading June 29 by Gary Rose


Bible Reading  June 29 (WEB)

June 29
1 Kings 4-6

1Ki 4:1 King Solomon was king over all Israel.
1Ki 4:2 These were the princes whom he had: Azariah the son of Zadok, the priest;
1Ki 4:3 Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha, scribes; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, the recorder;
1Ki 4:4 and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the army; and Zadok and Abiathar were priests;
1Ki 4:5 and Azariah the son of Nathan was over the officers; and Zabud the son of Nathan was chief minister, and the king's friend;
1Ki 4:6 and Ahishar was over the household; and Adoniram the son of Abda was over the men subject to forced labor.
1Ki 4:7 Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel, who provided food for the king and his household: each man had to make provision for a month in the year.
1Ki 4:8 These are their names: Ben Hur, in the hill country of Ephraim;
1Ki 4:9 Ben Deker, in Makaz, and in Shaalbim, and Beth Shemesh, and Elon Beth Hanan;
1Ki 4:10 Ben Hesed, in Arubboth (to him pertained Socoh, and all the land of Hepher);
1Ki 4:11 Ben Abinadab, in all the height of Dor (he had Taphath the daughter of Solomon as wife);
1Ki 4:12 Baana the son of Ahilud, in Taanach and Megiddo, and all Beth Shean which is beside Zarethan, beneath Jezreel, from Beth Shean to Abel Meholah, as far as beyond Jokmeam;
1Ki 4:13 Ben Geber, in Ramoth Gilead (to him pertainedthe towns of Jair the son of Manasseh, which are in Gilead; even to him pertained the region of Argob, which is in Bashan, sixty great cities with walls and bronze bars);
1Ki 4:14 Ahinadab the son of Iddo, in Mahanaim;
1Ki 4:15 Ahimaaz, in Naphtali (he also took Basemath the daughter of Solomon as wife);
1Ki 4:16 Baana the son of Hushai, in Asher and Bealoth;
1Ki 4:17 Jehoshaphat the son of Paruah, in Issachar;
1Ki 4:18 Shimei the son of Ela, in Benjamin;
1Ki 4:19 Geber the son of Uri, in the land of Gilead, the country of Sihon king of the Amorites and of Og king of Bashan; and he was the only officer who was in the land.
1Ki 4:20 Judah and Israel were many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and making merry.
1Ki 4:21 Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River to the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt: they brought tribute, and served Solomon all the days of his life.
1Ki 4:22 Solomon's provision for one day was thirty measures of fine flour, and sixty measures of meal,
1Ki 4:23 ten head of fat cattle, and twenty head of cattle out of the pastures, and one hundred sheep, besides harts, and gazelles, and roebucks, and fattened fowl.
1Ki 4:24 For he had dominion over all the region on this side the River, from Tiphsah even to Gaza, over all the kings on this side the River: and he had peace on all sides around him.
1Ki 4:25 Judah and Israel lived safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon.
1Ki 4:26 Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
1Ki 4:27 Those officers provided food for king Solomon, and for all who came to king Solomon's table, every man in his month; they let nothing be lacking.
1Ki 4:28 Barley also and straw for the horses and swift steeds brought they to the place where the officerswere, every man according to his duty.
1Ki 4:29 God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and very great understanding, even as the sand that is on the seashore.
1Ki 4:30 Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt.
1Ki 4:31 For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all the nations all around.
1Ki 4:32 He spoke three thousand proverbs; and his songs were one thousand five.
1Ki 4:33 He spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even to the hyssop that springs out of the wall; he spoke also of animals, and of birds, and of creeping things, and of fish.
1Ki 4:34 There came of all peoples to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, who had heard of his wisdom.

1Ki 5:1 Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants to Solomon; for he had heard that they had anointed him king in the room of his father: for Hiram was ever a lover of David.
1Ki 5:2 Solomon sent to Hiram, saying,
1Ki 5:3 You know how that David my father could not build a house for the name of Yahweh his God for the wars which were about him on every side, until Yahweh put them under the soles of his feet.
1Ki 5:4 But now Yahweh my God has given me rest on every side; there is neither adversary, nor evil occurrence.
1Ki 5:5 Behold, I purpose to build a house for the name of Yahweh my God, as Yahweh spoke to David my father, saying, Your son, whom I will set on your throne in your room, he shall build the house for my name.
1Ki 5:6 Now therefore command you that they cut me cedar trees out of Lebanon; and my servants shall be with your servants; and I will give you hire for your servants according to all that you shall say: for you know that there is not among us any who knows how to cut timber like the Sidonians.
1Ki 5:7 It happened, when Hiram heard the words of Solomon, that he rejoiced greatly, and said, Blessed be Yahweh this day, who has given to David a wise son over this great people.
1Ki 5:8 Hiram sent to Solomon, saying, I have heard the message which you have sent to me: I will do all your desire concerning timber of cedar, and concerning timber of fir.
1Ki 5:9 My servants shall bring them down from Lebanon to the sea; and I will make them into rafts to go by sea to the place that you shall appoint me, and will cause them to be broken up there, and you shall receive them; and you shall accomplish my desire, in giving food for my household.
1Ki 5:10 So Hiram gave Solomon timber of cedar and timber of fir according to all his desire.
1Ki 5:11 Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures of wheat for food to his household, and twenty measures of pure oil: thus gave Solomon to Hiram year by year.
1Ki 5:12 Yahweh gave Solomon wisdom, as he promised him; and there was peace between Hiram and Solomon; and they two made a league together.
1Ki 5:13 King Solomon raised a levy out of all Israel; and the levy was thirty thousand men.
1Ki 5:14 He sent them to Lebanon, ten thousand a month by courses; a month they were in Lebanon, and two months at home; and Adoniram was over the men subject to forced labor.
1Ki 5:15 Solomon had seventy thousand who bore burdens, and eighty thousand who were stone cutters in the mountains;
1Ki 5:16 besides Solomon's chief officers who were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, who bore rule over the people who labored in the work.
1Ki 5:17 The king commanded, and they cut out great stones, costly stones, to lay the foundation of the house with worked stone.
1Ki 5:18 Solomon's builders and Hiram's builders and the Gebalites did fashion them, and prepared the timber and the stones to build the house.

1Ki 6:1 It happened in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of Yahweh.
1Ki 6:2 The house which king Solomon built for Yahweh, its length was sixty cubits, and its breadth twentycubits, and its height thirty cubits.
1Ki 6:3 The porch before the temple of the house, twenty cubits was its length, according to the breadth of the house; and ten cubits was its breadth before the house.
1Ki 6:4 For the house he made windows of fixed lattice work.
1Ki 6:5 Against the wall of the house he built stories all around, against the walls of the house all around, both of the temple and of the oracle; and he made side chambers all around.
1Ki 6:6 The nethermost story was five cubits broad, and the middle was six cubits broad, and the third was seven cubits broad; for on the outside he made offsets in the wall of the house all around, that the beams should not have hold in the walls of the house.
1Ki 6:7 The house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready at the quarry; and there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building.
1Ki 6:8 The door for the middle side chambers was in the right side of the house: and they went up by winding stairs into the middle story, and out of the middle into the third.
1Ki 6:9 So he built the house, and finished it; and he covered the house with beams and planks of cedar.
1Ki 6:10 He built the stories against all the house, each five cubits high: and they rested on the house with timber of cedar.
1Ki 6:11 The word of Yahweh came to Solomon, saying,
1Ki 6:12 Concerning this house which you are building, if you will walk in my statutes, and execute my ordinances, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I establish my word with you, which I spoke to David your father.
1Ki 6:13 I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel.
1Ki 6:14 So Solomon built the house, and finished it.
1Ki 6:15 He built the walls of the house within with boards of cedar: from the floor of the house to the walls of the ceiling, he covered them on the inside with wood; and he covered the floor of the house with boards of fir.
1Ki 6:16 He built twenty cubits on the hinder part of the house with boards of cedar from the floor to the walls of the ceiling: he built them for it within, for an oracle, even for the most holy place.
1Ki 6:17 The house, that is, the temple before the oracle, was forty cubits long.
1Ki 6:18 There was cedar on the house within, carved with buds and open flowers: all was cedar; there was no stone seen.
1Ki 6:19 He prepared an oracle in the midst of the house within, to set there the ark of the covenant of Yahweh.
1Ki 6:20 Within the oracle was a space of twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in its height; and he overlaid it with pure gold: and he covered the altar with cedar.
1Ki 6:21 So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold: and he drew chains of gold across before the oracle; and he overlaid it with gold.
1Ki 6:22 The whole house he overlaid with gold, until all the house was finished: also the whole altar that belonged to the oracle he overlaid with gold.
1Ki 6:23 In the oracle he made two cherubim of olive wood, each ten cubits high.
1Ki 6:24 Five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing to the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits.
1Ki 6:25 The other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubim were of one measure and one form.
1Ki 6:26 The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub.
1Ki 6:27 He set the cherubim within the inner house; and the wings of the cherubim were stretched forth, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house.
1Ki 6:28 He overlaid the cherubim with gold.
1Ki 6:29 He carved all the walls of the house around with carved figures of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, inside and outside.
1Ki 6:30 The floor of the house he overlaid with gold, inside and outside.
1Ki 6:31 For the entrance of the oracle he made doors of olive wood: the lintel and door posts were a fifth part of the wall.
1Ki 6:32 So he made two doors of olive wood; and he carved on them carvings of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid them with gold; and he spread the gold on the cherubim, and on the palm trees.
1Ki 6:33 So also made he for the entrance of the temple door posts of olive wood, out of a fourth part of the wall;
1Ki 6:34 and two doors of fir wood: the two leaves of the one door were folding, and the two leaves of the other door were folding.
1Ki 6:35 He carved thereon cherubim and palm trees and open flowers; and he overlaid them with gold fitted on the engraved work.
1Ki 6:36 He built the inner court with three courses of cut stone, and a course of cedar beams.
1Ki 6:37 In the fourth year was the foundation of the house of Yahweh laid, in the month Ziv.
1Ki 6:38 In the eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all its parts, and according to all its fashion. So was he seven years in building it.

Jun. 28, 29
Acts 2

Act 2:1 Now when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Act 2:2 Suddenly there came from the sky a sound like the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3 Tongues like fire appeared and were distributed to them, and one sat on each of them.
Act 2:4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them the ability to speak.
Act 2:5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under the sky.
Act 2:6 When this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because everyone heard them speaking in his own language.
Act 2:7 They were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Behold, aren't all these who speak Galileans?
Act 2:8 How do we hear, everyone in our own native language?
Act 2:9 Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and people from Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia,
Act 2:10 Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, the parts of Libya around Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
Act 2:11 Cretans and Arabians: we hear them speaking in our languages the mighty works of God!"
Act 2:12 They were all amazed, and were perplexed, saying one to another, "What does this mean?"
Act 2:13 Others, mocking, said, "They are filled with new wine."
Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke out to them, "You men of Judea, and all you who dwell at Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen to my words.
Act 2:15 For these aren't drunken, as you suppose, seeing it is only the third hour of the day.
Act 2:16 But this is what has been spoken through the prophet Joel:
Act 2:17 'It will be in the last days, says God, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh. Your sons and your daughters will prophesy. Your young men will see visions. Your old men will dream dreams.
Act 2:18 Yes, and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days, I will pour out my Spirit, and they will prophesy.
Act 2:19 I will show wonders in the sky above, and signs on the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and billows of smoke.
Act 2:20 The sun will be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes.
Act 2:21 It will be, that whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.'
Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as you yourselves know,
Act 2:23 him, being delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by the hand of lawless men, crucified and killed;
Act 2:24 whom God raised up, having freed him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by it.
Act 2:25 For David says concerning him, 'I saw the Lord always before my face, For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved.
Act 2:26 Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced. Moreover my flesh also will dwell in hope;
Act 2:27 because you will not leave my soul in Hades, neither will you allow your Holy One to see decay.
Act 2:28 You made known to me the ways of life. You will make me full of gladness with your presence.'
Act 2:29 "Brothers, I may tell you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
Act 2:30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,
Act 2:31 he foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was his soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see decay.
Act 2:32 This Jesus God raised up, to which we all are witnesses.
Act 2:33 Being therefore exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this, which you now see and hear.
Act 2:34 For David didn't ascend into the heavens, but he says himself, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit by my right hand,
Act 2:35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." '
Act 2:36 "Let all the house of Israel therefore know certainly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
Act 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself."
Act 2:40 With many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation!"
Act 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized. There were added that day about three thousand souls.
Act 2:42 They continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and prayer.
Act 2:43 Fear came on every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
Act 2:44 All who believed were together, and had all things in common.
Act 2:45 They sold their possessions and goods, and distributed them to all, according as anyone had need.
Act 2:46 Day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart,
Act 2:47 praising God, and having favor with all the people. The Lord added to the assembly day by day those who were being saved.

The Universal Priesthood of Believers by J. C. Bailey


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Bailey/John/Carlos/1903/Articles/priestho.html

The Universal Priesthood of Believers

To worship God is part of the very nature of man. Cain and Abel worshipped God. There is no tribe on earth so primitive that it does not worship a supreme Being. However, worship to God must be in accordance with God's will. While Cain and Abel both worshipped, Cain's worship was not acceptable for it was not offered by faith (Hebrews 11:4). 
At Sinai God gave his law to Israel, "And Jehovah said unto Moses, Write thou these words for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with Jehovah forty days and forty nights, he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments" (Exodus 34:27-28).
The law was given to Israel. The priesthood was given to Aaron and his sons (Numbers 3:10). As Gentiles, we were left out: "Wherefore remember that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (Eph. 2:11-12).
Salvation is only in Christ. We read in Acts 4:12: "And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved."
The priesthood, which was given to Aaron has been changed. Of necessity, the law was changed (Heb. 7:11-12). We are to worship God. Jesus said so (Matthew 4:10). All we do is to be done in the name of Christ (Acts 4:12). When we serve Christ, we do it in the church that He established (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 3:20-21).
Now note this. All Christians are priests unto God. "But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that ye may show forth the excellences of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (I Peter 2:9).
Christ is our high priest (Heb. 7:16-17). We are priests under Christ (Rev. 1:6). So, we see that all members of the church are priests unto God. Therefore, whenever a church is established, it should carry on the worship. As we can see in the New Testament church there is no clergy class, for all are priests unto God.
Baptisms can be performed by any baptized believer. The Lord's Supper, preaching, singing, all acts of worship belong to the church and not to a special class. The law that gave the priesthood to Aaron has been changed. Under Christ we are all priests unto God.
Wherever a church is started, members should be taught that they are God's priests and that worship can and must be carried on. Under the law there was a special priesthood. In the Protestant denominations there is a special priesthood borrowed from the Catholics. Under the New Testament all are priests unto God. There is no clergy class.
If this principle is recognized, the work will grow as it never grew before. The church must be taught the word, so when the church is scattered, they will go everywhere preaching the word (Acts 8:4).
The church will be known by its works of faith and labor of love (I Thess. 1:3).
Let every member of the church realize that he or she is a priest unto God. Let every congregation realize that they can and should carry on the worship of God.
"Unto him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus unto all generations for ever and ever. Amen (Eph. 3:2l).
J. C. Bailey, 1992, Weyburn, Saskatchewan

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

What was the Inscription on the Cross? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=650&b=Mark

What was the Inscription on the Cross?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Controversy has surrounded the death of Christ on the cross for almost two millennia. In the days of the apostle Paul, it served as a “stumbling block” to the Jews and “foolishness” to the Greeks (1 Corinthians 1:23). Throughout the past 2,000 years, men and women of all ethnicities have rejected—for many objectionable reasons—the story of the crucified, resurrected Savior. Sadly, for some today, even the physical cross itself has become a stumbling block. Because of an alleged contradiction surrounding the actual words written on the cross of Christ, some believe that the message of the cross once preached by John, Paul, Peter, Philip, and others simply cannot be trusted. According to skeptics, the Gospel writers disagreed regarding what the title read that appeared on the cross above Jesus’ head.
  • Matthew: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37).
  • Mark: “The King of the Jews” (15:26).
  • Luke: “This is the King of the Jews” (23:38).
  • John: “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews” (19:19).
Question: Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John disagree on what was written on the cross, or did these four independent writers record trustworthy statements?
Before answering the above question, consider the following illustration. Tonight after getting home from work, I inform my wife (Jana) about an accusation I read on a billboard on the way home regarding one of our friends who is running for city council. I proceed to tell her that the accusation read: “John Doe is a thief.” The following day, our niece (Shanon) comes by the house and mentions to Jana that she just saw a billboard (the same one that I had mentioned a day earlier) that read: “City council candidate John Doe is a thief.” Finally, the next day, a friend (Rhonda) visits Jana and informs her about the same sign, saying it reads: “Montgomery City Council candidate John Doe is a thief.” Question: Would anyone have justification for saying that Shanon, Rhonda, and I disagreed regarding what the billboard said? Certainly not! We all three reported the very same accusation (“John Doe is a thief ”), except that Shanon mentioned the fact that he was a “city council candidate,” and Rhonda added that he was a candidate from “Montgomery.” All three of us reported truthfully the allegation we saw on the billboard. Similarly, the accusation above Jesus on the cross is the same in all four narratives—“the King of the Jews.”
  • Matthew: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (27:37, emp. added).
  • Mark: “The King of the Jews” (15:26, emp. added).
  • Luke: “This is the King of the Jews” (23:38, emp. added).
  • John: “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews” (19:19, emp. added).
The only variation in the inscription is in the personal name of Jesus. This alleged contradiction is easily explained by acknowledging that John recorded the full inscription, while the other writers assumed all to understand the personal name, and therefore simply focused on the accusation on which the crucifixion was based. The accusation was not that this man was Jesus of Nazareth, since there was no controversy regarding His name, nor His hometown. It was a known fact that the man crucified between the two thieves was indeed “Jesus of Nazareth.” Somewhat like the controversial accusation mentioned above regarding John Doe, the key charge levied against Jesus was that He was “the King of the Jews,” and this title was mentioned by all four Gospel writers.
Also involved in this alleged problem regarding the accusation that appeared on the cross is the fact that the superscription was written in three different languages, and translation may have been involved in some instances. According to John, the title was “written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin” (John 19:20; cf. Luke 23:38). Pilate is said to have written the inscription (John 19:19), and he (or whomever he ordered to write the inscription—cf. John 19:1) could have written a slightly different wording in each of the languages according to his proficiency in each language, or according to how much time he wanted to spend writing each one. Furthermore, as Bible commentator Albert Barnes noted: “One evangelist may have translated it from the Hebrew, another from the Greek, a third from the Latin, and a fourth may have translated one of the inscriptions a little differently from another” (1997).
The inscription on the cross of Christ mentioned by all four Gospel writers proves yet again, not that the Bible contains discrepancies, but that the narrators wrote independently. They did not rely upon one another to ensure that their facts were exactly correct. Rather, their accurate accounts of Jesus’ life stand solidly upon the “inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16).
REFERENCES
Barnes, Albert (1997), Notes on the Old and New Testaments (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

The Supreme Court’s Sexual Insanity by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2730

The Supreme Court’s Sexual Insanity

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The only legitimate way to evaluate and regulate human behavior is to look to the Creator. He is the One Who, in the words of the Founders of the American Republic, “created” all men, “endowed” them with life, provides them with “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” and who functions as “the Supreme Judge of the world” (Declaration of..., 1776). If human opinion becomes the standard for judging ethical behavior, nothing but confusion, contradiction, and inconsistency can result.
The God of the Universe gave the Law of Moses, which He authored, to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai over three millennia ago. That Law enables people today to gain perspective on the proper attitude toward, and punishment for, criminal behavior. Since God is perfect and infinite in all of His attributes, His directives to Israel concerning proper punishment of unethical human behavior ought to serve as the ultimate model for any nation’s legal system. The Founders certainly accepted this conclusion. For example, Declaration signer John Witherspoon stated that the “Ten Commandments...are the sum of the moral law” (1815, 4:95, emp. added). Sixth President John Quincy Adams wrote:
The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes...of universal application—laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation, which ever professed any code of laws. But the Levitical was given by God himself; it extended to a great variety of objects of infinite importance to the welfare of men.... Vain, indeed, would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity...to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis for morality as this decalogue lays down (1848, pp. 61,70-71, emp. added).
Revolutionary War soldier and U.S. Congressman William Findley stated:
As a clear and exact knowledge of the moral law of nature is peculiarly important, in order to understand the whole system of revealed religion, I will state, that it pleased God to deliver, on Mount Sinai, a compendium of this holy law, and to write it with His own hand, on durable tables of stone. This law, which is commonly called the ten commandments, or decalogue, has its foundation in the nature of God and of man, in the relation men bear to him, and to each other, and in the duties which result from those relations; and on this account it is immutable and universally obligatory.... This was incorporated in the judicial law (1812, pp. 22-23, emp. added, italics in orig.).
Governor of New York and U.S. Senator DeWitt Clinton insisted: “The sanctions of the Divine law...cover the whole area of human action.... The laws which regulate our conduct are the laws of man and the laws of God” (as quoted in Campbell, 1849, pp. 307,305). Premiere Founder John Adams explained: “If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free” (1797, 3:217). Other Founders could be cited who understood that many of the laws that God gave to the Hebrews are absolutely necessary to civil society. Recognizing and respecting how God expected the Jews to deal with criminal behavior is critical to sustaining American society.
For example, what was God’s view of kidnapping? As a matter of fact, kidnapping was a capital crime under the Law of Moses: “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 21:16; cf. Deuteronomy 24:7; 1 Timothy 1:10). The rape of an engaged or married woman was also a capital crime under Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). Sexual relations with a daughter also brought death (Leviticus 18:17; 20:12; cf. Ezekiel 22:11). The death penalty was typically carried out by stoning—which God obviously did not consider to be “cruel and unusual punishment.”
In view of these observations and realizations, one cannot help but be horrified, sickened, and shocked beyond belief at the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Louisiana(“U.S. Supreme Court Strikes...,” 2008). On the morning of March 2, 1998, Patrick Kennedy called 911 to report the rape of his eight-year-old stepdaughter. The reader will pardon the unspeakable, nightmarish details of the brutal assault described in the following quotation from the legal documents:
When police arrived at [Kennedy’s] home between 9:20 and 9:30 a.m., they found [the girl] on her bed, wearing a T-shirt and wrapped in a bloody blanket. She was bleeding profusely from the vaginal area.... [She] was transported to the Children’s Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that [the girl’s] injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery (Kennedy v. Louisiana, 2008, bracketed items added).
So detestable was this crime that even the High Court conceded: “Petitioner’s crime was one that cannot be recounted in these pages in a way sufficient to capture in full the hurt and horror inflicted on his victim or to convey the revulsion society, and the jury that represents it, sought to express by sentencing petitioner to death” (Kennedy v...).
After further investigation, Kennedy was charged with the aggravated rape of his stepdaughter. Louisiana law allowed the district attorney to seek the death penalty for defendants found guilty of raping children under the age of 12. The jury unanimously determined that Kennedy should be sentenced to death. Kennedy appealed—all the way to the highest court in the state. But the Louisiana Supreme Court reaffirmed the imposition of the death sentence (Liptak, 2007). Kennedy again appealed—all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 5-to-4 decision (split down ideological lines—liberal vs. conservative), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Louisiana Court’s decision, commuting Kennedy’s death sentence. The Court held that it is unconstitutional for states to impose the death penalty for the rape of a child where the assault did not result in the child’s death. The death penalty in such a case would be deemed an exercise of “cruel and unusual punishment.” Consider some of the remarks offered by the Court to justify this unconscionable, reprehensible, morally degraded decision:
Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule.
When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint.
[T]he death penalty can be disproportionate to the crime itself where the crime did not result, or was not intended to result, in death of the victim.
Rape is without doubt deserving of serious punishment; but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, it does not compare with murder, which does involve the unjustified taking of human life (Kennedy v...).
In complete harmony with the leftist trend that commenced in the 1960s, in which focus shifted from the rights of the victim to the rights of the perpetrator, observe that the liberal element on the Court shows uncanny concern for the “dignity” of the criminal—with a corresponding disregard for the dignity of the victim. They also make the ridiculous comparison of lawful, prudent application of the death penalty to the unlawful, senseless crimes of the wicked—even implying that use of the death penalty conflicts with “decency and restraint.” This would mean that God was indecent and unrestrained when He personally invoked the death penalty on millions throughout Old Testament history (e.g., the Flood), and also when He commands civil authority to do the same (e.g., Romans 13:1ff.). The five justices clearly do not know God (cf. Romans 1:28; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Titus 1:16).
This contention (that death is justifiable only in cases where murder has been committed) implies that if Kennedy would have killed his stepdaughter after raping her, the liberals on the Court may have been more willing to invoke the death penalty (although they indicated that even then, the criminal would have had to commit “a particularly depraved murder”). But their unwarranted assumption pitches judicial evaluation into the realm of subjective human opinion that changes with the fickle whims of culture. In fact, the opinion of the Court based much of its rationale on whether there exists national consensus on the propriety of capital punishment in cases of child rape—as if objective moral value is determined by majority human opinion. The justices’ exclusion of the principles of Christian morality that once guided American courts prevents them from acknowledging the only ultimate authority for deciding when the death penalty is warranted. No human has it within himself to legislate on such a matter. Only God can define the conditions under which humans may take the life of other humans.
What’s more, to maintain that invoking the death penalty is a “disproportionate” act when the criminal does not actually kill his victim, commits one to the absurd position that the criminal can subject his victim to excruciating, sadistic torture, anguish, and suffering—as long as he keeps his victim alive. And he could persist in his assaults for years, with a child of any age, and still not receive the death penalty! The justices clearly have no grasp of, let alone sympathy for, the untold, unimaginable damage perpetrated, not only on the tender body of Kennedy’s stepchild, but on that child’s spirit. The emotional, psychological, mental, and spiritual havoc inflicted is indescribable and unfathomable—literally beyond comprehension. A part of that child was murdered, changing her forever. The average child subjected to such horrendous treatment is permanently ruined—doomed for the rest of her life to wander aimlessly with a tortured soul, a twisted outlook, and an unrecoverable existence. In fact, in one sense, death would be mercifully preferable to living with the aftermath. Ironically, the Court acknowledged this fact: “The attack was not just on her but on her childhood.... Rape has a permanent psychological, emotional, and sometimes physical impact on the child.... We cannot dismiss the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape” (Kennedy v..., emp. added). Yet, according to the majority of the Court, extending capital punishment to the rapist of a child would be “excessive,” “cruel and unusual punishment” since America’s “evolving standards of decency” “mark the progress of a maturing society.” Indeed, the Court insisted that executing all child rapists “could not be reconciled with our evolving standards of decency and the necessity to constrain the use of the death penalty” (Kennedy v...). Unbelievable. If anything verifies that we as a society are notmaturing, that we are, in fact, devolving from superior standards of decency and morality, it surely is our uncivilized, barbaric, unconscionable treatment of children in the last 35 years—from the butchery of abortion to the savagery of sexual abuse.
If God prescribed death for kidnappers, i.e., those who illegally seize and detain a child—before and without inflicting any harm on the child—imagine how God feels about the person who would subject a precious, innocent, little girl to the indescribable agony of savage, sexual assault. Indeed, a man who would commit such abominable, loathsome behavior is depraved and should be eliminated permanently from society. He has forfeited his right to live in civil society. His action is of such gravity that he has earned death for himself (cf. “his blood be upon him”—Leviticus 20:9,13,27), and the rest of society deserves to be free of the inherent threat he poses to others. Those who reject this biblical assessment themselves possess degraded moral sensitivities and warped spiritual faculties. The decision by those five justices is despicable and unconscionable. They ought to be ashamed. They most certainly will be in eternity when they are called to account for their reckless, ruthless decision.
When our own governmental and judicial officials brush aside the moral principles authored by God, when they have allowed their moral sensibilities and sensitivities to be undermined by secularism and anti-Christian ideology, when they no longer seek to emulate the mind of God and organize their thinking in harmony with His views, when they do not “abhor what is evil” (Romans 12:9), the erosion of civil society is well underway and our nation is doomed to destruction.

REFERENCES

Adams, John (1797), A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America (Philadelphia, PA: William Young).
Adams, John Quincy (1848), Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn, NY: Derby, Miller, & Co.).
Campbell, William (1849), The Life and Writings of DeWitt Clinton (New York: Baker & Scribner).
Declaration of Independence (1776), [On-line], URL:http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp.
Findley, William (1812), Observations on “The Two Sons of Oil” (Pittsburgh, PA: Patterson & Hopkins).
Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), (No. 07-343) 957 So.2d 757, [On-line], URL:http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-343.ZO.html.
Liptak, Adam (2007), “Louisiana Court Backs Death in Child Rape,” The New York Times, May 23, [On-line], URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/us/23death.html?_r=1.
“U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Law Allowing Execution for Child Rape” (2008),Associated Press, June 25, [On-line], URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371353,00.html.
Witherspoon, John (1815), The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle).

What Now? Implications of the Human Genome Project by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=210

What Now? Implications of the Human Genome Project

by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

The ultimate goal of the Human Genome Project is to understand what makes us tick genetically. As a scientific enterprise, it presents no more ethical difficulty than research on blood types or the workings of our liver. However, the applications of this new understanding raise important ethical concerns.
Several key issues have dominated the public arena thus far. Chief among these is the question ofprivacy. If it is true that “knowledge is power,” should anyone know so much about our genetic makeup? A second issue is one of ownership. Who owns my genetic code, or a particular gene found in all humans? Is it right to patent “wild genes”—genes that were discovered in nature and not “invented” or modified by man? A third issue concerns the engineering of DNA in germ cells. With this technique, known as “germline gene transfer,” parents could make selective changes on their own sperm and egg—a mutant gene fixed here, a gene for high IQ spliced in there. Will this possibly lead to eugenics? Will it discriminate against the poor? These kinds of questions excite the public imagination and express themselves in disturbing images of the future, such as those in the movie Gattaca.
A more pressing issue for Christians is genetic screening. This can take the form of prenatal testing where the DNA of prospective parents is scanned for genetic diseases. A woman with a family history of hemophilia, for instance, might want to know whether she carries a gene that causes a failure to produce “factor VIII”—a critical blood-clotting protein. The defective gene responsible for hemophilia is recessive and resides solely on the X chromosome. This means that a woman could carry the disease on one of her X chromosomes, while a functioning copy resides on her other X chromosome. Unfortunately, the 50/50 mix of damaged and functional genes translates into a 50/50 chance of her children inheriting the disease.
Sons are of particular concern in these cases. As males, they inherit an X chromosome from the mother and a Y chromosome from the father, but the Y chromosome does not bear copies of the coagulant-producing gene. Without an alternate source for factor VIII, the body’s natural response to bleeding breaks down and even minor injuries can become life threatening.
What are the options? If our prospective mother learns that she carries hemophilia, she and her husband could decide against having any children at all. Or, if the woman does become pregnant, she could undergo amniocentesis—a process that involves the extraction and testing of fetal cells. Often, whether stated or not, the assumption of such testing is that abortion will follow the discovery of genetic abnormalities. Dr. Norman Gant, while serving as chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at the Health Science Center of the University of Texas, once remarked in this regard: “We are able to give our parents information on which to base real choices about continuing or terminating a pregnancy, and it is very reassuring to them during the remainder of their pregnancies” (1980, 87[3]:33; see also Rae, 1997, p. 138). If carried through, this most assuredly would contravene God’s laws against the taking of innocent human life (Proverbs 6:17).
New technology, however, could expand those options. Germ-line gene therapy, as we have seen already, could be used to repair the gene before conception. However, this probably would be followed by in vitro fertilization (IVF), which itself raises a host of ethical concerns (see Thompson, 1999, pp. 34ff.). Another possibility is gene therapy on someone already suffering from the disease. Recent studies have shown promise in treating hemophilia with viruses that can “infect” the host’s cells with a corrected version of the gene (Kay and High, 1999).
These mixed results typify the two-edged sword of modern technology. The fruits of the Human Genome Project could provide us with revolutionary new treatments or, at the very least, more information that we then could use to make critical decisions. At the same time, this newfound knowledge could lead indirectly to greater use of technologies, such as IVF and abortion, which present an immediate threat to the sanctity of human life. While certain scientific developments might make IVF more palatable (such as, for example, avoiding the production of “spare” embryos), abortion will remain inherently unethical. At present, women who decide to abort on the basis of their child’s health constitute a tiny fraction of all abortions (see Torres and Forrest, 1988; Bankole, et al., 1998). This could change, of course, if our ability to detect the disease outstrips our ability to treat the disease.
All of the issues discussed thus far center on potential applications of the information provided via the Human Genome Project. However, there are some deeper ethical concerns.
First, we have to watch our motivations as we use this new information. For instance, genetic prescreening, especially where there is a family history of genetic diseases, seems well within the bounds of Christian stewardship. A possible analogy is Paul’s advice that Christians remain celibate in the face of persecution (1 Corinthians 7:26-28). This is not the only reason to remain single, but it shows the Christian way of thinking through such problems. Likewise, there could be situations in which parents decide, after much study and prayer, to remain childless.
Yet, by opening up new vistas, technology tempts us with potential new rationalizations. Specifically, our reasons for having children could become contingent on technology. A child becomes, not an expression of unconditional love, but something merely tentative (Meilaender, 1996, pp. 53-56). The worthy ambition of not bringing further suffering into the world eases us gently into the conviction that the only child worth having is a healthy child. A couple enters into a pregnancy knowing full well that there is a 50/50 chance of having a child with something like, say, hemophilia, and yet plays a waiting game: “Let’s see what happens,” they reason, “and we’ll terminate the pregnancy if things don’t go our way.” What we lose in the end is our doctrine ofimago Dei—of being created in God’s image. It is this doctrine, which gives intrinsic value to human life, that must motivate our decisions on life and death.
A second, closely related issue is the temptation to think that we are just our genes. Instead of blaming the devil, we choose to blame our genetic heritage—the old refrain, “My genes made me do it.”
A constant stream of far-fetched claims does nothing to help this crude form of genetic determinism. If the fabled accounts in newspapers are anything to go by, scientists have discovered “genes for” alcoholism and homosexuality. You might as well say that the Y chromosome must contain a “gene for” violence, given that being male is the best predictor of violent behavior.
Critics of genetic determinism point out that many traits involve multiple genes, some of which are influenced or triggered by external stimuli. When we are told that intelligence has a genetic component, these same critics are quick to assure us that various nurturing activities, such as breast-feeding and playing, can have a significant impact on a child’s IQ. And so the old “nature vs. nurture” debate rolls on. We are challenged to strike a balance between the “just so” stories of biology and the “just so” stories of psychology and sociology (Hull, 2000).
I am convinced that this is a false dichotomy. Certainly, we cannot deny that our genes and our environment have an effect on who and what we are. Yet one vital component—freedom of choice—is conspicuously missing from many of these discussions.
Determinists set themselves firmly against a deep-seated intuition that we do, indeed, have a genuine capacity to choose. To overturn this widely held conviction would require a massive body of evidence, not to mention some very powerful and convincing arguments. Instead, we are told that the chains of cause and effect are immensely complex and, besides, we never could know allthe events from the beginning of time. Such expansive hand waving seems to suggest that to be a determinist means nothing more than to be an agnostic in regard to the matter of choice, which is an awfully long way from proving that choice is illusory.
Why do we have such a strong intuition that choice is real? It comes, at least in part, from the people in our lives who rise above mere circumstance. These are the people of whom doctors would say, “They won’t live past their tenth birthday.” These are the people that police expect to be murdered, or in jail for murder, by their 25th birthday.
Popular author Bryan Appleyard writes often about his beloved niece, Fiona. Here was a woman who suffered from a particularly virulent form of muscular dystrophy and yet, who, in her brief 30 years, shamed anyone who would dare wallow in self-pity. Appleyard made the following confession:
Whatever anguish, irritation and despair I might suffer, I knew that I was a pampered, spoiled fool in comparison to Fiona. Others felt the same. She changed lives. At her funeral I met a man who, after meeting Fiona, had decided not to kill himself following a painful divorce. I also talked to the priest about her courage—an absurdly weak word for the colossal force that kept her going—and the effect she had on people. He smiled. “So much for the vanities of wealth and power” (1999).
Nature and nurture are not enough to explain the Fionas of this world. Even if we find the “gene for” stubborn survival, we never would be able to predict the environment in which Fiona found herself. Would a thriving family life have aided the expression of those genes? What about a life of poverty and abuse? Moreover, we never would be able to predict the environment she created around herself, and the influence she had on those who came to know and love her. It seems that humans can, but need not, surrender to the “destiny” of biology and the circumstances of life.
Our discussion of choice would not be at all complete without mentioning the will of God. Although His works often are hidden from us, God acts constantly to bring about His ends. Thus, the apostle Paul could ponder whether God intended for Onesimus to flee his earthly master—in order to return as a brother in Christ (Philemon 15-16). We cannot say, specifically, how God will achieve His ultimate purpose through the circumstances of our lives, or the choices we make.
As is so frequently the case, the changes wrought by new advances in technology areevolutionary, rather than revolutionary. They nudge us further down the slope, rather than causing us to jump the tracks completely. This should give us some measure of comfort, knowing that we can apply familiar principles to fresh new challenges. However, scientific knowledge isgrowing, and technology is advancing—sometimes at breakneck speed. The combined juggernaut is in danger of threatening to overtake public discourse. Christians most definitely need to stay abreast of these developments, and to stay far above the political and legal quagmire. No matter what the courts or politicians decide, we need to search God’s Word diligently for His teaching on these critically important issues.

REFERENCES

Appleyard, Bryan (1999), “The Most Extraordinary Person I Have Ever Known,” The Toronto Star, Sunday, January 10.
Bankole, Akinrinola, Susheela Singh, and Taylor Haas (1998), “Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries,” International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 24[3]:117-127,152.
Gant, Norman (1980), “A Closer Look at Amniocentesis,” Science Digest, 87[3]:33, March.
Hull, David (2000), “Genes, Free Will and Intracranial Musings,” Nature, 406:124-125, July 13.
Kay, Mark A., and Katherine High (1999), “Gene Therapy for Hemophiliacs,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96[18]:9973-9975.
Meilaender, Gilbert (1996), Bioethics: A Primer for Christians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Rae, Scott B. (1997), “Prenatal Genetic Testing, Abortion, and Beyond,” in Genetic Ethics: Do the Ends Justify the Genes?, ed. John F. Kilner, Rebecca D. Pentz, and Frank E. Young (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), pp. 136-145.
Thompson, Bert (1999), The Christian and Medical Ethics (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Torres, Aida, and Jacqueline Darroch Forrest (1988), “Why do Women Have Abortions?,” Family Planning Perspectives, 20[4]:169-176.