July 20, 2016

Inner beauty by Gary Rose


"Sunstone is a plagioclase feldspar, which when viewed from certain directions exhibits a spangled appearance. It has been found in Southern NorwaySweden and in various United States localities."

(see the following link for more info)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunstone

What an amazing difference between the unpolished (top row) and the bottom row of polished stone.  As I saw them for the first time, I realized that people are like these stones: Hidden inside each one of us is an inner beauty that is only revealed by the "polishing" of the abrasives of life.

This is especially true for Christians!

The Apostle Paul said...

Philippians, Chapter 1 (WEB)
 12  Now I desire to have you know, brothers, that the things which happened to me have turned out rather to the progress of the Good News;  13 so that it became evident to the whole palace guard, and to all the rest, that my bonds are in Christ;  14 and that most of the brothers in the Lord, being confident through my bonds, are more abundantly bold to speak the word of God without fear.  15 Some indeed preach Christ even out of envy and strife, and some also out of good will.  16 The former insincerely preach Christ from selfish ambition, thinking that they add affliction to my chains;  17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the Good News. 

  18  What does it matter? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed. I rejoice in this, yes, and will rejoice.  19 For I know that this will turn out to my salvation, through your supplication and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,  20 according to my earnest expectation and hope, that I will in no way be disappointed, but with all boldness, as always, now also Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life, or by death.  21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

and

2 Corinthians, Chapter 11 (WEB)
16  I say again, let no one think me foolish. But if so, yet receive me as foolish, that I also may boast a little.  17 That which I speak, I don’t speak according to the Lord, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting.  18 Seeing that many boast after the flesh, I will also boast.  19 For you bear with the foolish gladly, being wise.  20 For you bear with a man, if he brings you into bondage, if he devours you, if he takes you captive, if he exalts himself, if he strikes you on the face.  21 I speak by way of disparagement, as though we had been weak. Yet however any is bold (I speak in foolishness), I am bold also.  22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I.  23 Are they servants of Christ? (I speak as one beside himself) I am more so; in labors more abundantly, in prisons more abundantly, in stripes above measure, in deaths often.  24 Five times from the Jews I received forty stripes minus one.  25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I suffered shipwreck. I have been a night and a day in the deep.  26 I have been in travels often, perils of rivers, perils of robbers, perils from my countrymen, perils from the Gentiles, perils in the city, perils in the wilderness, perils in the sea, perils among false brothers;  27 in labor and travail, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, and in cold and nakedness. 

  28  Besides those things that are outside, there is that which presses on me daily, anxiety for all the assemblies.  29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is caused to stumble, and I don’t burn with indignation?  30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that concern my weakness.  31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, he who is blessed forever more, knows that I don’t lie.  32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas guarded the city of the Damascenes desiring to arrest me.  33 Through a window I was let down in a basket by the wall, and escaped his hands. 

Are you trying to serve The Lord Jesus and experiencing hardship? Others have gone down this road before you and been faithful. Follow their example- and remember; if you were not doing something very wonderful, Satan would not be trying so hard to make you suffer.

The upside of all this is that you just may be "polished" enough to shine very, very brightly for God!!!! Humm, reminds me of a song- This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine..."

Bible Reading July 20 by Gary Rose


Bible Reading July 20 (WEB)

July 20
1 Chronicles 22-23

1Ch 22:1 Then David said, This is the house of Yahweh God, and this is the altar of burnt offering for Israel.
1Ch 22:2 David commanded to gather together the foreigners who were in the land of Israel; and he set masons to cut worked stones to build the house of God.
1Ch 22:3 David prepared iron in abundance for the nails for the doors of the gates, and for the couplings; and brass in abundance without weight;
1Ch 22:4 and cedar trees without number: for the Sidonians and they of Tyre brought cedar trees in abundance to David.
1Ch 22:5 David said, Solomon my son is young and tender, and the house that is to be built for Yahweh must be exceedingly magnificent, of fame and of glory throughout all countries: I will therefore make preparation for it. So David prepared abundantly before his death.
1Ch 22:6 Then he called for Solomon his son, and commanded him to build a house for Yahweh, the God of Israel.
1Ch 22:7 David said to Solomon his son, As for me, it was in my heart to build a house to the name of Yahweh my God.
1Ch 22:8 But the word of Yahweh came to me, saying, You have shed blood abundantly, and have made great wars: you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight.
1Ch 22:9 Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies all around; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days:
1Ch 22:10 he shall build a house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.
1Ch 22:11 Now, my son, Yahweh be with you; and prosper you, and build the house of Yahweh your God, as he has spoken concerning you.
1Ch 22:12 May Yahweh give you discretion and understanding, and put you in charge of Israel; that so you may keep the law of Yahweh your God.
1Ch 22:13 Then you shall prosper, if you observe to do the statutes and the ordinances which Yahweh gave Moses concerning Israel. Be strong, and of good courage. Don't be afraid, neither be dismayed.
1Ch 22:14 Now, behold, in my affliction I have prepared for the house of Yahweh one hundred thousand talents of gold, and one million talents of silver, and of brass and iron without weight; for it is in abundance: timber also and stone have I prepared; and you may add to them.
1Ch 22:15 There are also workmen with you in abundance, cutters and workers of stone and timber, and all kinds of men who are skillful in every kind of work:
1Ch 22:16 of the gold, the silver, and the brass, and the iron, there is no number. Arise and be doing, and Yahweh be with you.
1Ch 22:17 David also commanded all the princes of Israel to help Solomon his son, saying,
1Ch 22:18 Isn't Yahweh your God with you? Hasn't he given you rest on every side? for he has delivered the inhabitants of the land into my hand; and the land is subdued before Yahweh, and before his people.
1Ch 22:19 Now set your heart and your soul to seek after Yahweh your God; arise therefore, and build the sanctuary of Yahweh God, to bring the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and the holy vessels of God, into the house that is to be built to the name of Yahweh.

1Ch 23:1 Now David was old and full of days; and he made Solomon his son king over Israel.
1Ch 23:2 He gathered together all the princes of Israel, with the priests and the Levites.
1Ch 23:3 The Levites were numbered from thirty years old and upward: and their number by their polls, man by man, was thirty-eight thousand.
1Ch 23:4 Of these, twenty-four thousand were to oversee the work of the house of Yahweh; and six thousand were officers and judges;
1Ch 23:5 and four thousand were doorkeepers; and four thousand praised Yahweh with the instruments which I made, said David, for giving praise.
1Ch 23:6 David divided them into divisions according to the sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari.
1Ch 23:7 Of the Gershonites: Ladan and Shimei.
1Ch 23:8 The sons of Ladan: Jehiel the chief, and Zetham, and Joel, three.
1Ch 23:9 The sons of Shimei: Shelomoth, and Haziel, and Haran, three. These were the heads of the fathers' houses of Ladan.
1Ch 23:10 The sons of Shimei: Jahath, Zina, and Jeush, and Beriah. These four were the sons of Shimei.
1Ch 23:11 Jahath was the chief, and Zizah the second: but Jeush and Beriah didn't have many sons; therefore they became a fathers' house in one reckoning.
1Ch 23:12 The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, four.
1Ch 23:13 The sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses; and Aaron was separated, that he should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons, forever, to burn incense before Yahweh, to minister to him, and to bless in his name, forever.
1Ch 23:14 But as for Moses the man of God, his sons were named among the tribe of Levi.
1Ch 23:15 The sons of Moses: Gershom and Eliezer.
1Ch 23:16 The sons of Gershom: Shebuel the chief.
1Ch 23:17 The sons of Eliezer were: Rehabiah the chief; and Eliezer had no other sons; but the sons of Rehabiah were very many.
1Ch 23:18 The sons of Izhar: Shelomith the chief.
1Ch 23:19 The sons of Hebron: Jeriah the chief, Amariah the second, Jahaziel the third, and Jekameam the fourth.
1Ch 23:20 The sons of Uzziel: Micah the chief, and Isshiah the second.
1Ch 23:21 The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. The sons of Mahli: Eleazar and Kish.
1Ch 23:22 Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters only: and their brothers the sons of Kish took them to wife.
1Ch 23:23 The sons of Mushi: Mahli, and Eder, and Jeremoth, three.
1Ch 23:24 These were the sons of Levi after their fathers' houses, even the heads of the fathers' houses of those who were counted individually, in the number of names by their polls, who did the work for the service of the house of Yahweh, from twenty years old and upward.
1Ch 23:25 For David said, Yahweh, the God of Israel, has given rest to his people; and he dwells in Jerusalem forever:
1Ch 23:26 and also the Levites shall no more have need to carry the tabernacle and all its vessels for its service.
1Ch 23:27 For by the last words of David the sons of Levi were numbered, from twenty years old and upward.
1Ch 23:28 For their office was to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of Yahweh, in the courts, and in the chambers, and in the purifying of all holy things, even the work of the service of the house of God;
1Ch 23:29 for the show bread also, and for the fine flour for a meal offering, whether of unleavened wafers, or of that which is baked in the pan, or of that which is soaked, and for all manner of measure and size;
1Ch 23:30 and to stand every morning to thank and praise Yahweh, and likewise in the evening;
1Ch 23:31 and to offer all burnt offerings to Yahweh, on the Sabbaths, on the new moons, and on the set feasts, in number according to the ordinance concerning them, continually before Yahweh;
1Ch 23:32 and that they should keep the duty of the Tent of Meeting, and the duty of the holy place, and the duty of the sons of Aaron their brothers, for the service of the house of Yahweh.


Jul. 20, 21
Acts 13

Act 13:1 Now in the assembly that was at Antioch there were some prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Act 13:2 As they served the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Separate Barnabas and Saul for me, for the work to which I have called them."
Act 13:3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Act 13:4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia. From there they sailed to Cyprus.
Act 13:5 When they were at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. They had also John as their attendant.
Act 13:6 When they had gone through the island to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar Jesus,
Act 13:7 who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of understanding. This man summoned Barnabas and Saul, and sought to hear the word of God.
Act 13:8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn aside the proconsul from the faith.
Act 13:9 But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fastened his eyes on him,
Act 13:10 and said, "Full of all deceit and all cunning, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
Act 13:11 Now, behold, the hand of the Lord is on you, and you will be blind, not seeing the sun for a season!" Immediately a mist and darkness fell on him. He went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand.
Act 13:12 Then the proconsul, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord.
Act 13:13 Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphylia. John departed from them and returned to Jerusalem.
Act 13:14 But they, passing on from Perga, came to Antioch of Pisidia. They went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down.
Act 13:15 After the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, "Brothers, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, speak."
Act 13:16 Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, "Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen.
Act 13:17 The God of this people chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they stayed as aliens in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm, he led them out of it.
Act 13:18 For a period of about forty years he put up with them in the wilderness.
Act 13:19 When he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land for an inheritance, for about four hundred fifty years.
Act 13:20 After these things he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet.
Act 13:21 Afterward they asked for a king, and God gave to them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years.
Act 13:22 When he had removed him, he raised up David to be their king, to whom he also testified, 'I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my heart, who will do all my will.'
Act 13:23 From this man's seed, God has brought salvation to Israel according to his promise,
Act 13:24 before his coming, when John had first preached the baptism of repentance to Israel.
Act 13:25 As John was fulfilling his course, he said, 'What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. But behold, one comes after me the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.'
Act 13:26 Brothers, children of the stock of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, the word of this salvation is sent out to you.
Act 13:27 For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they didn't know him, nor the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled them by condemning him.
Act 13:28 Though they found no cause for death, they still asked Pilate to have him killed.
Act 13:29 When they had fulfilled all things that were written about him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb.
Act 13:30 But God raised him from the dead,
Act 13:31 and he was seen for many days by those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses to the people.
Act 13:32 We bring you good news of the promise made to the fathers,
Act 13:33 that God has fulfilled the same to us, their children, in that he raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second psalm, 'You are my Son. Today I have become your father.'
Act 13:34 "Concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he has spoken thus: 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.'
Act 13:35 Therefore he says also in another psalm, 'You will not allow your Holy One to see decay.'
Act 13:36 For David, after he had in his own generation served the counsel of God, fell asleep, and was laid with his fathers, and saw decay.
Act 13:37 But he whom God raised up saw no decay.
Act 13:38 Be it known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man is proclaimed to you remission of sins,
Act 13:39 and by him everyone who believes is justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Act 13:40 Beware therefore, lest that come on you which is spoken in the prophets:
Act 13:41 'Behold, you scoffers, and wonder, and perish; for I work a work in your days, a work which you will in no way believe, if one declares it to you.' "
Act 13:42 So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.
Act 13:43 Now when the synagogue broke up, many of the Jews and of the devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas; who, speaking to them, urged them to continue in the grace of God.
Act 13:44 The next Sabbath almost the whole city was gathered together to hear the word of God.
Act 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with jealousy, and contradicted the things which were spoken by Paul, and blasphemed.
Act 13:46 Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, and said, "It was necessary that God's word should be spoken to you first. Since indeed you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 For so has the Lord commanded us, saying, 'I have set you as a light for the Gentiles, that you should bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth.' "
Act 13:48 As the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God. As many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
Act 13:49 The Lord's word was spread abroad throughout all the region.
Act 13:50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, and stirred up a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and threw them out of their borders.
Act 13:51 But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came to Iconium.
Act 13:52 The disciples were filled with joy with the Holy Spirit.

Make Your Calling and Election Sure by J. C. Bailey


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

Make Your Calling and Election Sure

There are two things that reminded me of this Scripture. First, I have just attended the lectureship at Carman, Manitoba, and this statement was used as their theme. Yesterday I attended a political rally for a short time.
There are three men running in this constituency. I am told it is going to be a close race. All three candidates are working hard to make their election sure, but two of them will not succeed. However, in the election that Peter talks about in 2 Peter 1:10, all can be elected and all can retain their seat for time and for eternity. God, by Jesus Christ, is running the election and if we follow instructions we cannot fail.
No one deserves to be elected. This election makes us a child of God for time and for eternity. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Salvation is by grace (Titus 2:11). Grace brings us to the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord (2 Peter 1:2). His divine power has granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness. So it is of grace, for we have not earned it. We have not found it by our human wisdom but God has granted it unto us. How does he grant these things? Through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and virtue (2 Peter 1:3).
When a man seeks election to a human government, he tells people what he will do for them if he is elected. God tells us what He will do for us when we are elected and if we do not disqualify our position of trust: “Whereby he hath granted unto us his precious and exceeding great promises that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world by lust” (2 Peter 1:4). So if the great promises of God are to be ours, we must escape from the corruption that is in the world that comes by lust.
God tells us how we are to escape the corruption of the world. We are to add to our faith virtue. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). However, the devils believe and tremble (James 2:19). Faith, to be effective, must add virtue. It must enable us to escape from the corruption that is in the world by lust. Faith, in order to be effective, must cleanse the heart (Acts 15:9). Faith, to be effective, must cause us to overcome the world (1 John 5:4). If we are living an ungodly life, then our faith is not functioning properly. Our election is not sure.
To our virtue we are to add knowledge. In connection with this lesson, the word “knowledge” is used five times. So knowledge must be first. We are elected, and then we must make our calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10). Jeremiah told us: “O Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jeremiah 10:23). What is faith? We learn what it is by divine knowledge. What is virtue? We learn what it is by divine knowledge. Too many people decide what is virtuous by the whims of modern society rather than by the Word of God.
Knowledge leads us to self control. By the grace of God we can escape the corruptions that are in the world by lust. We no longer are hot and cold. For we add to self control, patience. The marginal rendering says “steadfastness.” The promise of God is to Him who overcomes (Revelation 2:10).
We are no longer tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. We are no longer lured by the lusts of the flesh for now we are able to add to our steadfastness, godliness. Knowledge has led us to think like God, and then we act as God would have us act. The world will not understand our actions but God does.
We are drawing closer to the point at which we are making our calling and election sure. Now we add “love of the brethren.” Surely this is one of the great blessings that comes to us. It can only be ours when we give it. There is an axiom that says, “What I give I keep and what I keep I lose.” This is so true of brotherly love. Who is loved the most? The one who loves the most. Then we add to brotherly love, the highest form of love. This is the love that is exemplified in 'God is love” (1 John 4:16).
This is the love that so loved the world that God gave (John 3:16). This love may be hard to divine but we can only acquire it by the knowledge of God.
We are not only to have these eight things but in these we must abound. When we have them then we are not idle or unfruitful. Again the word knowledge is used. By these virtues we abound in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:8).
“For he that lacketh these things is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sin” (2 Peter 1:9). He has failed all the way down the line. His faith is not right for we have already learned that by faith we overcome the world (1 John 5:4). Unless our faith is right then none of the other virtues can follow.
Men will work long hours; they will do everything they can in order to be elected. That election is for a few years but our election is for eternity. But we can be disqualified. “Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble” (2 Peter 1:10). The King James Version says that we will not fall.
“For thus (by zealously adding these eight virtues), shall be richly supplied unto you the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:11).
My wife and I were invited to the political rally. I was busy. We went late. We could not get a seat. We did not stay very long for we had to stand up. I could not but think that if we had the same zeal to be elected and to make sure we were not disqualified, how we would act.
Some months ago, I was invited to attend another political meeting. There were plenty of seats. There was little enthusiasm. You see they were not seeking election in that meeting. When I attended the meeting at the church last night, we acted more like the second group than the first one. Why?
J. C. Bailey, 1979, Weyburn, Saskatchewan

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

Controversial Jericho by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=666&b=Mark

Controversial Jericho

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Although the city of Jericho is mentioned only seven times in the New Testament, the passages in which the city is found have been under heavy attack by critics for centuries. Perhaps the most famous alleged geographical discrepancy surrounding Jericho is found in Luke 10 where Jesus told His unforgettable parable about the Good Samaritan. Jesus began the story saying, “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho” (10:30, emp. added). Many through the years have assumed Jesus was implying that Jericho was south of Jerusalem, since the man “went down” to get there. However, a quick look at a map of first-century Palestine (which can be found in the backs of most modern Bibles) shows that Jericho is several miles northeast of Jerusalem. Without looking any further into the geographical surroundings, one might assume that this represents a genuine discrepancy. After all, how can someone go “down” from point A to point B, if point B is north of point A?
As always, once all the facts are established, Jesus’ statement reconciles itself with truth quite easily. Although Jericho may be several miles north of Jerusalem, it is more than 3,500 feet lower in altitude. (Jerusalem is situated at an elevation of 2,550 feet above sea level, whereas Jericho is about 1,200 feet below sea level.) There is no way for a man to journey from Jerusalem to Jericho without going down in elevation. Needless to say, the argument which suggests that Jesus did not know His geography has been expelled from most skeptics’ repertoires in modern times. I only wish such could be said of the accusations surrounding the miracle He worked near the city of Jericho.
The case of the healing of the blind men near Jericho (recorded in Matthew 20:29-34, Mark 10:46-52, and Luke 18:35-43) has been highly criticized by skeptics. While both Mark and Luke mention the healing of only one blind man, Matthew records the healing of two men as Christ made His way to Jerusalem for the final Passover. Also, Matthew and Mark indicate that the blind men were healed as Jesus was leaving Jericho whereas Luke suggests that a blind man was healed as the Lord came near to the city. Allegedly, these differences surrounding Jesus’ miracle in the city of Jericho prove the fallacy of Bible writers.
In the first place, the fact that two of the Gospel accounts mention only one blind man, while the other mentions two, need not concern us. Just because Mark and Luke speak of only one blind man does not mean that they have at the same time denied that there were two blind men. Had Mark and Luke stated that Christ healed only one man, while Matthew then affirmed that more than one were healed, a contradiction would be apparent. But such is not the case. If one says, “Tim has a son,” he is not contradicted if someone else says, “Tim has a son and a daughter.” His statement was merely supplemented. [Matthew is the only one who recorded that Jesus performed this healing by a touch (20:34), but he does not give us the spoken words Jesus uttered as do Mark (10:52) and Luke (18:42).] There is no conflict, therefore, regarding the number of men involved. The accounts merely supplement one another. [This same reasoning should be used when dealing with the two demoniacs Matthew mentions (8:28ff.), compared with the one that Mark (5:2ff.) and Luke (8:27ff.) mention.]
Moreover, the fact that Mark mentioned by name one of the blind men (Bartimaeus) and his father (Timaeus, 10:46) might possibly indicate that Mark was centering on the blind man that he knew personally. If you lived during the time of Jesus and witnessed Him healing a number of people (with one of them being someone you knew), it would be understandable that when you returned home and spoke to your family you might speak only of the friend that Jesus healed. In no way is this being deceitful.
But how shall the second difficulty be resolved? Is there any logical reason as to why Matthew and Mark indicate that the blind men were healed as Jesus was leaving Jericho, while Luke mentions that a blind man was healed as the Lord came nearto the city? Actually, there are at least two realistic possibilities as to why the accounts are worded differently. First, it is possible that three blind men were healed in the vicinity of Jericho on this occasion. The instance mentioned by Luke as occurring when Jesus approached the city might have represented a different case than that recorded by Matthew and Mark. This explanation is supported by the fact that
Luke refers only to a “multitude” of people being present as Jesus entered the city (18:36), but both Matthew (20:29) and Mark (10:46) make a point to say there was a “ great multitude” of people there by the time Jesus left the city. If the word spread of the miraculous healing on the way into the city, this would account for the swelling of the crowd (Geisler and Howe, 1992, p. 353).
Though this suggestion about there being three blind men is considered by many to be remote, it is at least possible—and that is all that is required to negate an alleged discrepancy.
Another possible way to harmonize these passages is to understand that at the time of Christ there actually were two Jerichos. First, there was the Jericho of Old Testament history (Joshua 6:1ff.; 1 Kings 16:34). In the first century, however, that city existed as a small village lying mostly in ruins, and about two miles south of that site was the new Jericho built by Herod the Great. The Lord, therefore, traveling toward Jerusalem, would first pass through the Old Testament Jericho, and then, some two miles to the southwest, go through Herodian Jericho. Accordingly, the references of Matthew and Mark to Jesus leaving Jericho would allude to old Jericho, whereas Luke’s observation of Jesus drawing near to Jericho would refer to the newer city. Hence, the miracles under consideration may have been performed between the two Jerichos (Robertson, 1930, 1:163).
When a person studies passages such as these that critics allege are contradictory, one important fact should be remembered: If there is any reasonable way of harmonizing these records, no legitimate contradiction can be charged to the accounts. Unless one can show that the same thing is under consideration at the same time in the same sense, then it cannot be considered a legitimate contradiction. A mere difference does not make a contradiction!
REFERENCES
Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas A. Howe (1992), When Critics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books).
Robertson, A.T. (1931), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).

The Real Problem with American Public Education by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2578

The Real Problem with American Public Education

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Arguably, America has the most advanced educational system in human history. Who could deny that public education in America is heavily funded—and has been for many years. Indeed, American public schools have been the best financed schools in world history. American teachers are the most highly educated teachers in human history as well. More elementary and secondary school teachers have college and graduate degrees than ever before. And what’s more, American schools possess more sophisticated, technologically advanced equipment, aids, and facility furnishings than the rest of the world does.
Yet, it is no secret that American schools are in trouble. Schools cannot guarantee student performance. You’ve heard the horror stories of students graduating from high school without being able to read. Further, public schools are experiencing more discipline problems than ever before. There are more high school dropouts than ever. The list goes on. Politicians and educators have been scrambling for years to address the problem—from school vouchers to “no child left behind.”
So what is the problem? What has happened to American public education? If we have more money, more degreed teachers, and more educational tools, yet little improvement has been forthcoming, what is the problem? Could our sad situation possibly have anything to do with the fact that we have displaced God and religion from the classroom where they previously reigned for over a century and a half? The Founders of the American Republic anticipated and articulated the problem plainly. For example, Declaration of Independence signer Benjamin Rush stated: “[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments” (1798, p. 8, emp. added). Dr. Rush further stated:
We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism (pp. 93-94, emp. added).
Dr. Rush also insisted:
I wish to be excused for repeating here, that if the Bible did not convey a single direction for the attainment of future happiness, it should be read in our schools in preference to all other books, from, its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness.... By withholding the knowledge of this [Christian] doctrine from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds (1947, pp. 122,125, emp. and bracketed item added).
Noah Webster echoed the same sentiment: “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed” (1843, p. 291, emp. added).
Indeed, the central problem in American public education is strictly and solely moral and religious. Unless God and the principles of Christianity are returned to the schools, we can expect to see a continuation of the national downward spiral. As God instructed the Israelite nation of old: “Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren” (Deuteronomy 4:9, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Rush, Benjamin (1947), “The Bible as a School Book,” in The Selected Writings of Benjamin Rush, ed. Dagobert Runes, (New York: Philosophical Library), http://books.google.com/books?ct=result&id=SfVI4cYU2Y0C&dq=%22awakening+moral+sensibility%22&ots=qBCgbpRB4x&pg=PA125&lpg= PA125&sig=ACfU3U0oaK9Gl39Fi7YJsyRbKPJ3VbjLRg&q= school#PPP1,M1.
Rush, Benjamin (1798), Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia, PA: Thomas & Samuel Bradford).
Webster, Noah (1843), A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York: Webster and Clark).

Unnatural Causes by Jerry Fausz, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3831

Unnatural Causes

by Jerry Fausz, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxillary staff scientist Dr. Fausz holds a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from Georgia Tech.]
The most fundamental axiom of science is Causality: the belief that every material effect observed must have a sufficient cause preceding or simultaneous with it (Miller, 2011). The observed motion of a cart is difficult to explain, for example, unless we assume the existence of an appropriately placed horse (figuratively speaking, of course).  Scientific philosopher Sir Karl Popper wrote that the “rule” of causality “guides the scientific investigator in his work” (1968, p. 61). Actually, Popper refused to accept causality as a scientific “principle,” per se, but instead stated as a “methodological rule” that we should never “give up our attempts to explain causally any kind of event we can describe” (p. 61). I will not be so picky, as I believe that causality has been so thoroughly and consistently demonstrated by observation to be readily considered axiomatic, i.e., accepted without proof. Popper clearly indicates by his comments his belief that causality is heavily embedded in scientific thought and method. Nobel Laureate Erwin Schrödinger, upon defining causality, commented:
This postulate is sometimes called the “principle of causality.” Our belief in it has been steadily confirmed again and again by the progressive discovery of causes that specially condition each event (1957, p. 135).
The thoughts expressed by Popper and Schrödinger certainly support the idea that without an assumed “cause,” the scientific search would be quite aimless, if, indeed, possible at all.
The scientific importance of causality can be further illustrated with an amusing story related by noted theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking:
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!” (1988, p. 1).
Hawking’s anecdote invites several immediate observations regarding causality:
  1. Causality is fundamental to scientific reasoning. Note the scientist’s question in response to the lady’s statement. Why assume the tortoise is standing on anything, if not for the sake of causality?
  2. The principle requires effects to be natural or material (thus, observable to us). This is a somewhat trivial inference, for should an effect be unobservable in nature, then we would certainly not be concerned with knowing its cause. The observation implied in the story is nothing less than the existence of the Earth and its perceived place in the Universe.
  3. The statement of causality does not of necessity require a natural or material cause. Causes need only be sufficient and antecedent to/simultaneous with the effect to satisfy causality. For example, as a direct consequence of causality, the lady’s hypothesis in the story (a giant tortoise holding up the Earth) resulted, according to her explanation, in an infinite tower of turtles. While this conclusion is not natural by any means (and, arguably, not logical), it is admissible from the standpoint of causality. (For further interesting discussion of the “tower of turtles” analogy, see Davies, 1992, pp. 223-226).
The third statement, while last, is certainly not least important. Note that even miraculous events recorded in the Bible produced effects that were observable or measurable (e.g., water becoming grape juice, the Red Sea visibly parting, people who were observably dead becoming alive again, etc.). Otherwise, miraculous causes would probably be of little interest to us.
It turns out, though, that the admissibility of non-natural causes is the only way to avoid a serious dilemma in the causality assumption. Consider the following: if a cause is, or is assumed to be, material (observable) then, like its effect, it is also contingent—the cause itself must be the effect of yet another cause according to the scientific axiom of Causality. Consequently, a predetermination to assume only material causes will, necessarily, lead to an infinite sequence of them. For example, strict material causality dictates that the existence of life at its present state of complexity may only be explained by some form of evolution (special creation, while an admissible cause, is not material). In order for life to evolve to its present state of complexity, life had to develop from non-living matter; non-living matter had to somehow organize in a very specific way to provide the necessary constituents for life to generate (assuming, of course, this is even possible); in order to so organize, this matter had to have existed under certain special conditions; and so on.
The dilemma in this reasoning is clearly illustrated by the turtle analogy. If one assumes that the Earth rests on the back of a giant turtle, then the turtle needs to be supported by something. And, since the lady in the story was inclined to make the turtle assumption to begin with, why not just assume that it is standing on the back of another turtle, which is exactly what she did. But, what is the second turtle standing on? As long as one has predetermined to accept the turtle hypothesis, like material causality, the turtles will continue to pile up, like material causes, until we have an infinite number of them. To avoid this dilemma, an assumption must be made at some point in the chain that does not involve a turtle, or by analogy, does not conform to strict materialism.
A related principle has been demonstrated within the most logically consistent subject of study known to mankind—mathematics. In 1931, Kurt Gödel, an Austrian mathematician, proved a theorem holding that “for any consistent mathematical system there exists within the system a well formed statement that is not provable under the rules of the system” (Overman, 1997, p. 27). Commonly known as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, this result simply implies that to make progress within a mathematical system, certain facts need to be accepted axiomatically (that is, they cannot be proven from other facts in the system).
This principal also holds in other fields of reasoning. In fact, Paul Davies makes use of this idea when he proclaims:
I would rather not believe in supernatural events personally. Although I obviously can’t prove that they never happen, I see no reason to suppose that they do. My inclination is to assume that the laws of nature are obeyed at all times (1992, p. 15).
Here Davies assumes something to be true that, he admits, cannot be proven within his system of reasoning: the assumption that supernatural events do not occur. A tacit assumption in Davies’ statement, however, is the existence of time. While the natural laws may hold “at all times” (and supernatural events may not occur), we have already seen that assuming this to be true back to the beginning of time will lead to the equivalent of an infinite tower of turtles (an infinite causal sequence).
Speaking of the beginning of time, the most widely accepted theory for this event is the so-called “Big Bang.” This was hypothesized subsequent to the discovery that the Universe is expanding (Hawking, 1988, p. 38). Specifically, what astronomers discovered was that the light spectra of most of the stars in other galaxies were “red-shifted” (reducing in frequency), by which they assumed this indicates that those stars were moving away from us with increasing velocity. If the assumed expansion is extrapolated backwards in time, then one might suppose that there is a point in time at which all of the matter in the Universe was collocated (existed at the same point). This, of course, requires the highly non-trivial assumption that time actually extrapolates back to that point. Note that the expansion assumption does not necessarily follow since one might hypothesize other possible causes for the red-shift of the stars, such as nonlinear changes in the “elasticity” of space-time itself, perhaps as if the Universe was “stretched out” at its beginning (cf. “stretched out” [Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Jeremiah 10:12], or “spread out” [Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22]).
For now, though, consider what science thinks it knows about this assumed beginning point, called the Big Bang singularity. The term singularity in this context denotes a point at which some fundamental property ceases to exist or certain processes are undefined. For example, in mathematics dividing by zero creates a singularity because division by zero is undefined. To state this more precisely mathematically, the mathematical operation of division is undefined at zero, so the origin (zero) is called a singularity point with respect to the operation of division. In the case of the Big Bang singularity, the assumed reverse time extrapolation creates a point at which all of the matter in the Universe is collocated, or has “zero size” (Hawking, p. 117). This would necessarily imply infinite mass density which, according to general relativity, implies infinite curvature of space-time (Einstein, 1920). Physicists Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose have studied the properties of singularities predicted by general relativity quite extensively. Hawking observed that at such a point, “the laws of science and our ability to predict the future would break down” (p. 88). Since the laws of science as we understand them are undefined at this point, the point is called a singularity or, in this case, the Big Bang singularity.
So it seems, perhaps not unsurprisingly, that if the chain of causality could be followed back to a beginning of time as defined by the Big Bang, it would take us to a point in which natural laws do not apply. Hawking goes on to say: “[T]his means that one might as well cut the big bang, and any events before it, out of the theory, because they can have no effect on what we observe” (p. 122).  However, cutting the singularity out of the theory just serves to bog the theory down once again in the dilemma of material causality. When the ultimate conclusion of causality turns out to be an unnatural cause, and we cut it out of our theory simply because we desire to stick with material causality, then our reasoning can only lead us, again, to an infinite tower of turtles. Note that Davies points out that it doesn’t make sense to talk about “before” with reference to the Big Bang singularity since time presumably had its beginning there (p. 50).
All of our imagination and reasoning, as well as our experience and observation, point to a necessary break-down in strict material causality. Theories of an infinite Universe, mathematical incompleteness, and space-time singularities testify to a physical reality that cannot be completely deduced by the rules of the system. The logical conclusion is a cosmological model that admits unnatural cause.
Furthermore, if we are forced to assume an unnatural cause for the beginning of time, as the evidence suggests that, indeed, we are, then why should we necessarily presume, specifically, that in order to pinpoint the beginning of time, we should extrapolate back to a point in which all the mass in the Universe is collocated? As we have seen, Hawking suggested discarding the Big Bang singularity because its effects cannot be predicted by science. However, Hawking also points out that the singularity theory implies that space-time had a beginning and a boundary, prompting him to ask “What were the ‘boundary conditions’ at the beginning of time?”  He then comments: “One possible answer is that God chose the initial configuration of the universe” (p. 122).
Such boundary conditions as these could specify any of an infinite number of initial configurations and states for space-time and the matter that it contains. Indeed, boundary conditions are, by definition, these types of specifications. I see no particular reason to assume that these boundary conditions start with a point of infinite mass density and equally infinite space-time curvature, other than a predetermined desire to push material causality to its unnatural limit. These boundary conditions may, with equal probability, specify a Universe at the beginning of time that is not much different than what we now observe, thus implying that time has not progressed as far as some have conjectured. Perhaps that is why Hawking, using a mathematical contrivance he calls “imaginary time,” has more recently endeavored to create a consistent model of space-time that is finite but does not have a boundary, therefore would presumably not require any boundary conditions. Hawking, however, points out that this idea is “just a proposal: it cannot be deduced from some other principle” (p. 136).
The biblical Old Testament records that God said to Job: “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth? Tell me, if you have understanding” (Job 38:4). Job understood well the rhetorical nature of God’s question, for he had already proclaimed to his companions:
But where can wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding? Man does not know its value, nor is it found in the land of the living. The deep says, “It is not in me”; and the sea says, “It is not with me.” It cannot be purchased for gold, nor can silver be weighed for its price (Job 28:12-15).
Clearly, Job observed that complete understanding does not lie in materialism or nature and, if he did not know it before, God pointed out to him that neither does the knowledge of how “the foundations of the Earth” were established. Even what understanding we do have contains immutable evidence of its own hard-coded limitations in explaining the observable Universe.
Our observations and reasoning tell us that the foundations of the Universe could not possibly have been laid through strictly material or natural causality. Theories of cosmology, physics, and even mathematics point to the necessity of a Cause that operates independent of the rules of the system. These theories, however, while they can point to the necessity of unnatural causes, are impotent when it comes to explaining those causes. The Bible closes this gap in our theories by telling us of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator who is capable of operating outside of nature to make everything we observe out of what we cannot observe. The divinely guided Hebrews writer articulated this very concept in his striking statement against strict material causality: “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” (11:3).
If we pay attention to what all of our observation and reasoning are telling us, then our mind’s eye will “see” the foundations of the Universe being laid, not by material or natural causality, but by the omnipotent Creator, God, working outside of nature to set the boundary conditions, bringing natural laws on-line to shape and direct His creation. And our reasoning will, in turn, no longer require an infinite tower of turtles.

REFERENCES

Davies, Paul (1992), The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Einstein, Albert (1920), Relativity: The Special and the General Theory (New York: Barnes & Noble).
Hawking, Stephen (1988), A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam Books).
Miller, Jeff (2011), “God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3716.
Overman, Dean (1997), A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).
Popper Karl (1968), The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Harper & Row).
Schrödinger, Ernst (1957), Science Theory and Man (New York: Dover Publications).