March 1, 2017

LOOK, and keep LOOKING!!! by Gary Rose


















Almost every day I see something like this when I take Pal for a walk. There must be hundreds of squirrels of all varieties throughout the park where I live and it is very common to see one of them just "LOOKING". Question: am I looking?

Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, says...


Titus, Chapter 2 (World English Bible)
 11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,  12 instructing us to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we would live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age;  13 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, (emp. added vs.13, GDR) 14 who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify for himself a people for his own possession, zealous for good works.


Looking to Jesus and for Jesus should be the hallmark of the Christian life!!! Looking to Jesus for help to live godly life and looking for Jesus to take us to heaven!!! Just imitate that little picture of the squirrel...  😄😄😄

LOOK, and keep LOOKING!!!

Bible Reading, March 1 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading, March 1 (World English Bible)


Mar.1
Exodus 11
Exo 11:1 Yahweh said to Moses, "Yet one plague more will I bring on Pharaoh, and on Egypt; afterwards he will let you go. When he lets you go, he will surely thrust you out altogether.
Exo 11:2 Speak now in the ears of the people, and let them ask every man of his neighbor, and every woman of her neighbor, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold."
Exo 11:3 Yahweh gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians. Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight of the people.
Exo 11:4 Moses said, "This is what Yahweh says: 'About midnight I will go out into the midst of Egypt,
Exo 11:5 and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the female servant who is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of livestock.
Exo 11:6 There shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there has not been, nor shall be any more.
Exo 11:7 But against any of the children of Israel a dog won't even bark or move its tongue, against man or animal; that you may know that Yahweh makes a distinction between the Egyptians and Israel.
Exo 11:8 All these your servants shall come down to me, and bow down themselves to me, saying, "Get out, with all the people who follow you;" and after that I will go out.' " He went out from Pharaoh in hot anger.
Exo 11:9 Yahweh said to Moses, "Pharaoh won't listen to you, that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt."
Exo 11:10 Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh, and Yahweh hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he didn't let the children of Israel go out of his land.
March
Mar.1, 2
Mark 3
Mar 3:1 He entered again into the synagogue, and there was a man there who had his hand withered.
Mar 3:2 They watched him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day, that they might accuse him.
Mar 3:3 He said to the man who had his hand withered, "Stand up."
Mar 3:4 He said to them, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? To save a life, or to kill?" But they were silent.
Mar 3:5 When he had looked around at them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their hearts, he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored as healthy as the other.
Mar 3:6 The Pharisees went out, and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.
Mar 3:7 Jesus withdrew to the sea with his disciples, and a great multitude followed him from Galilee, from Judea,
Mar 3:8 from Jerusalem, from Idumaea, beyond the Jordan, and those from around Tyre and Sidon. A great multitude, hearing what great things he did, came to him.
Mar 3:9 He spoke to his disciples that a little boat should stay near him because of the crowd, so that they wouldn't press on him.
Mar 3:10 For he had healed many, so that as many as had diseases pressed on him that they might touch him.
Mar 3:11 The unclean spirits, whenever they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, "You are the Son of God!"
Mar 3:12 He sternly warned them that they should not make him known.
Mar 3:13 He went up into the mountain, and called to himself those whom he wanted, and they went to him.
Mar 3:14 He appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them out to preach,
Mar 3:15 and to have authority to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons:
Mar 3:16 Simon, to whom he gave the name Peter;
Mar 3:17 James the son of Zebedee; John, the brother of James, and he surnamed them Boanerges, which means, Sons of Thunder;
Mar 3:18 Andrew; Philip; Bartholomew; Matthew; Thomas; James, the son of Alphaeus; Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot;
Mar 3:19 and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. He came into a house.
Mar 3:20 The multitude came together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.
Mar 3:21 When his friends heard it, they went out to seize him: for they said, "He is insane."
Mar 3:22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He has Beelzebul," and, "By the prince of the demons he casts out the demons."
Mar 3:23 He summoned them, and said to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan?
Mar 3:24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
Mar 3:25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
Mar 3:26 If Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he can't stand, but has an end.
Mar 3:27 But no one can enter into the house of the strong man to plunder, unless he first binds the strong man; and then he will plunder his house.
Mar 3:28 Most certainly I tell you, all sins of the descendants of man will be forgiven, including their blasphemies with which they may blaspheme;
Mar 3:29 but whoever may blaspheme against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"
Mar 3:30 -because they said, "He has an unclean spirit."
Mar 3:31 His mother and his brothers came, and standing outside, they sent to him, calling him.
Mar 3:32 A multitude was sitting around him, and they told him, "Behold, your mother, your brothers, and your sisters are outside looking for you."
Mar 3:33 He answered them, "Who are my mother and my brothers?"
Mar 3:34 Looking around at those who sat around him, he said, "Behold, my mother and my brothers!
Mar 3:35 For whoever does the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."

Saved by Many Things by J. C. Bailey


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

Saved by Many Things

It is widely taught in the religious world that we are saved by faith alone. I once heard a man preaching on the radio who declared that we are saved by grace alone. The Bible certainly teaches that we are saved by faith. When the Philippian jailer asked Paul what he should do to be saved, Paul told him to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31). Paul wrote to Titus and said that the grace of God has appeared and brought salvation to all men (Titus 2:11). There is no contradiction here and neither verse says that we are saved by faith alone or by grace alone. The Holy Spirit declares through the apostle Paul that by faith we have access to God's grace (Romans 5:1,2). So we see there is no contradiction in the Scriptures when it says we are saved by grace and we are saved by faith.

The Scriptures teach that we are saved by obedience. We read: “...though he was a son, yet learned he obedience by the things that he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation” (Hebrews 5:8,9). Is there any contradiction here? No, there is never any contradiction in the word of God. Jesus, in His prayer to the Father, said: “Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17). Truth never contradicts itself. That is an impossibility.

Obedient Faith
Let us show then that there is no contradiction between being saved by obedience and being saved by faith through grace. Let us read from the Word of God again: “And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7). So we see that the faith that saves is an obedient faith. James, by the power of the Holy Spirit, put it this way: “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead” (James 2:26).

One brother in India said to me: “It is hard to reconcile James and Romans.” I said, “It is not difficult to reconcile James and Romans. The problem is that you cannot reconcile James with what you think Romans teaches.”

It is a very common fallacy of the religious world to claim that Paul taught justification by faith alone in the book of Romans. He did not. Let us see what Paul said in the book of Romans. We read: “Who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we received grace and apostleship, unto obedience of faith among all nations, for his name's sake” (Romans 1:4,5). So instead of Paul teaching justification by faith alone, he plainly stated by the power of the Holy Spirit that he was talking about an obedient faith. Lest the world should fail to grasp this great truth, he said in the very last chapter, referring to mystery of the gospel: “...but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26).

Love of the Truth
The Scriptures clearly point out that we are saved by these things. So as we study and learn more things by which we are saved we shall have no problem as long as we do not teach that we are saved by any one of them alone. If we are going to be saved, we must love the truth (II Thessalonians 2:10).

Jesus said that the word is truth (John 17:17). He said that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all the truth. “But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you” (John 14:26). Jesus further declared: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he shall guide you into all the truth; for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall be speak; and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come” (John 16:13).

So the Holy Spirit gave the apostles the truth. He gave them all the truth. He guided them into all the truth. We are to love the truth. We would not take from it nor would we add to it. John now talks to us by the power of the Holy Spirit: “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God; he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son” (II John 9).

We have studied enough now that we can see the truth in God's Word when it says: “Wherefore putting away all filthiness and overflowing of wickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls” (James 1:21). How does the Word save? When we believe it. “So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ” (Romans 10:17).

The Place of Baptism
If we have faithfully followed the teaching of the Scriptures we shall not have trouble in accepting the fact that we are saved by baptism (I Peter 3:21). Why do people reject this plain statement of Scripture? Because they have been taught that we are saved by faith alone. We are saved by receiving with meekness the implanted word. We are to abide in the teaching. Here is what Jesus said: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mark 16:15,16). No child of twelve years old could misunderstand what it says here. Why do men who profess to be Bible scholars reject this plain statement? Jesus gave us the reason: “And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your traditions” (Mark 7:9). The tradition of man today is that we are justified by faith alone. In order to hold to that tradition they must reject the commandment of Jesus in Mark 16:15,16. If you, in times past, have held to that tradition of justification by faith alone, will you continue to hold to it and reject the commandment of God?

The day the gospel was first preached, after the sermon by Peter, the people asked the question: “Brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). Now listen carefully to Peter's answer for it was the answer of the Holy Spirit: “Repent ye and be baptized every one in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Is there anything difficult to understand about this? No. Why does nearly the whole religious world reject this command? They want to maintain their doctrine of justification by faith alone.

The line is drawn. The issue is clear. If we teach justification by faith alone, we must reject the commandments of God, but if we accept the fact that we are saved by an obedient faith we can accept every Scripture we have used. We can accept all Scriptures. If we keep the human doctrine of justification by faith alone then we must reject the commandment of God as revealed in the New Testament.

The battle line is drawn up. Some day we are going to be judged by the Word of God (John 12:48). Why not live by it now!

J. C. Bailey, 1982, Dauphin, Manitoba


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

Love is not Jealous, so Why is God? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=777&b=1%20John

Love is not Jealous, so Why is God?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The argument goes something like this: (1) 1 John 4:8 indicates that “God is love;” (2) 1 Corinthians 13:4 says that “love is not jealous” (NAS); and yet (3) Exodus 20:5, along with several other passages, reveals that God is “a jealous God.” “How,” the skeptic asks, “can God be jealous when several verses say God is love and 1 Cor. says love is not jealous?” (McKinsey, 1992). Simply put, if love is not jealous, and God is love, then God logically cannot be called jealous. Or conversely, if love is not jealous, and God is jealous, then God cannot be considered loving. Right? How can these verses be anything but contradictory?
The term “jealousy” most often carries a negative connotation in twenty-first-century America. We pity the man who is jealous of his coworker’s success. We frown upon families who react to a neighbor’s newly found fortune by becoming overcome with jealously. And we are perturbed to hear of a jealous husband who distrusts his wife, and questions every possible wrong action that she might make, even going so far as demanding that she never leave the house without him. Add to these feelings about jealousy what various New Testament passages have to say on the subject, and one can understand why some might sincerely question why God is described at times as “jealous.” The apostle Paul admonished the Christians in Rome to “behave properly,” and put off “strife and jealousy” (Romans 13:13, NAS). To the church at Corinth, Paul expressed concern that when he came to their city he might find them involved in such sinful things as gossip, strife, and jealousy (2 Corinthians 12:20). And, as noted above, he explicitly told them that “love is not jealous” (1 Corinthians 13:4). James also wrote about the sinfulness of jealousy, saying that where it exists “there is disorder and every evil thing” (3:16; cf. Acts 7:9). One religious writer described such jealousy as “an infantile resentment springing from unmortified covetousness, which expresses itself in envy, malice, and meanness of action” (Packer, 1973, p. 189). It seems, more often than not, that both the New Testament and the “moral code” of modern society speak of “jealousy” in a negative light.
The truth is, however, sometimes jealously can be spoken of in a good sense. The word “jealous” is translated in the Old Testament from the Hebrew word qin’ah, and in the New Testament from the Greek word zelos. The root idea behind both words is that of “warmth” or “heat” (Forrester, 1996). The Hebrew word for jealousy carries with it the idea of “redness of the face that accompanies strong emotion” (Feinberg, 1942, p. 429)—whether right or wrong. Depending upon the usage of the word, it can be used to represent both a good and an evil passion. Three times in 1 Corinthians, Paul used this word in a good sense to encourage his brethren to “earnestly desire (zeeloúte)” spiritual gifts (12:31; 14:1,39). He obviously was not commanding the Corinthians to sin, but to do something that was good and worthwhile. Later, when writing to the church at Corinth, the apostle Paul was even more direct in showing how there was such a thing as “godly jealousy.” He stated:
I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it (2 Corinthians 11:2-4, emp. added).
Paul’s burning desire was for the church at Corinth to abide in the love of God. As a friend of the bridegroom (Christ), Paul used some of the strongest language possible to encourage the “bride” of Christ at Corinth to be pure and faithful.
In a similar way, Jehovah expressed His love for Israel in the Old Testament by proclaiming to be “a jealous God” (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 4:24). He was not envious of the Israelites’ accomplishments or possessions, but was communicating His strong love for them with anthropomorphic language. The Scriptures depict a spiritual marriage between Jehovah and His people. Sadly, during the period of the divided kingdom, both Israel and Judah were guilty of “playing the harlot” (Jeremiah 3:6-10). God called Israel’s idolatrous practice “adultery,” and for this reason He had “put her away and given her a certificate of divorce” (3:8). This is not the “lunatic fury of a rejected or supplanted suitor,” but a “zeal to protect a love-relationship” (Packer, p. 189). Jehovah felt for Israel “as the most affectionate husband could do for his spouse, and was jealous for their fidelity, because he willed their invariable happiness” (Clarke, 1996, emp. added). Song of Solomon 8:6 is further proof that love and jealousy are not always opposed to each other. To her beloved, the Shulamite said: “Put me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm. For love is as strong as death, jealousy is as severe as Sheol; its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the Lord” (NAS). In this passage, love and jealousy actually are paralleled to convey the same basic meaning (see Tanner, 1997, p. 158)—that (aside from one’s love for God) marital love is “the strongest, most unyielding and invincible force in human experience” (NIV Study Bible, 1985, p. 1012). In this sense, being a jealous husband or wife is a good thing. As one commentator noted, married persons “who felt no jealousy at the intrusion of a lover or an adulterer into their home would surely be lacking in moral perception; for the exclusiveness of marriage is the essence of marriage” (Tasker, 1967, p. 106).
Truly, love has a jealous side. There is a sense in which one legitimately can be jealous for what rightfully belongs to him (see Numbers 25). Such is especially true in the marriage relationship. Israel was God’s chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6). He had begun to set them apart as a special nation by blessing their “father” Abraham (Genesis 12:1ff; 17:1-27). He blessed the Israelites with much numerical growth while living in Egypt (Exodus 1:7,12,19; Deuteronomy 26:5; cf. Genesis 15:5; 46:3). He delivered them from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 3-12). And, among other things, He gave them written revelation, which, if obeyed, would bring them spiritually closer to Jehovah, and even would make them physically superior to other nations, in that they would be spared from various diseases (see Exodus 15:26). Like a bird that watches over her eggs and young with jealousy, preventing other birds from entering her nest, God watched over the Israelites with “righteous” jealousy, unwilling to tolerate the presence of false gods among his people (see Exodus 20:3-6; Joshua 24:14-16,19-20). Such “godly jealousy” (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:2) was not what Paul had in mind in 1 Corinthians 13:4.

REFERENCES

Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Feinberg, Charles Lee (1942), “Exegetical Studies in Zechariah: Part 10,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 99:428-439, October.
Forrester, E.J. (1996), “Jealousy,” International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Electronic Database Biblesoft).
McKinsey, C. Dennis (1992), [On-line], URL: http://members.aol.com/chas1222/bepart56.html.
NIV Study Bible (1985), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Packer, J.I. (1973), Knowing God (London: Hodder and Stoughton).
Tanner, J. Paul (1997), “The Message of the Song of Songs,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 154: 142-161, April.
Tasker, R.V.G. (1967), The Epistle of James (London: Tyndale Press).

Pedophilia: Too Disgusting to Discuss, Too Dangerous Not To by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2269

Pedophilia: Too Disgusting to Discuss, Too Dangerous Not To

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

[WARNING: The subject matter of this article may not be appropriate for children to read.]
When my mother was a child, she was manipulated and sexually abused multiple times by two different men, one whom she highly respected. Like so many children, she did not tell anyone about the incidents until several years later. She attempted to block the memories from her mind, as if they never occurred. To this day she is convinced that one reason she recalls so little about her childhood is because for years, beginning early on, she suppressed her memories.
When my first cousin was growing up, she was sexually molested numerous times. From what I understand, she was the target of a man whom she trusted from the time she was a toddler until she was a teenager. No one will ever know how deep her emotional scars were, or the extent to which her perpetrator’s acts warped her mind. What I do know is that she died of an apparent suicide (drug overdose) years later.
When I was about seven years old, I recall a respected leader in a local church asking me to accompany him to a small restroom in the back of the church building. I do not recall why he said he wanted me to go with him, but I did not feel any need to doubt that he had a good reason. Sadly, once in the restroom, he locked the door with a high-reaching latch, lowered his pants, and asked me if I thought there was something wrong with his private parts. I said “no,” immediately stood next to the door, and waited for him to let me out. Before leaving, he looked at me and said, “Don’t tell anyone about this.”
For about three years, I never said a word to anyone about this incident. I don’t know why. I do not remember being scared after it happened. I do not recall continually thinking about it. I suppose I suppressed the “very awkward memory” somewhat like my mother had done years earlier with her much more painful memories. One night while on vacation, during a conversation with one of my older brothers about the man in question, I mentioned the incident. My brother immediately took me to our parents. What I eventually learned was that my brother had been a target of this same homosexual pedophile on three different occasions.
Later in life, I learned that a man with whom I had worked for four years was guilty of homosexual pedophilia, or at the very least homosexual predation. From everything I know about the matter, the only reason he was not tried and convicted for his shameful, hideous actions, and the only reason that a grand jury did not bring a criminal indictment against him regarding his last known victim, was due to the fact that the manipulated victim was above “the age of consent” (16), as apparently were all of the other victims who were willing to tell their stories.
Recently, I learned that an old neighborhood friend, a star high-school athlete who went on to play college baseball, had returned to his hometown, met a 15-year-old boy on-line, drove 1,000 miles to the city where he lived, and sexually assaulted him. Sadly, this sexual predator, who is currently serving several years in prison, was a long-time Little League baseball coach. It is alleged that he assaulted numerous young boys in his hometown, including one of them more than 20 times.
I am not a psychologist. I am not a therapist. I am not a certified counselor. But I am a concerned Christian who has heard and seen enough to know that sexual child predators are dangerous, patient, methodical, manipulative, and can be found practically anywhere—from schools to churches and from office buildings to ball fields. Christians must not walk in fear of evil (Psalm 23:4), but we do need to be warned of wickedness (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:14-5:13). We may not speak in specific detail about “those things which are done…in secret,” which are too “shameful even to speak of,” but the “unfruitful works of darkness” (Ephesians 5:11-12), including the ever-present problem of sexual child predation, must not be ignored. “For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (John 3:20).
Some time ago, I received an 11-page, single-spaced letter from a penitent child molester who has been in prison for the past 10 years. Prompted by an article he read from Apologetics Press on the subject of “Homosexuality and Public Education” (see Lyons, 2011), the prisoner (whom I’ll simply refer to as John) began his letter by referring to the “danger inherent in promoting homosexuality (the pro-homosexual agenda) to impressionable children.” He wrote:
When the public school system pushes a pro-homosexual agenda on to young children and says it’s okay for two men or two women to fall in love and live just like a married man and woman, they’re unwittingly helping the pederast with the grooming process. They’re not making children any safer. They’re putting at least the boys at a greater risk. Why? Because school teachers—the most influential people in most children’s lives—are telling them that being “gay” isn’t anything bad. A pederast who lives in an area where a pro-homosexuality agenda is promoted in the public school systems will know this is being taught and will not hesitate in the least to use this to groom and manipulate the boy he wants to molest into a sexual encounter. It’s a foundation (the pro-homosexual agenda) the pederast can and will build upon (emp. added).
After this penitent pederast briefly raised this genuine and troublesome concern about the homosexual agenda targeting public schools, he then stated his main reason for penning the letter: “It is my intent to take my past experiences and use that to better equip parents to better protect their young sons…. I invite and encourage you to share this information with others…. I can never really make up for what I did, but I can be part of the solution rather than the problem.” Although much of what John wrote was more graphic than I feel comfortable sharing in this article, I believe that the following information that he penned may very well “better equip parents to better protect their sons” and daughters.
According to John…
  • “More times than not, the abuser will be someone the child likes (loves) and looks up to. I [John] operated by simultaneously befriending and earning the trust of the parents and the affection, friendship, and loyalty of the little boy I wanted to molest. Tragically, too many parents have a ‘perimeter defense,’ but not a ‘close proximity defense.’ In reference to the boy I’m in prison over, I was able to molest him on numerous occasions with his parents in the other room; just seconds away. On other occasions his parents were outside and my victim and I were alone in the house” (emp. in orig.).
  • “The goal of grooming (methodically setting up) a young boy for a sexual encounter is to desensitize him to and normalize this type of sexual behavior.” The predator will likely try to “desensitize the boy to the sexual act by couching it in words and in an atmosphere of love and affection.”
  • Sexual child abusers will “go out of their way to be patient, gentle, kind, and totally non-threatening so that the child will really like him and not feel the least bit threatened in any way by him…. This is another component of that manipulative, coldly calculated process.”
  • “There are what you think to be ‘harmless’ expressions of affection. What you don’t realize is that the would-be molester [enjoys] holding a little boy, just to touch his body—his skin. That’s why I [John] enjoyed ‘wrestling’ gently with and tickling (ribs, armpits, just above knee-cap, and bottoms of feet) the little boy I molested. This desensitizes the child to the abuser’s touch. Regular, intimate physical contact is normalized by these ‘harmless’ incidents.” That “sets the stage” for (1) references to private parts in humorous contexts, and (2) “accidental” touching of private parts, which often leads to all-out abusive behavior that the perpetrator will couch as much as possible as “innocent enjoyment.”
  • “The abuser…will try to create as many opportunities to be around him (them) as is possible without arousing parental suspicion. This can be a red flag to look for. Is a man/older teen a bit too eager to spend unsupervised time with your son? Is the boy too eager to spend unsupervised time with this man/older teen? Is the older person trying too hard to have occasion to ‘baby sit’ or have the boy over for a “boys’ night out sleep-over”? If so, one would need to seriously ask himself/herself, ‘Why does this man or teenager want to spend so much alone time with my son? Why isn’t he more interested in peer-appropriate relationships?’” [NOTE: “You don’t need to be paranoid about everyone who pays attention to your children and plays with them some. I [John] am referring to those whose interactions with children outweigh their peer interactions. This would have to be observed over a period of time.”]
As John began to conclude these thoughts, he wrote that, if your child has been sexually abused, “the most important priority is to learn the identity of the abuser so that you can protect your son from further molestation and bring criminal charges against the offender, who will not stop until caught” (emp. in orig.). As a former child molester, John wants parents to know that sexual predators “will not stop until caught.” As difficult as it might be, one of the greatest things a person may ever do (1) for a sexual predator and (2) for the children of a given community, is turn the child molester in. Before getting caught, John was living a lie. He was “in church every time the doors opened.” He went to worship on Sunday mornings and abused his victim on Sunday nights. It was only after getting caught, and after several years in prison that John “obeyed the Gospel from the heart” (emp. in orig.). He says that he is “striving daily to be a faithful, sincere New Testament Christian” (emp. in orig.) and asked for prayers for himself, for the boy he molested more than 10 years ago, for the boy’s family, and for his [John’s] own parents, who were “nearly destroyed…emotionally” upon learning that their son was a child molester.
This world is full of heartache. Sin is all around (especially sexual sins—see Miller, 2006). Satan is alive and well (1 Peter 5:8). But thank God for the Gospel of Christ, which has the power to change lives (Romans 1:16; Hebrews 4:12). It can turn a murderer like Paul into a preacher. It can comfort the family who has been invaded by a sexual predator. It can lead homosexuals to repent and become sincere Christians (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). It can work on the heart of a child molester, and change him into a man who no longer hides his sinful predatory actions, but reaches out for help, hoping to “be part of the solution rather than the problem.”
May God help us all to be a part of the solution. We need not be suspicious of every person who hugs our child or buys our kid an ice cream cone. We must not “accuse anyone falsely” (Luke 3:14, NASB). We must not leave love behind, but rather remember that love “is ever ready to believe the best of every person” (1 Corinthians 13:7; Clarke, 1996). At the same time, Christians must be alert and watchful (1 Thessalonians 5:6). We must take great care of the children whom God has given us, who are “like arrows in the hand of a warrior” (Psalm 127:3-3). And, we should be wise enough not to stick our heads in the sand, but learn from those (like John) who are willing to help shed light on the dangerous, dark world of sexual child predators.
“Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong. Let all that you do be done with love” (1 Corinthians 16:13-14).

REFERENCES

Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Lyons, Eric (2011), “Homosexuality and Public Education,” Reason & Revelation, 31[11]:110-119, December, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1007&article=1698.
Miller, Dave (2006), Sexual Anarchy (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Evolution and the Blame Game by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1403

Evolution and the Blame Game

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Adam blamed Eve (Genesis 3:12). Eve blamed Satan (3:13). The Israelites blamed Moses (Exodus 14:10-12). Saul blamed the Israelites (1 Samuel 15:15). Ahab blamed Elijah (1 Kings 18:17-18). Since the beginning of time, man has sought to shun personal responsibility by shifting blame elsewhere for his sinful actions. Children pick up on this early in life as they frequently look to siblings for a way out of trouble. “Ricky made me do it....” “Rachel started it....” “Lance dared me to....” Normally, discussions on shifting culpability to others are negative in nature. Blameworthy individuals who refuse to admit their wrongdoings are acting sinfully and irresponsibly (1 John 1:8-10; cf. 2 Samuel 12:13). Among atheistic evolutionists, however, the blameworthy become the blameless; anything and everything can be chocked up to “the overpowering forces of evolutionary genes.”
In 2000, Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer authored A Natural History of Rape in which they alleged that “[e]volutionary theory applies to rape, as it does to other areas of human affairs, on both logical and evidentiary grounds. There is no legitimate scientific reason not to apply evolutionary or ultimate hypotheses to rape” (p. 55). They continued: “Human rape arises from men’s evolved machinery for obtaining a high number of mates in an environment where females choose mates” (p. 190, emp. added). Although Thornhill and Palmer “would like to see rape eradicated from human life” (p. xi), they are forced to conclude, in essence, that nothing is ultimately wrong with the practice (see Butt, 2005 for more discussion).
Fast forward six years to the 2006 meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Prague, Czech Republic. According to the society’s official Web site, evolutionist Dr. Laurence Shaw argued that teenage sexual promiscuity and subsequent pregnancy should be accepted as normal since they are simply “consequences of evolution” (“Teenage...,” 2006). He stated:
[B]efore we condemn our teenagers for having sex behind the bike sheds and becoming pregnant, we should remember that this is a natural response by these girls to their rising fertility levels. Society may ‘tut, tut’ about them, but their actions are part of an evolutionary process that goes back nearly two million years; whilst their behaviour may not fit with Western society’s expectations, it is perhaps useful to consider it in the wider context (“Teenage...,” emp. added).
Allegedly, when pre-marital sexual relations and teenage pregnancy are examined in view of the “wider context,” namely, our alleged evolutionary heritage, they are perceived simply as natural, normal, and acceptable. That is, pre-marital sex is not wrong, and teenage pregnancy is not a blight on society.
Dr. Shaw’s comments are just another example of how destructive evolutionary thought really is when taken to its logical conclusion. If there is no God, and man evolved from slime, then there are no universal, timeless, moral truths. Right and wrong exist only in a world where an infinite, eternal, Almighty God exists. If our alleged mammalian, reptilian, and amphibian ancestors did not restrain themselves sexually, why should we? If our supposed ape-like ancestors could mate whenever, wherever, and with whomever, without feeling a twinge of guilt, so can we! What’s more, to criticize individuals for acting a certain way (i.e., engaging in pre-marital sexual relations) is intolerable and reveals a lack of intelligence. Dr. Shaw even mocked those who “condemn” sexual promiscuity and teenage pregnancy by saying they “tut, tut” about something without sufficient awareness of the past.
Although Christians increasingly are viewed as unenlightened and shallow minded, they actually are the ones who understand where irrational, atheistic evolutionary thought ultimately leads. If sexual relations outside of marriage are merely “natural” and “part of an evolutionary process,” then what about the many other things man may desire to do? It may be “natural” for a person to covet (and take) what another possess. Stronger animals are often seen taking what weaker animals possess. Should we tolerate theft, reasoning that our “actions are part of an evolutionary process” that goes back millions of years? It may be “natural” for people to have a desire to kill someone for making them upset (e.g., being cut off by someone in traffic). Since our animal ancestors killed each other, and since animals today continue to kill, why shouldn’t we? Can you imagine if such argumentation—“I’m not guilty because my animal instincts made me do it”—was used in theft and murder trials? By taking atheistic evolution to its logical conclusion, one can see how repulsive and destructive the philosophy really is. Evolution naturally leads to lawlessness and social anarchy.
Since sin entered the world, man has compounded the error of his ways by seeking to circumvent the consequences of his actions. Sadly, evolutionists have taken the blame game to a whole new level. If we can legitimately blame sexual promiscuity, teenage pregnancy, and rape on our animal heritage, how could we ever be held responsible for anything? Perhaps this “freedom” from responsibility is the major attraction to evolutionary philosophy: “Accept our naturalistic explanation of things and you will never have to feel guilty for anything again.”
In reality, sin can never be cured by shifting culpability to anything or anyone other than self. It was not until King David owned up to his sin that the Lord forgave him (2 Samuel 12:13). Only when Peter humbled himself and confessed his sin was he fit to fish for men (Luke 5:8-11). Even Christians must continually confess their sins in order to be cleansed of them by the blood of Jesus (1 John 1:8-10). Truly, a guiltless life begins, not in the acceptance of a temporary, godless, lawless, hedonistic philosophy like atheistic evolution, but in the submission to Almighty God, Who graciously offers guilt-free, eternal life through His Son (John 3:16; Revelation 22:17).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2005), “Rape and Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/306.
“Teenage and 60-Year-Old Mums are Consequences of Evolution” (2006), European Society of Human Reproduction & Embryology, [On-line], URL: http://www.eshre.com/emc.asp?pageId=795.
Thornhill, Randy and Craig T. Palmer (2000), A Natural History of Rape (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

“The Church of God” and the Deity of Christ by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=2034

“The Church of God” and the Deity of Christ

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The church of which all Christians are to be a part is God’s church. Although many so-called Christians claim to be members of the church that God established nearly 2,000 years ago, they often wear names that indicate ownership by, or allegiance to, men (or offices of men). Some call themselves the “Lutheran Church” (after Martin Luther). Others call themselves after the designated local leaders of the church, e.g., Episcopalians (from the Greek word for bishop) and Presbyterians (from the Greek word for elder). The Scriptures, however, make clear that the church to which all of God’s children are to belong is not a church begun by man, owned by man, or called after man (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:10-17). Christians must accept the fact that the church of the New Testament is God’s church, not man’s.
Several times in the New Testament, the term “church” (Greek ekklesia) is linked together with the Greek term theos (God), and thus one easily can ascertain the fact that the church to which obedient believers belong is the church begun and owned by God. Paul wrote “to the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1, emp. added), and later commanded the Corinthians to “[g]ive no offense...to the church of God” (1 Corinthians 10:32-33, emp. added). He confessed to the churches of Galatia that he had “persecuted the church of God” before becoming a Christian (Galatians 1:13, emp. added). Paul also wrote to the Christians in Thessalonica, reminding them how they “became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea” (1 Thessalonians 2:14, emp. added), and even boasted of them “among the churches of God” for their endurance through persecution (2 Thessalonians 1:3-4, emp. added). One must not miss the point that the church of the New Testament is God’s church. It is of divine origin and established according to Deity’s “eternal purpose” (Ephesians 3:11).
Interestingly, Bible writers often refer to the “church of God” as the body or church of Christ. Near the end of his letter to the Christians in Rome, Paul wrote: “All the churches of Christ greet you” (Romans 16:16, NASB, emp. added). He taught the Corinthian Christians how they were “members individually” of “the body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:27, emp. added). Since Paul informed the churches at Ephesus and Colosse that “the church” is Christ’s “body” (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18,24), the body of Christ is equivalent to the church of Christ (cf. Ephesians 4:11-12). Simply put, it is Jesus’ church. He promised to build it (saying, “I will build My church”—Matthew 16:18, emp. added), and later purchased it “with His own blood” (Acts 20:28; cf. Ephesians 1:7,14; Hebrews 9:14).
These verses not only inform Christians of the names by which they should identify themselves, they also indicate something significant about the nature of Christ. Although some alleged Bible believers (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses) claim that Jesus is not divine, the very fact that Bible writers equated “the church of God” with “the body/church of Christ” is one of the many proofs that Jesus is Divine. Paul consistently used these phrases interchangeably throughout his epistles. Thus, to say the church is Christ’s is to say the church is God’s, because Christ is God (John 1:1-3; 20:28). He is the head, Savior, redeemer, and owner of the church (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18). May we thus put ourselves under the subjection of Christ as God (Ephesians 5:24), and wear only scriptural names such as “church of God” or “church of Christ.” In the words of the apostle Paul to the Ephesian elders: “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28, emp. added).

Is God Male? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1165

Is God Male?

by  Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Q.

Throughout both the Old and New Testaments, whenever reference is made to God (or, for that matter, to the other two members of the Godhead) a male pronoun (He, Him, His, etc.) is employed. Why is this the case? Does God indeed possess gender comparable to that of humans? Is God male?
A.
God’s “gender” has been a hot topic for approximately the last two decades, owing in large part to the impact of the women’s liberation movement and the sexual revolution. Books with titles like When God was a Woman, The Feminine Face of God, Womanspirit Rising, and Beyond God the Father are leaping off bookstore shelves. Religious writers have capitulated to the “signs of the times” in attempts to make God “gender neutral.” For example, the well-known writer on science and religion (and herself a believer in God), Kitty Ferguson, placed the following disclaimer in the frontispiece to her best-selling book, The Fire in the Equations, produced and distributed by the W.B. Eerdmans company (a religious publisher).
The author of a book on the topic of science and religion needs a pronoun for God. Regardless of whether I choose to call God “he” or “she,” I find myself making a statement which I don’t wish to make. Using them interchangeably seems contrived and gets confusing. “She/he” or “he/she” is cumbersome...and one still has the problem of which gender comes first in the pairing. “It” will not do. Lacking a better solution, I have chosen to use “he,” which makes the weaker statement and is more easily interpreted as inclusive (1994, ellipses in orig.).
Major religious groups even have begun altering their views on God and the language they use to express those views. In the Inclusive Language Lectionary produced by the U.S. Council of Churches, Christ’s word for God, Abba, has been changed from “Father” to “Father and Mother,” and the word for His relationship to God has been altered from “son” to “child” (see Reuther, 1988, p. 144). At its annual conference in 1992, the Methodist Church in Great Britain concluded that “the use of female imagery is compatible with faithfulness to Scripture—indeed Scripture itself points in this direction and also gives us examples of that imagery.” The Methodist Faith and Order Commission thus recommended that, in order to avoid distortion of our image of God, both female and male images should be used to refer to Him/Her (Inclusive Language and Imagery about God, 1992). And, as British writer Hugh Montefiore noted:
Even the Church of England, while not going so far as this, has made some suggestions for inclusive language. No doubt such measures are as yet in their infancy. Teaching will in future focus on the filial relationship of Jesus to God rather than on his sonship, and on our dependence on God and on his love and care for us, rather than on his fatherhood (1993, p. 131).
What should be the Christian’s response to these kinds of innovations and the changes that stem from them? Is it scriptural to speak of God as “Mother”? Is it permissible to refer to Jehovah as “Her”?
To answer these kinds of questions, one first must know something of the nature of deity. And the only source of that kind of information is God’s Word, the Bible. While it is correct that something may be known of God through a study of the created Universe—namely “his everlasting power and divinity” (Romans 1:20)—there nevertheless are specific traits of Deity that can be explained to mankind only via supernatural revelation. Fortunately, such a revelation has been provided in the Bible. The question then becomes: “What has God revealed concerning His nature and gender?”
It is true that the Bible often uses masculine terms to describe God or His activities. Male names/terms are applied to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit throughout Scripture. The names for God—Yahweh, Elohim, Shaddai, Sebbaoth, Adonai, Kurios, and Theos—are all masculine gender. Furthermore, male metaphors frequently are applied to God. The psalmist cried, “The Lord is king for ever and ever” (10:16) and wrote that “like as a father pitieth his children, so Jehovah pitieth them that fear him” (Psalm 103:13). Nehemiah represented God as a warrior when he wrote: “Our God will fight for us” (4: 20). Jeremiah portrayed God as a spurned husband (3:1-2). Jesus likened God to a loving Father (Luke 15:11-32). The names for Christ—Iesus and Christos—are masculine. And Jesus is presented in the male roles of a shepherd (Matthew 25:32; John 10:11-18), a prophet (Luke 13:33), a priest (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 7:24-28), a bridegroom (Matthew 22:1-4), and a son (Mark 1:11; John 3:16 [John mentions the father-son relationship more than 60 times in his Gospel]; Hebrews 1:2-3).
It also is true, however, that on certain occasions God is portrayed via female images and metaphors. Isaiah 42:14 has God saying, “I cry out like a travailing woman,” and Isaiah 46:3 records God’s words as “Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, that have been borne by me from their birth, that have been carried from the womb.” In Isaiah 49:15, God inquired: “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yea, these may forget, yet will not I forget thee.” The psalmist used a female attribute in speaking of God when he said, “Surely I have stilled and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with his mother” In Isaiah 66:13, Jehovah promised: “As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you.” In one of His parables, Jesus portrayed God as a woman diligently sweeping her house in search of a single lost coin (Luke 15:8-10). And in Matthew 23:37, Jesus employed a female figure to refer to Himself in His lament over the city of David: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets and stoneth them that are sent unto her! How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”
However, there are other important factors to be considered as well. In an article titled, “Is God Female?,” Steve Singleton mentioned three of them:
1. God is referred to hundreds of times with masculine names and with masculine pronouns such as “he,” “him,” and “his.”
2. God is never given a feminine name, or referred to with feminine pronouns such as “she,” her,” and “hers.”
3. This does not mean that God is male. The masculine pronouns have always had the second, generic sense, referring to both male and female, just as “Man” has been used for centuries to refer to both men and women (1978, 120[10]:154).
These are critical points that must not be overlooked in responding to those who question the “gender” of God. I began this article by asking: “Does God indeed posses gender comparable to that of humans? Is God male?” In his book, Credible Christianity, Hugh Montefiore asked and answered those same questions. “Does this mean that God is male? The very question verges on the absurd.... God exists eternally, and in the eternal sphere there is no sexual differentiation. God has no gender. He is neither male nor female” (1993, pp. 130-131, emp. in orig.). As Singleton concluded: “God is not male or female. God is God. Do you hear the answer which God gave to Moses on the mountain when Moses asked, ‘Who are you?’ God said, ‘I am that I am!’ ” (1978, 120[10]:154, emp. added).
But why is it that God has no gender? Hopefully, the answer to this question will become obvious as we study the Scriptures. God is an eternal Spirit (Deuteronomy 33:27, Psalm 102:27; John 4:24; 1 Timothy 1:17; Revelation 1: 8) and, as Jesus pointed out, “a spirit hath not flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39). In 1 Samuel 15:29, God Himself announced: “The Strength of Israel...is not a man.” Moses wrote in Numbers 23:19: “God is not a man...neither the son of man.” Hosea repeated that affirmation: “I am God, and not man” (11:9). Time and again the Scriptures address the fact that, as a Spirit, God is invisible. John commented that “no man hath seen God at any time” (John 1:18). Paul spoke of “God...whom no man hath seen, nor can see” (1 Timothy 6:13,16) and of Christ as “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). He reminded the young evangelist Timothy that to the “immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever” (1 Timothy 1:17).
Spirits—because they are non-corporeal beings—have no physical body, and thus, by definition, are incapable of possessing gender. In speaking of the humans who one day will inhabit the heavenly realm, Jesus remarked that they “neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels” (Matthew 22:30). His point was that we shall not take up our earthly gender roles in heaven, just as the angels, as spirit beings, have played no gender roles throughout their existence. Similarly, God, as a Spirit Being Who inhabits the heavenly realm, has no gender. Why, then, if God has no gender, do the Scriptures refer to Him via masculine names and metaphors? And must we refer to Him via masculine names and metaphors?
The answer to the first question has to do with both history and authority. From a historical standpoint, the fact is that every known ancient religion—except one—posited both gods and goddesses as beings worthy of worship. The lone exception was Judaism. Kreeft and Tacelli, in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics, addressed this matter when they wrote:
The Jewish revelation was distinctive in its exclusively masculine pronoun because it was distinctive in its theology of the divine transcendence. That seems to be the main point of the masculine imagery. As a man comes into a woman from without to make her pregnant, so God creates the universe from without rather than birthing it from within and impregnates our souls with grace or supernatural life from without. As a woman cannot impregnate herself, so the universe cannot create itself, nor can the soul redeem itself. Surely there is an inherent connection between these two radically distinctive features of the...biblical religions...: their unique view of a transcendent God creating nature out of nothing and their refusal to call God “she” despite the fact that Scripture ascribes to him feminine attributes like compassionate nursing (Is. 49:15), motherly comfort (Is. 66:13) and carrying an infant (Is. 46:3). The masculine pronoun safeguards (1) the transcendence of God against the illusion that nature is born from God as a mother rather than created and (2) the grace of God against the illusion that we can somehow save ourselves—two illusions ubiquitous and inevitable in the history of religion (1994, p. 98, emp. in orig.).
From an authoritative standpoint, as Singleton pointed out earlier, God is referred to hundreds of times throughout Scripture by masculine names and masculine pronouns—but never is given a feminine name or referred to by feminine pronouns. Thomas Rees, writing in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, addressed the matter of God as the ultimate authority figure when he wrote that “the essential nature of God, and His relation to men, is best expressed by the attitude and relation of a father to his children; but God is Father in an infinitely higher and more perfect degree than any man” (1955, 2:1261). K.C. Moser, in his book, Attributes of God, stated emphatically that “this manner of referring to God is significant” (1964, p. 12). Indeed it is. While those who were involved in the false religions that surrounded the Jews worshipped a myriad of non-existent gods and goddesses, the Israelites worshipped “Jehovah the true God, the living God, an everlasting King” (Jeremiah 10:10; cf. “the true and living God,” 1 Thessalonians 1:9, NLB; “the only God,” John 5:44). Or, as Spencer, et al. put it in their book, The Goddess Revival: “The Judeo-Christian God, unlike the gods and goddesses of pagans new and old, exists above the limitations of gender” (1995, p. 48). It is an “authority” matter—not a “gender” matter.
But must we refer to God via masculine terms? The question has nothing to do with what we would like to do, but rather with what God tells us to do. C.S. Lewis addressed this point in his book, God in the Dock:
Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity.... Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter?
Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable (1970, p. 237, emp. in orig.).
Scripture makes it clear: “O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.... Shall the potter be esteemed as clay; that the thing made should say of him that made it, ‘He made me not’; or the thing formed say of him that formed it, ‘He hath no understanding’?” (Isaiah 64:8; 29:16). Since when does the clay have the right to dictate to the potter or override his decisions? As a believer in God and His inspired Word, and yet as one speaking from an inherently masculine viewpoint, Lewis went on to say:
We have no authority to take the living and semitive figures which God has painted on the canvas of our nature and shift them about as if they were mere geometrical figures.... It is painful, being a man, to have to assert the privilege which Christianity lays upon my own sex. I am crushingly aware how inadequate most of us are, in our actual and historical individualities, to fill the place prepared for us. But it is an old saying in the army that you salute the uniform not the wearer.... A given man may make a very bad husband; you cannot mend matters by trying to reverse the roles... (1970, pp. 237-238, emp. added).
It is not man’s (or woman’s!) place to question God’s sovereign authority or divine will; neither falls under mankind’s jurisdiction. As Kreeft and Tacelli noted: “One issue is whether we have the authority to change the names of God used by Christ, the Bible and the church. The traditional defense of masculine imagery for God rests on the premise that the Bible is divine revelation, not culturally relative, negotiable and changeable” (1994, p. 98). Christ Himself left us the perfect example (as He always did) when He said: “Our Father Who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name” (Matthew 6:9, emp. added). The fact that biblical designations of God are placed within the specific framework of the masculine settles the matter once and for all. It simply is not a matter up for discussion.

REFERENCES

Ferguson, Kitty (1994), The Fire in the Equations (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Inclusive Language and Imagery about God (1992), (Peterborough, England: Methodist Faith and Order Commission).
Kreeft, Peter and Ronald K. Tacelli (1994), Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Lewis, C.S. (1970), God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Montefiore, Hugh (1993), Credible Christianity: The Gospel in Contemporary Society (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Moser K.C. (1964), Attributes of God (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Rees, Thomas (1955), “God,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr, et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2:1250-1264.
Reuther, R.R. (1988), “Feminism and Jewish-Christian Dialogue,” The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, ed. J. Hick and P. Knitter (London: SCM Press).
Singleton, Steve (1978), “Is God Female?,” Gospel Advocate, 120[10]:145,154, March 9.
Spencer, Aida B., et al. (1995), The Goddess Revival (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Science: Instituted by God by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4213

Science: Instituted by God

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Some contend that science is at odds with religion. They suggest that the scientific method requires empirical testing, but God’s existence cannot be empirically verified. Science supposedly proves the Big Bang, evolutionary theory, a very old Universe, and dinosaurs that never co-existed with humans, while the Bible mistakenly contends that the Universe was created in six literal, 24-hour days only a few thousand years ago, with humans and dinosaurs being created together on day six. Supposedly, science is based on verifiable evidence, whereas religion is based on “blind faith” and ambiguous “tinglies” attributed to the Holy Spirit. For such reasons, it is claimed that science and Scripture cannot be harmonized—that they are diametrically opposed to each another.
In reality, however, true science agrees perfectly with Scripture. Though God’s existence cannot be empirically verified, it can be easily verified through deductive reasoning from the scientific evidence available to us—in the same way forensic scientists use science to investigate events that they did not personally witness. While atheists have successfully created the mirage that science supports their theories, abundant scientific evidence exists which disproves the Big Bang Theory, evolutionary theory, an old Universe, and proves that dinosaurs and humans co-existed (see www.apologeticspress.org for more information on these matters). And yet, no scientific evidence exists that contradicts the true creation model. Rather, the evidence always supports it. The concept of “blind faith,” though championed by many who call themselves Christians, is at odds with Scripture, which defines faith as choosing to believe in something, based on the evidence that has been presented for it, and responding accordingly (see Miller, 2003). Atheistic scientists are simply wrong in their sweeping accusation that science and religion are at odds.
Though some theistic beliefs contradict science, when handled accurately (2 Timothy 2:15), Scripture and science compliment each other perfectly. For instance, science has shown us that matter is not eternal, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and could not have spontaneously generated—popping into existence from nothing—according to the First Law of Thermodynamics. This fact indicates that matter must have been placed here by an Entity outside the physical Universe (see Miller, 2007). This truth, arrived at through science and deductive reasoning, is not in harmony with atheism and much of today’s pseudo-science. But this truth is in keeping with the Bible, which says in its very first verse that God—a Being not subject to the laws of nature (i.e., a supernatural Being)—created the heavens and the Earth. Science supports Scripture.
Science has shown us that in nature, life comes only from life and that of its kind, according to the Law of Biogenesis. Again, this fact indicates that a Being outside of nature must exist Who initiated life (see Miller, 2012). This truth, arrived at through science and deductive reasoning, is not in harmony with atheism and much of today’s pseudoscientific world which must contend, without scientific support, that life popped into existence from non-life. Rather, this truth is in keeping with the Bible, which says in Genesis 1:11,24 and 2:7 that God created life.
Science—the Law of Biogenesis and the Laws of Genetics—has shown us that living beings produce other living beings of their own kind (see Thompson, 2002). There may be small changes along the way (e.g., beak size, color, size, etc.), but the offspring of a bird is still a bird. The offspring of a fish is still a fish. Therefore, since there is no common ancestor for all living beings from which all species evolved, there must be a supernatural Being Who initially created various kinds of life on Earth. This truth, arrived at through science and deductive reasoning, is not in harmony with the teachings of atheism and much of today’s pseudo-scientific world, which argues against the evidence, that various kinds of living beings can give rise to completely different kinds of living beings. But this truth is in keeping with the Bible, which says in Genesis 1:21 and 1:24-25 that God directed living beings to reproduce after their kind.
True science is in harmony with true religion. Why would science lie? It does not have a mind of its own. It has no bias or agenda. It can certainly be misrepresented or its findings misinterpreted, but science is not the enemy of true religion. In fact, according to the Bible, God, Himself, instituted the field of science. When God created human beings on day six and told them to “have dominion” over the Earth and “subdue” it (Genesis 1:28), He was commanding mankind to do something that would require extensive scientific investigation and experimentation. If God founded science, why would science be at odds with religion? When God, through His servant Paul, said in Romans 1:20 that His existence and some of His attributes could be learned from His creation, He was putting His stamp of approval on the scientific study of creation. When He said in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 to “[t]est all things; hold fast what is good,” He was essentially summarizing the scientific method. Bottom line: God founded science. When legitimate scientific findings are interpreted properly and fairly, science supports the Bible and Christianity. It certainly is not at odds with the Bible.

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2003), “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/444.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.
Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.
Thompson, Bert (2002), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

The Conquest of Canaan: How and When? by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=593

The Conquest of Canaan: How and When?

by  Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

The biblical description of the conquest of Canaan has been shrouded in a cloud of doubt for many years. How and when this monumental event occurred are questions that continue to seize scholastic attention and create controversy. If we accept as factual the biblical description of the conquest, these questions are not difficult to answer. In some instances, the conquest was not complete (Judges 1:27-36), which led to an uneasy cohabitation with the indigenous population. However, the Bible is clear that an impressive military campaign achieved forceful penetration into Canaan (Joshua 11:15-23).
Additionally, the Bible offers some chronological insights into when the conquest occurred. According to 1 Kings 6:1, 480 years transpired between the Exodus and the fourth year of Solomon’s reign—the year in which he began to build the temple. We can date Solomon’s reign with reasonable confidence at 971-931 B.C., which places his fourth regnal year at 967 B.C. These figures, therefore, suggest that the Exodus occurred about 1447 B.C. Allowing for the 40-year wandering prior to the Israelites’ invasion of Canaan, the initial stages of the conquest occurred around 1407 B.C. Also, Judges 11:26 provides another chronological marker. This text indicates that the Israelites had occupied Canaan for 300 years before the time of Jephthah, who is commonly dated at 1100 B.C. Once again, using these figures, the conquest would have occurred around 1400 B.C. (see Bimson and Livingston, 1987, 13[5]:42).

CHALLENGES TO THE BIBLICAL RECORD

It would seem, given the above information, that the question of the conquest is a simple matter, with little room for controversy. Not so! There are primarily two areas of disagreement between the biblical text and mainstream scholastic models of the conquest.

Time of the Conquest

At the turn of the century, the biblically consistent date of 1400 B.C. was the generally accepted date for the conquest. As a rule, scholars considered the Bible as the standard for historical truth, though the historical-critical school, which questioned the integrity of the Scriptures, was making its scholastic mark (see Brantley, 1994). This began to change in the 1930s when John Garstang and William F. Albright excavated at Jericho and Beitin, respectively.
Initially, both Garstang and Albright held to the earlier date of the conquest (1400 B.C.). However, during excavations at Beitin, which he assumed was biblical Bethel, Albright faltered and finally moved to a later date for the conquest (c. 1250 B.C.; Albright, 1957, p. 13). He made this reversal because he attributed a thick destruction level at Beitin, which he dated at about 1250 B.C., to the invading Israelites (though the Bible does not mention Bethel among the cities Israel destroyed; see Livingston, 1988, 1[3]:14). Due to this evidence and similar finds at other sites, coupled with Albright’s pervasive influence, the date of 1220-1230 B.C. for the conquest has prevailed since the 1950s (cf. Hester, 1962, p. 139; Stiebing, 1985, 11[4]:58-69).
Kathleen Kenyon’s meticulous and prolonged excavations at Jericho (1952-1958) further blurred these once-clear chronological lines. John Garstang found biblically consistent evidence in the ruins of Jericho that there was a violent conflagration at that location around 1400 B.C., which he attributed to the Israelites. Kenyon’s conclusions, however, sharply contradicted Garstang’s interpretations. She dated this destruction level at 1550 B.C., and contended that there was no city with protective walls for the Israelites to destroy in 1400 B.C. (Kenyon, 1957, p. 259). Additionally, and in agreement with Garstang, she found no evidence of occupational activity on that site in the 13th centuryB.C.—the period in which most current scholars believe the conquest actually occurred. Hence, Kenyon’s conclusions supported neither the early (1400 B.C.) nor the late date of a military conquest (1230-1220 B.C.).

The Method of the Conquest

These chronological disagreements about the conquest spawned methodological disputes concerning this event. Exactly how did Israel emerge in Canaan? As noted, the Bible indicates that there was a large-scale military incursion into Palestine. This biblical scenario, however, has been discarded by a growing number of archaeologists who contend that such an Israelite invasion of Canaan is inconsistent with the archaeological record (see Silberman, 1992). In fact, some scholars argue that there is no factuality at all to the biblically described conquest. To them, the stories of conquered cities (like Jericho) were embellishments of pre-Israelite traditions, which provided a mythological explanation of Israel’s origin in, and right to, the land (Cross, 1992, 8[5]:24).
Consistent with this view, William Dever, addressing a prestigious academic gathering, argued that the central events in Israel’s history—the Exodus, wilderness wandering, military conquest, God’s miraculous deliverance of fortified Canaanite cities, and the gift of the land—did not happen that way at all. Dever concluded that the Bible’s account in this regard is simply groundless and wrong (Shanks, 1987, 13[2]:54-55).
Among such scholars who hold a low view of the historical reliability of the Bible, there are two popular theories explaining the emergence of Israel in Canaan. The first is the “peaceful infiltration” model, which is associated with the German scholars Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth. Appealing to ancient Egyptian records (e.g., the Tell el-Amarna letters), they concluded that the Israelite settlement of Canaan was due to a gradual immigration into the land, not a military offensive. Alt and Noth further theorized that the Israelites must have been pastoral nomads who slowly filtered into the settled land from the desert, seeking pastures for their sheep. After a long period of uneasy coexistence with the indigenous population, the Israelites eventually overran, and destroyed, the Canaanite city states (Silberman, 1992, 2:25; see Zertal, 1991). This “peaceful infiltration” theory has gained in popularity and influence through the years, but clearly is at odds with the Joshua record.
Second, the combined efforts of George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald introduced and popularized the “peasant revolt” theory that actually redefines the ethnic origin of the Israelite nation. This model suggests that there was no external conquest of Canaan; it was an indigenous liberation movement among depressed Canaanite peasants living in the countryside. These peasants, who formed the lowest level of their culture’s highly stratified social order, engaged in an egalitarian rebellion, overthrew their urban overlords, and became “Israelites.” This theory, which repudiates the biblical scenario, has its outspoken defenders who argue that it is most compatible with archaeological data (see Shanks, 1987, 13[2]:55).

Problems With Theories

Though these anti-biblical theories have gained popularity in certain circles, and their advocates speak with an authoritarian voice, they have some significant difficulties. First, these theories must explain the biblical tradition to the contrary. Adherents to these views argue that the archaeological data—not textual information—must be primary. Accordingly, archaeological interpretations take precedence over, and stand in judgment of, the biblical text. However, the fact remains that, even if one rejects its divine inspiration, the Bible is an ancient historical witness. By virtue of that fact, it should be taken as seriously as any other document of antiquity. To brush aside the biblical account as a “pious fraud” simply will not do.
Second, there are reputable archaeologists who feel that these theories are inconsistent with the evidence. Abraham Malamat, for example, argued that the archaeological evidence demonstrates that a number of Canaanite cities were destroyed, and subsequently settled, by the Israelites (1982, 8[2]:24-35). Additionally, Yigael Yadin, the late distinguished archaeologist, suggested that the picture painted by archaeological finds is consistent with the biblical portrait: fortified Canaanite cities were destroyed and replaced by a new culture (1982, 8[2]:19). Though these archaeologists were/are committed to a late date of the conquest, and allowed for some errors in biblical details, their interpretations of the physical evidence support the general outline of the biblical presentation of the conquest. Thus, the archaeological evidence in support of the “peaceful infiltration” or “peasant revolt” theories is not as conclusive as some would suggest. In fact, Max Miller of Emory University opined that the wide variety of views regarding Israelite origins in Palestine, with each view appealing to archaeological support, illustrates that “...the archaeological evidence is ambiguous, or essentially neutral, on the subject” (1987, 50:60). In short, the limited nature of archaeological inquiry forbids a dogmatic rejection of the biblical record of the conquest.

EVIDENCES FOR BIBLICAL HISTORICITY

In light of the foregoing, we must ask: Is there any support that the conquest happened when and how the Bible says it occurred? Keeping in mind the limited nature of archaeological evidence, there is a large body of data that supports the biblical account. Archaeologists generally recognize the heavy importance of ancient inscriptions, as evinced by the excitement over an inscribed stone fragment recently found at Dan (see Shanks, 1994; Wood, 1993). Artifactual data (e.g., potsherds, war implements, architecture, etc.) typically are inconclusive on historical matters, and are subject to a wide variety of interpretations (Miller, 1987). There is, however, an impressive body of ancient literature that lends support to the biblical picture of the conquest, which includes the following.

Ancient Egyptian Maps

The Bible provides specific information regarding the locations at which the Israelites camped along the final stage of the exodus route just prior to their entering Canaan. Numbers 33 describes in detail the northward, Transjordanian route the Israelites took as they traveled to the location at which they miraculously forded the Jordan river. Several places are mentioned on their journey from the desolate region south of the Dead Sea to the plains of Moab: (1) Iyyim; (2) Dibon Gad; (3) Almon Diblathaim; (4) region of Mt. Nebo; (5) Abel Acacia Grove; and (6) the Jordan River. The extraordinary specificity and precision of this text has made it vulnerable to criticism.
Some critical historians suggest that this list demonstrates the historical inaccuracy of biblical writers, since there is no archaeological indication that these cities existed at that period. For example, excavation efforts at Tell Dhiban (the Dibon Gad mentioned in Numbers 33:45b-46a), indicate that there was no city at that site in the Late Bronze Age II (c. 1400-1200 B.C.). Though some remains dating to around 1200-1100 B.C. were discovered on the summit of the mound, there is no evidence that a city existed there before the ninth century B.C. This has led some to conclude that the “...Biblical writers knew nothing about events in Palestine before the tenth century B.C.E.” [Before Common Era (B.C.E.) is a religiously neutral way of referring to history before Christ (B.C.), currently employed by many scholars—GKB] (Gosta Ahlstrom, as quoted in Krahmalkov, 1993, 20[5]:55-62,79).
Though no physical evidence has yet been found to verify this location, there is an impressive literary witness of its presence in this period. During the Late Bronze Age (c. 1560-1200 B.C.), Egypt ruled Palestine. In the course of its 300-year jurisdiction over this region, Egypt exhaustively mapped the area, including the main roads of Palestine. Among the ancient maps is an important, continuously used route through Transjordan, linking the Arabah and the Plains of Moab. Three partial maps describing this road have been preserved. Though no individual map is complete, each provides supplementary information, which provides a reasonably complete description of this road. Interestingly, these maps mention four stations from south to north: Iyyim-Dibon-Abel-Jordan—the exact order in which these names appear in the Bible (Krahmalkov, 1994, 20[5]:57). These ancient Egyptian documents corroborate the biblical description.

Merneptah Stela

The famed Egyptologist, William F. Petrie, discovered the “Israel” Stela of King Merneptah at Thebes in 1896. This stela (an inscribed stone monument), which dates from c. 1210 B.C., contains the only extant extrabiblical reference to Israel in the pre-Monarchic period. The stela contains a poetic eulogy that praises Merneptah’s military exploits (see Pritchard, 1958, p. 231). Of special interest is the context in which “Israel” is mentioned. The inscription bears two major groupings of locations whose destruction is attributed to Merneptah. The first is a group of four city-states: The Canaan (Egyptian name for Gaza), Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yeno’am. The second group, which appears before and after these isolated city-states, lists the names of national entities such as Tehenu (Libya), Hatti (Hittites), and Kharu (a general designation for Syria-Palestine; Wood, 1989).
It is in this second group that the name Israel appears, suggesting that it was considered a national entity on par with the powerful Hittites. Accordingly, by about 1210 B.C. this Egyptian monument gave Israel a measure of international standing. The importance of this implication cannot be overstated. The generally accepted date for the conquest is about 1230-1220 B.C. Yet, the Merneptah Stela implies that in 1210 B.C. Israel was well established in Canaan and a formidable force with which to reckon. Some objectors point out that the Merneptah Stela’s sole purpose was to aggrandize the military campaign of this king and should not be considered as historically accurate. While this was the purpose of the inscription, it is still the case that Israel was perceived to be a formidable force in Canaan. Surely, Merneptah would have gained little in prestige by boasting about conquering an insignificant, disunited band of pastoral nomads! The Merneptah Stela is a powerful witness that the conquest occurred when the Bible said it did (cf. Archer, 1974, p. 181; Wood, 1991, 4:110).

Tell el-Amarna Letters

In 1887, an Egyptian peasant fortuitously discovered a large cache of clay tablets at Tell el-Amarna. Dating from 1400-1370 B.C., these tablets were written in Akkadian cuneiform (wedge-shaped writing)—the then-accepted language for international correspondence. The tablets were urgent letters sent from Canaanite kings to the Egyptian king, requesting immediate military assistance in dealing with fierce invaders. These letters also reflect an anxious disunity among the various Canaanite kings, and an eager tendency for them to forsake their Egyptian alliance and become politically affiliated with the invading Habiru or ‘Apiru (see Pritchard, 1958, p. 276). Many scholars associate the Habiru with the biblical Hebrews (cf. Archer, 1974, pp. 271-279; Harrison, 1969, 318-322).
Thus, an analysis of these documents suggests that they reflected a Canaanite perspective of the Israelite conquest. There are some significant parallels between the general information in these letters and the biblical narrative. A communication from Megiddo mentioned that several towns located in the region of Arad in the south had already fallen to the invaders. According to Numbers 21:1-3, the Israelites destroyed many cities in this southern region. Also, there were no letters found from the first cities destroyed during the Israelite incursion (e.g., Jericho, Gibeon, et al.).
If the Habiru mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna letters actually were the invading Hebrews (and there are good reasons to believe they were), then these documents provide secular confirmation of the biblical description of conquest, both chronologically and methodologically. Since these letters date from 1400 B.C., they suggest that the initial stages of the conquest occurred in the 15th, not the 13th, century B.C. Additionally, they corroborate the view of a concentrated military penetration into Canaan. In both instances, they support the biblical record of the conquest.

CONCLUSION

No doubt the interpretations of archaeological data and the biblical text will continue to clash on occasion, primarily because the new generation of biblical archaeologists places more importance on discoveries than on the text. Accordingly, in the estimation of some, archaeology will serve to critique, illuminate, and correct the Bible, but the question of biblical confirmation is no longer a general concern (Davis, 1993). The above evidence, however, demonstrates that archaeology has provided solid evidence supporting the historical reliability of the Bible.
Yet, we must always keep in mind the limitations of archaeological inquiry and the oftentimes inconclusive nature of its evidence. Such data can be ambiguous, and subject to a variety of interpretations. Therefore, we should listen with cautious skepticism when archaeologists’ interpretations disagree with biblical information (see Brantley, 1993). Also, though in many instances the Bible’s historical reliability has been confirmed by the archaeologist’s spade, the lack of such evidence does not prove the Bible wrong. More importantly, we must recognize that, though the Bible offers valuable and historically accurate information, its primary purpose is to proclaim the sovereignty of God, Who is Lord of history. It is a volume affirming divine activity in human history, the truth of which archaeology is inadequate to judge. By faith, we acknowledge that the same God Who brought the Israelites out of Egypt, and gave them the promised land, is still the sovereign Lord of our own history—even in these anxious times.

REFERENCES

Albright, W.F. (1957), From the Stone Age to Christianity (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Archer, Gleason (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Bimson, John and David Livingston (1987), “Redating the Exodus,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 13[5]:40-68, September/October.
Brantley, Garry (1993), “Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Credibility,” Reason and Revelation, 13:81-85, November.
Brantley, Garry (1994), “Biblical Miracles: Fact or Fiction?,” Reason and Revelation, 14:33-38, May.
Cross, Frank Moore (1992), “The Development of Israelite Religion,” Bible Review, 8[5]:18-50, October.
Davis, Thomas (1993), “Faith and Archaeology, A Brief History to the Present,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 19[2]:54-59, March/April.
Harrison, R.K. (1969), Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hester, H.I. (1962), The Heart of Hebrew History: A Study of the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).
Kenyon, Kathleen (1957), Digging Up Jericho (New York: Praeger).
Krahmalkov, Charles (1994), “Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 20[5]:55-62,79, September/October.
Livingston, David (1988), “Exodus and Conquest,” Archaeology and Biblical Research, 1[3]:12-17, Summer.
Malamat, Abraham (1982), “How Inferior Israelite Forces Conquered Fortified Canaanite Cities,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 8[2]:24-35, March/April.
Miller, Max (1987), “Old Testament History and Archaeology,” Biblical Archaeologist, 50:55-63.
Pritchard, James (1958), The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (London: Oxford University Press).
Shanks, Hershel (1987), “Dever’s Sermon on the Mound,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 13[2]:54-57, March/April.
Shanks, Hershel (1994), “ ‘David’ Found at Dan,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 20[2]:26-39, March/April.
Silberman, Neil (1992), “Who Were the Israelites?,” Archaeology, 45:22-30, March/April.
Stiebing, William H., Jr. (1985), “Should the Exodus and the Israelite Settlement be Redated?,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 11[4]:58-69, July/August.
Wood, Bryant G. (1989), “Merneptah and the Israelites,” Archaeology and Biblical Research, 2:82, Summer.
Wood, Bryant G. (1991), “Recent Discoveries and Research on the Conquest,” Archaeology and Biblical Research, 4:104-110, Autumn.
Wood, Bryant G. (1993), “New Inscription Mentions House of David,” Bible and Spade, 6:119-121, Autumn.
Yadin, Yigael (1982), “Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable?,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 8[2]:16-23, March/April.
Zertal, Adam (1991), “Israel Enters Canaan,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 17[5]:28-47, September/October.