May 23, 2017

P-R-A-Y!!! by Gary Rose

Nice acrostic and a nice message as well. Prayer is an important aspect of our relationship with God. To me, it is the merger of your heart with God; comprised of feelings, desires, faith, trust and obedience.

I wonder what God thinks of those who refuse to obey HIM when they pray? Does it put an obstacle in the way of their prayers? Do their actions speak louder than their words? Will their actions keep them from heaven?

Jesus says...


Matthew, Chapter 7 (World English Bible)
  18  A good tree can’t produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit.   19  Every tree that doesn’t grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire.  20  Therefore by their fruits you will know them.   21  Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.   22  Many will tell me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works? 23  Then I will tell them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.’ (emp. added vs. 21-23)
A person may do may fine things in the name of Jesus, but if they do iniquity (vs. 23c, above) they are in big trouble.
My Wordnet dictionary defines iniquity as...
1. iniquity, wickedness, darkness, dark -- (absence of moral or spiritual values; "the powers of darkness")
2. evil, immorality, wickedness, iniquity -- (morally objectionable behavior)
3. injustice, unfairness, iniquity, shabbiness -- (an unjust act)
All this sounds horrible, but prayer is a matter of the heart and if the heart is wicked, there is only one remedy- Jesus!!!  Change your ways and turn to Jesus for help! 
I know this is true because Jesus has helped me and will help everyone who truly turns to him!!!
In short, pray, but make sure you truly obey (or, if you like- yield) as well!!!!

Bible Reading May 23 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading May 23 (World English Bible)
May 23
Judges 3, 4

Jdg 3:1 Now these are the nations which Yahweh left, to prove Israel by them, even as many of Israel as had not known all the wars of Canaan;
Jdg 3:2 only that the generations of the children of Israel might know, to teach them war, at the least such as before knew nothing of it:
Jdg 3:3 namely, the five lords of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites who lived on Mount Lebanon, from Mount Baal Hermon to the entrance of Hamath.
Jdg 3:4 They were left, to prove Israel by them, to know whether they would listen to the commandments of Yahweh, which he commanded their fathers by Moses.
Jdg 3:5 The children of Israel lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites:
Jdg 3:6 and they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their own daughters to their sons and served their gods.
Jdg 3:7 The children of Israel did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and forgot Yahweh their God, and served the Baals and the Asheroth.
Jdg 3:8 Therefore the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Cushan Rishathaim king of Mesopotamia: and the children of Israel served Cushan Rishathaim eight years.
Jdg 3:9 When the children of Israel cried to Yahweh, Yahweh raised up a savior to the children of Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother.
Jdg 3:10 The Spirit of Yahweh came on him, and he judged Israel; and he went out to war, and Yahweh delivered Cushan Rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand: and his hand prevailed against Cushan Rishathaim.
Jdg 3:11 The land had rest forty years. Othniel the son of Kenaz died.
Jdg 3:12 The children of Israel again did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh: and Yahweh strengthened Eglon the king of Moab against Israel, because they had done that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh.
Jdg 3:13 He gathered to him the children of Ammon and Amalek; and he went and struck Israel, and they possessed the city of palm trees.
Jdg 3:14 The children of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab eighteen years.
Jdg 3:15 But when the children of Israel cried to Yahweh, Yahweh raised them up a savior, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a man left-handed. The children of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab.
Jdg 3:16 Ehud made him a sword which had two edges, a cubit in length; and he girded it under his clothing on his right thigh.
Jdg 3:17 He offered the tribute to Eglon king of Moab: now Eglon was a very fat man.
Jdg 3:18 When he had made an end of offering the tribute, he sent away the people who bore the tribute.
Jdg 3:19 But he himself turned back from the quarries that were by Gilgal, and said, I have a secret errand to you, king. He said, Keep silence. All who stood by him went out from him.
Jdg 3:20 Ehud came to him; and he was sitting by himself alone in the cool upper room. Ehud said, I have a message from God to you. He arose out of his seat.
Jdg 3:21 Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his body:
Jdg 3:22 and the haft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed on the blade, for he didn't draw the sword out of his body; and it came out behind.
Jdg 3:23 Then Ehud went forth into the porch, and shut the doors of the upper room on him, and locked them.
Jdg 3:24 Now when he was gone out, his servants came; and they saw, and behold, the doors of the upper room were locked; and they said, Surely he is covering his feet in the upper chamber.
Jdg 3:25 They waited until they were ashamed; and behold, he didn't open the doors of the upper room: therefore they took the key, and opened them, and behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth.
Jdg 3:26 Ehud escaped while they waited, and passed beyond the quarries, and escaped to Seirah.
Jdg 3:27 It happened, when he had come, that he blew a trumpet in the hill country of Ephraim; and the children of Israel went down with him from the hill country, and he before them.
Jdg 3:28 He said to them, Follow after me; for Yahweh has delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand. They went down after him, and took the fords of the Jordan against the Moabites, and didn't allow a man to pass over.
Jdg 3:29 They struck of Moab at that time about ten thousand men, every lusty man, and every man of valor; and there escaped not a man.
Jdg 3:30 So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. The land had rest eighty years.
Jdg 3:31 After him was Shamgar the son of Anath, who struck of the Philistines six hundred men with an oxgoad: and he also saved Israel.

Jdg 4:1 The children of Israel again did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, when Ehud was dead.
Jdg 4:2 Yahweh sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor; the captain of whose army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth of the Gentiles.
Jdg 4:3 The children of Israel cried to Yahweh: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.
Jdg 4:4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
Jdg 4:5 She lived under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.
Jdg 4:6 She sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh Naphtali, and said to him, Hasn't Yahweh, the God of Israel, commanded, saying, Go and draw to Mount Tabor, and take with you ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?
Jdg 4:7 I will draw to you, to the river Kishon, Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into your hand.
Jdg 4:8 Barak said to her, If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go.
Jdg 4:9 She said, I will surely go with you: notwithstanding, the journey that you take shall not be for your honor; for Yahweh will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.
Jdg 4:10 Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali together to Kedesh; and there went up ten thousand men at his feet: and Deborah went up with him.
Jdg 4:11 Now Heber the Kenite had separated himself from the Kenites, even from the children of Hobab the brother-in-law of Moses, and had pitched his tent as far as the oak in Zaanannim, which is by Kedesh.
Jdg 4:12 They told Sisera that Barak the son of Abinoam was gone up to Mount Tabor.
Jdg 4:13 Sisera gathered together all his chariots, even nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people who were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles, to the river Kishon.
Jdg 4:14 Deborah said to Barak, Up; for this is the day in which Yahweh has delivered Sisera into your hand; hasn't Yahweh gone out before you? So Barak went down from Mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after him.
Jdg 4:15 Yahweh confused Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his army, with the edge of the sword before Barak; and Sisera alighted from his chariot, and fled away on his feet.
Jdg 4:16 But Barak pursued after the chariots, and after the army, to Harosheth of the Gentiles: and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; there was not a man left.
Jdg 4:17 However Sisera fled away on his feet to the tent of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite; for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite.
Jdg 4:18 Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said to him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; don't be afraid. He came in to her into the tent, and she covered him with a rug.
Jdg 4:19 He said to her, Please give me a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. She opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him.
Jdg 4:20 He said to her, Stand in the door of the tent, and it shall be, when any man does come and inquire of you, and say, Is there any man here? that you shall say, No.
Jdg 4:21 Then Jael Heber's wife took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to him, and struck the pin into his temples, and it pierced through into the ground; for he was in a deep sleep; so he swooned and died.
Jdg 4:22 Behold, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him, and said to him, Come, and I will show you the man whom you seek. He came to her; and behold, Sisera lay dead, and the tent peg was in his temples.
Jdg 4:23 So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the children of Israel.
Jdg 4:24 The hand of the children of Israel prevailed more and more against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan.

 May 22, 23
John 4

Joh 4:1 Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John
Joh 4:2 (although Jesus himself didn't baptize, but his disciples),
Joh 4:3 he left Judea, and departed into Galilee.
Joh 4:4 He needed to pass through Samaria.
Joh 4:5 So he came to a city of Samaria, called Sychar, near the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son, Joseph.
Joh 4:6 Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being tired from his journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour.
Joh 4:7 A woman of Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink."
Joh 4:8 For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.
Joh 4:9 The Samaritan woman therefore said to him, "How is it that you, being a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)
Joh 4:10 Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water."
Joh 4:11 The woman said to him, "Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. From where then have you that living water?
Joh 4:12 Are you greater than our father, Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself, as did his children, and his livestock?"
Joh 4:13 Jesus answered her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again,
Joh 4:14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never thirst again; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life."
Joh 4:15 The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I don't get thirsty, neither come all the way here to draw."
Joh 4:16 Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here."
Joh 4:17 The woman answered, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You said well, 'I have no husband,'
Joh 4:18 for you have had five husbands; and he whom you now have is not your husband. This you have said truly."
Joh 4:19 The woman said to him, "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.
Joh 4:20 Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship."
Joh 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour comes, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, will you worship the Father.
Joh 4:22 You worship that which you don't know. We worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews.
Joh 4:23 But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to be his worshippers.
Joh 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."
Joh 4:25 The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah comes," (he who is called Christ). "When he has come, he will declare to us all things."
Joh 4:26 Jesus said to her, "I am he, the one who speaks to you."
Joh 4:27 At this, his disciples came. They marveled that he was speaking with a woman; yet no one said, "What are you looking for?" or, "Why do you speak with her?"
Joh 4:28 So the woman left her water pot, and went away into the city, and said to the people,
Joh 4:29 "Come, see a man who told me everything that I did. Can this be the Christ?"
Joh 4:30 They went out of the city, and were coming to him.
Joh 4:31 In the meanwhile, the disciples urged him, saying, "Rabbi, eat."
Joh 4:32 But he said to them, "I have food to eat that you don't know about."
Joh 4:33 The disciples therefore said one to another, "Has anyone brought him something to eat?"
Joh 4:34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.
Joh 4:35 Don't you say, 'There are yet four months until the harvest?' Behold, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and look at the fields, that they are white for harvest already.
Joh 4:36 He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit to eternal life; that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together.
Joh 4:37 For in this the saying is true, 'One sows, and another reaps.'
Joh 4:38 I sent you to reap that for which you haven't labored. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor."
Joh 4:39 From that city many of the Samaritans believed in him because of the word of the woman, who testified, "He told me everything that I did."
Joh 4:40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they begged him to stay with them. He stayed there two days.
Joh 4:41 Many more believed because of his word.
Joh 4:42 They said to the woman, "Now we believe, not because of your speaking; for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world."
Joh 4:43 After the two days he went out from there and went into Galilee.
Joh 4:44 For Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.
Joh 4:45 So when he came into Galilee, the Galileans received him, having seen all the things that he did in Jerusalem at the feast, for they also went to the feast.
Joh 4:46 Jesus came therefore again to Cana of Galilee, where he made the water into wine. There was a certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum.
Joh 4:47 When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to him, and begged him that he would come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death.
Joh 4:48 Jesus therefore said to him, "Unless you see signs and wonders, you will in no way believe."
Joh 4:49 The nobleman said to him, "Sir, come down before my child dies."
Joh 4:50 Jesus said to him, "Go your way. Your son lives." The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him, and he went his way.
Joh 4:51 As he was now going down, his servants met him and reported, saying "Your child lives!"
Joh 4:52 So he inquired of them the hour when he began to get better. They said therefore to him, "Yesterday at the seventh hour, the fever left him."
Joh 4:53 So the father knew that it was at that hour in which Jesus said to him, "Your son lives." He believed, as did his whole house.
Joh 4:54 This is again the second sign that Jesus did, having come out of Judea into Galilee.

Christ - Yes; The Church - No? by T. Pierce Brown

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Brown/T/Pierce/1923/christ-y.html

Christ - Yes; The Church - No?

Most of us have heard the expression that is the title of this article. Those of us who preach and/or write have been quick to point out that the very idea is ridiculous from a Biblical standpoint, for when one accepts Christ properly in response to his gracious offer of salvation, one is automatically a part of the church. Sadly enough, most of our speaking and writing is heard or read only by those who already know that. It is probable that we have failed to properly appreciate some very important points.

First, those who use the expression, "Christ-yes; the church-no" do not mean by the expression what we mean. To them the church is merely a denomination that they have been taught has nothing to do with salvation (which is true with respect to the church with which they are acquainted) and mostly deals with empty rituals that have very little relationship to the problems of this life or the hope of the next. If we consider the expression from their viewpoint, instead of arguing with them and showing how wrong they are, we should agree with them -- that is the churches about which they are speaking are not related to Christ. Then we may be able to show them the difference between the Biblical concept of the church and what theirs has been.

Another problem arises, of which very few of us seem to be aware. When we are confronted with such a situation as described above, we launch into a discussion that relates to the greatness of the church, the glory of the church, the necessity of the church, the organization of the church, the work of the church, how to get membership in the church, and other such topics. We do not seem to be aware that one may learn all the rituals and doctrines about the church -- even the Lord's church -- without ever having Christ presented to them in such a fashion that they are constrained to love and obey him. 2 Corinthians 5:14 says, "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead." Let us examine an ordinary discussion and see if the point can be seen more clearly.

We are studying with a person who is willing to accept the Bible as his authority for his religious activity. We point out to him that Paul says in Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." He readily admits it, and knows that he is lost. We rapidly turn to Acts 2:38 and show him that when lost persons wanted to know what to do, they were told, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." They hear that, and are glad, and immediately ask, "Can I be baptized right now?" We rejoice and baptize them. How many times have you done this, or seen it done? But where in the story has the person really been made aware of the love of Christ, or learned the gospel message in such a fashion that he feels constrained to fall on his knees and say, "Thank you, God, for your gracious love! I want to commit my life to you, now and forever?" We may have explained to him that salvation is in Christ (Acts 4:12) and the way the Bible says to get into Christ is to be baptized into him (Rom. 6:3-4 and Gal. 3:27). We assume that knowing those facts will cause him to love the Lord, but it is not necessarily so. Paul gives a glimpse of what we are trying to impress upon you when he said in 1 Corinthians 2:2, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." The awareness and deep appreciation of the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf is the thing that creates love for him, not simply an understanding that we need to be baptized in order to be saved.

Do you have any idea why many members of the Lord's church does not come for Bible study on Sunday morning, and does not come back on Wednesday night? Can you guess why the average member gives less than 5% of his income to advance the cause of Christ? Have you ever wondered why less than 5% of the average membership of the church are involved in any personal way with leading a person to Christ? One of the answers is that many have been converted to a plan of salvation, a safe church, a system of doctrine, a friendly loving fellowship, or any number of other things, but not moved to surrender their lives to the Lord because their love for Christ impelled them to do it. They, like the Samaritans of 2 Kings 17:26, know the "manner (or rituals) of the god of the land," but have not been so taught that the love of Christ impels them to do what they do.

T. Pierce Brown


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

Did Saul Know David Prior to Goliath's Death? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=807&b=1%20Samuel

Did Saul Know David Prior to Goliath's Death?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Following the account of Samuel’s visit to Bethlehem to anoint David as the future king of Israel, the book of 1 Samuel indicates that David became the harp player and armor bearer for King Saul (16:14-23). Subsequent to this information, the reader is told of David’s magnificent triumph over Goliath (1 Samuel 17), which then is followed by an “interrogation” by King Saul, who asked David, “Whose son are you, young man?” (17:58). A general reading through the text of 1 Samuel 16-17 has led some Bible believers to question why Saul (it seems) knew David, then did not know David, and then got to know him again. Skeptics, likewise, have inquired about the consistency of this story (see Morgan, 2003; Wells, 2001; “Inerrancy,” n.d.). Paul Tobin, in an article titled “Internal Contradictions in the Bible,” summed up the skeptic’s argument by stating that 1 Samuel 16 “clearly shows that David…was known to Saul. Yet a little later, after David’s fight with Goliath, Saul is made to enquire from his chief captain as to the identity of the giant slayer (I Samuel 17:56). And he is again made to inquire from David who he is, when he should have known this all along” (2000). Allegedly, the Bible’s portrayal of Saul’s ignorance of David after Goliath’s death is proof of the Bible writers’ imperfection when penning the Scriptures.
First of all, it is imperative for one to recognize that, as with other Bible passages, nowhere in 1 Samuel 16-17 are we told that all of these events occurred in chronological order. Although throughout 1 Samuel, there is a general, sequential progression, such does not demand that every event recorded in the book must be laid out chronologically. In fact, within chapter 17 there is evidence that this is not the case. For example, the events recorded in 17:54 (i.e., David putting his armor in his tent, and taking the head of Goliath to Jerusalem) postdate the conversations mentioned in verses 55-58 (as verse 57 makes clear). More precisely, verses 55-56 synchronize with verse 40, while verses 57-58 could be placed immediately following verse 51 (Youngblood, 1992, 3:703). And, regarding chapter 16, who can say for certain that David was not already playing the harp for Saul before Samuel anointed him? First Samuel 17:15 indicates that “David occasionally went and returned from Saul to feed his father’s sheep at Bethlehem.” Perhaps it was during one of these furloughs that he was anointed as the future king of Israel (16:1-13). Unless the text clearly distinguishes one event as occurring before or after another, a person cannot conclude for certain the exact chronology of those events. Just because one historical event recorded in the Bible precedes another, does not mean that it could not have occurred at a later time (or vice versa). Truly, the ancients were not as concerned about chronology as is the average person in twenty-first-century America.
Aside from the fact that one cannot be certain about the exact sequence of events recorded in 1 Samuel 16-17, several possible explanations exist as to why Saul appeared not to recognize David after his triumphal victory over Goliath. First, enough time could have lapsed so that David’s appearance changed significantly since the last time he appeared before king Saul. William M. Thomson, a missionary in Syria and Palestine for nearly half of the nineteenth century, once described the sudden changes in the physical development of Eastern youths in his book titled The Land and the Book.
They not only spring into full-grown manhood as if by magic, but all their former beauty disappears; their complexion becomes dark; their features hard and angular, and the whole expression of countenance stern and even disagreeable. I have often been accosted by such persons, formerly intimate acquaintances, but who had suddenly grown entirely out of my knowledge, nor could I without difficulty recognize them (1859, 2:366).
Few would deny that young men can change quickly over a relatively short period of time. Facial hair, increased height and weight, larger, more defined muscles, darker skin, a deeper voice, as well as the wearing of different apparel, may all factor into why a person may say to someone that he or she knows, but has not seen for some time, “I hardly recognized you. You’ve changed.” Surely, it is more than possible that between the time David served Saul as a harpist, and the time he slew Goliath, he could have experienced many physical changes that prevented a “distressed” king from recognizing his former harpist.
A second reason Saul might have failed to recognize David is because he may have lapsed into another unreliable mental state. Saul’s intermittent deviation from normalcy is seen throughout the book of 1 Samuel (cf. 16:14-23; 18:9-12; 19:22-24; 22:6-19), and it is possible 17:54-58 is another illusion to his defective rationale. In his discussion of 1 Samuel 17, biblical commentator Robert Jamieson mentioned this possibility saying, “The king’s moody temper, not to say frequent fits of insanity, would alone be sufficient to explain the circumstance of his not recognizing a youth who, during the time of his mental aberration, had been much near him, trying to soothe his distempered soul” (Jamieson, 1997).
Third, it could be that Saul did, in fact, remember David, but because of jealousy over David’s momentous victory (cf. 1 Samuel 18:8-11), and perhaps of hearing that Samuel had been to Bethlehem to anoint him as the next king (1 Samuel 16:1-13), Saul simply wanted to act like he did not know David. Such a scenario is not difficult to envision. Today, a teacher or coach might inquire about a student whom he or she already knows, yet in hopes of instilling more submission into the arrogant teen, the faculty member acts somewhat aloof. One textual indication that such may be the explanation of 1 Samuel 17:54-58 is that Saul still referred to David, the bear-killing, lion-slaying, Goliath-demolisher, as a “stripling” (Hebrew `elem—17:56, ASV) and “young man” (Hebrew na`ar—17:55,58). Although these two words do not necessarily carry a belittling connotation, neither designation seems very appropriate for a man who had just tried on the armor of King Saul—a man once described as “shoulders upward…taller than any of the people” (1 Samuel 9:2)—and had just killed one of the fiercest enemies of Israel. Truly, Saul’s supposed ignorance of David and his family may well have been a “performance” instigated by, what physician Herman van Praag once called, “haughtiness fed by envy” (1986, 35:421).
Finally, one must realize that the text does not even actually say that Saul did not know David. It only records that Saul asked, “Whose son is this youth?” (1 Samuel 17:55; cf. vss. 56,58). It is an assumption to conclude that Saul did not recognize David. The king simply could have been inquiring about David’s family. Since Saul had promised to reward the man who killed Goliath by giving “his father’s house exemption from taxes in Israel” (17:25), Saul might have been questioning David in order to ensure the identity of David’s family. Furthermore, 18:1 seems to presuppose an extended conversation between the two, which would imply that Saul wanted even more information than just the name of David’s father.
Truly, any of these possibilities could account for Saul’s examination of David. The burden of proof is on the skeptic to show otherwise. As respected law professor Simon Greenleaf concluded regarding the rule of municipal law in relation to ancient writings:
Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise (1995, p. 16, emp. added).
Until skeptics logically negate the above possible solutions to the questions surrounding 1 Samuel 16-17, and are able to prove beyond doubt that the Bible writer made a genuine mistake, one does not have to doubt the integrity of the biblical text.
REFERENCES
Greenleaf, Simon (1995), The Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics).
“Inerrancy: Where Conservative Christianity Stands or Falls,” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://users.vei.net/smijer/christianity/bunk.html.
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Morgan, Donald (2003), “Biblical Inconsistencies,” [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml.
Thomson, William M. (1859), The Land and the Book (New York: Harper and Brothers).
Tobin, Paul N. (2000), “Internal Contradictions in the Bible,” The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager, [On-line], URL: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/internal.html.
van Praag, Herman M. (1986), “The Downfall of King Saul: The Neurobiological Consequences of Losing Hope,” Judaism 35:421.
Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.
Youngblood, Ronald F. (1992), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary—1 & 2 Samuel (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Tiny Babies Abortionists Would Rather We Forget by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=502

Tiny Babies Abortionists Would Rather We Forget

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

When Samuel Armas was a 21-week unborn baby, USA Today photojournalist Michael Clancy snapped what arguably would become the most famous pre-natal photograph ever. On August 19, 1999, Dr. Joseph Bruner, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, performed spina bifida surgery on Samuel while he was in utero. During the surgery, Samuel, who was only about half way through the normal gestation period, was pictured with his tiny hand resting on one of the doctor’s fingers. Samuel was born 15 weeks later.
When Samuel’s surgery was first reported more than seven years ago, many eyes were opened to the preciousness and humanity of early unborn children. More recently, however, another baby who further testifies to the humanity of unborn children has captured the headlines. Her name: Amillia Sonja Taylor. She was born on October 24, 2006 in south Florida. What makes Amillia so special? Doctors believe she “spent less time in the womb than any other surviving infant” (“World’s Youngest...,” 2007). Amillia’s mother, Sonja, carried Amillia for less than 22 weeks. At delivery, she was only 9½ inches long and weighed less than a can of soda. But, she was a living human being. Four months later, Amillia weighed 4½ pounds, was 15½ inches long, and was almost ready to go home for the very first time (“Doctors Extend...,” 2007).
Amillia did not turn into a human 15 to 18 weeks later—when most babies are delivered—she was a human at 22 weeks, and had been human since she was conceived. She was not lifeless matter—a blob of tissue. She was not a plant. She was not an animal. She was a living, growing human being.
How can anyone look at pictures of an unborn child such as Samuel Armas, or a 10-ounce baby such as Amillia Taylor, and justify the hideous sin of abortion? The fact that doctors in the United States and other countries legally can rip unborn babies to pieces with plier-like forceps, chop them up with knife-like devices or puncture their skulls with a pair of scissors before removing the babies’ brains, is simply atrocious. What could be more inhumane? Indeed, “hands that shed innocent blood” are “an abomination” to the Lord. To be sure, God “hates” abortion (Proverbs 6:16-17).
“...[P]ut away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, learn to do good;...defend the fatherless” (Isaiah 1:16-17).
“Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9).

REFERENCES

“Doctors Extend Hospital Stay of Tiniest Premature Baby” (2007), Associated Press, February 20, [On-line], URL: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252878,00.html.
“World’s Youngest ‘Miracle Baby’ Beats Odds” (2007), Associated Press, February 20, [On-line], URL: http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/worlds-youngest-miracle-baby-beats-odds/ 20070220071609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001.

Logical Illiterates and Scientific Simpletons by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=453

Logical Illiterates and Scientific Simpletons

by  Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

On Thursday evening, May 23, 1985, I participated in a debate with renowned evolutionist/humanist Delos McKown. The setting was the Tracey Larkin show on Alabama Public Television. The audience was composed of the people of Alabama. The show aired at 6:30 p.m.
I had received a telephone call the day prior to the television show, asking if I might be willing to meet Dr. McKown in order to discuss the proposition: “Scientific creationism should be taught in public schools in America.” I gladly accepted the invitation. Dr. McKown, of course, was no stranger to me. He is well known in evolutionist/humanist circles. At the time, he was the chairman of the department of philosophy at Auburn University, and wrote often for anti-creationist publications such as the humanist journal Creation/Evolution. In fact, he had just released his novel, With Faith & Fury (1985), published by the humanist publishing company, Prometheus Press of Buffalo, New York, in which a “fundamentalist preacher” tangles with an evolutionist, and, of course, loses. Actually, Dr. McKown is no stranger to “fundamentalism,” as he once was a minister for the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). For reasons known only to him, he gave up his belief in God and opted for belief in evolutionary humanism, which he now promotes with a vengeance. The students who come from his classes at Auburn are quick to speak of his anti-God stance.
In this article, I would like to mention a few of the items that were discussed in the debate. But prior to that, I would like to explain the title of this article, and the reason for its publication. In the last 60 seconds of the debate, the host, Mr. Larkin, was concluding the evening’s discussion when he remarked to Dr. McKown that the creationists seemed to be making a good bit of progress in their efforts to set forth the scientific evidence for creation. Dr. McKown exploded in a burst of inflamed rhetoric and stated in no uncertain terms that indeed, creationists were making a good deal of headway—but due only to the fact that our nation is filled with (and this is a direct quote) “logical illiterates and scientific simpletons.”
I was stunned, to say the least, that a man of the supposed caliber of Dr. McKown would resort to name-calling of the worst sort in a feeble attempt to try to substantiate his position. But more than that, I was shocked and insulted (as were a number of others with whom I have spoken who watched the debate). I was shocked, in that it seemed incredulous to me that a man who is in every sense of the word a public servant (a professor at a state-supported university), and whose salary is paid by my taxes, could go on public television and verbally insult the people of the state that he purportedly serves. I was insulted, in that I knew quite well that the epithet Dr. McKown used to label all of the good people of the United States did not fit and was, in fact, a slap in the face to every educated person in this country.
I would like to examine Dr. McKown’s false and baseless assertion that creationists are making progress in having the scientific evidence for creation taught in public schools simply because our nation is composed of “logical illiterates and scientific simpletons.”
As the debate opened that Thursday evening on May 23rd, Dr. McKown fired a salvo intended to leave the audience with the impression that “all” scientists of any repute are evolutionists. He quoted from a booklet published by the National Academy of Sciences that sought to present evolution as a scientific fact and creation as “strictly religious.” He suggested that this material was accepted by “all scientists” as representative of the case. You can imagine his surprise (and it was physically evident during the debate as he stuttered and stammered in an attempt to respond) when I reminded him that the National Academy of Sciences had been slapped with a multimillion dollar lawsuit because of the publication of that very booklet, which was not representative of all of its membership, and which was published without prior knowledge of most of its members.
I hastened to remind Dr. McKown that “all” scientists are not now, nor have they ever been, evolutionists. In fact, a quick look at great scientists of both past and present generations will quickly defuse such an erroneous idea. Such scientists as Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, Matthew F. Maury, Michael Faraday, Clerk Maxwell, John Ray, Carolus Linnaeus, Werhner Von Braun, Walter Lammerts, and others were (or are) creationists. And the list could be extended greatly (see Morris, 1982). Further, what difference would it make even if every scientist were an evolutionist? Truth is not determined by popular opinion or majority vote! And anyone even vaguely familiar with the history of science can offer instance after instance where “the majority” of the scientific community had “voted,” as it were, on a particular issue, only to be proved wrong soon thereafter. The scientific community told British medical doctor Edward Jenner that his smallpox vaccine would not work. But it did. The scientific community told Austrian medical doctor Ignaz Semmelweis that it was fruitless to worry about “germs” as a cause of mortality among medical patients. But it wasn’t. And so on, and so on. “All” the scientists were wrong. Popularity does not guarantee correctness!
Dr. McKown then tried to suggest to the viewing audience that the only view that should be presented in public schools was the evolutionary scenario. I quickly reminded him, however, that he had put himself at odds with his mentor, Charles Darwin, as well as the great defender of evolution, Clarence Darrow. Darwin stated in the “Introduction” of his 1859 publication, The Origin of Species:
I am well aware that there is scarcely a single point discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result could be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts on both sides of each question (1956, p. 18, emp. added).
It was Clarence Darrow who stated in the famous 1925 “Scopes Monkey Trial” that it was “bigotry” to teach only one theory of origins. [Of course, Darrow was referring to the teaching of only creation, but his statement is true nonetheless!] I asked Dr. McKown what would be wrong with allowing students to have all the evidences, so that they then could make up their own minds? He recoiled in shock at such a suggestion, and stated that teaching evidences for creation would be like putting astrology back into astronomy, or the stork back into obstetrics, etc. He stated that if we put the “so-called evidences” (to use his term) for creation into the public schools, our students quickly would see that they had been sold a bill of goods.”
I hastened to mention to Dr. McKown that our students in public schools already have been “sold a bill of goods,” in that they are being given only one side of a two-sided issue. My point was this: creationists have an impressive arsenal of evidence that establishes the conclusion that the creation model fits the available scientific facts far better than the evolution model. The one-sided indoctrination of students in this materialistic philosophy in the tax-supported schools in our pluralistic, democratic society is a violation of academic and religious freedoms. Furthermore, it is poor science and poor education. To remedy this intolerable situation, creation scientists simply ask that, excluding the use of the Bible or any other religious literature, only the scientific evidence that can be adduced in favor of creation and evolution be presented thoroughly and fairly in public schools. After students have had an opportunity to weigh all the data, consider each alternative, and examine the implications and consequences of each position, then they should be challenged to decide for themselves which one is more credible or rational. That is good education, and good science. But, as Norman Macbeth, the Harvard-trained lawyer, stated in his book, Darwin Retried, evolutionists (and this certainly describes Dr. McKown) are almost irrationally fearful of creationists today, and are determined to stop them from presenting creationism at all costs. Furthermore, Macbeth observed, the evolutionists “are not revealing all the dirt under the rug in their approach to the public. There is a feeling that they ought to keep back the worst so that their public reputation would not suffer and the Creationists wouldn’t get any ammunition” (1982, 2:22). Here is a good example. I pressed Dr. McKown with this point:
If evolution is scientific, then by definition it must be falsifiable, since one of the criteria of a good scientific theory is that it potentially can be falsified (i.e., it must be possible to devise an experiment or set of studies, the failure of which would disprove the theory). My question to Dr. McKown was this: Is evolution falsifiable? Dr. McKown knew exactly where my question was leading, and he had no choice, if he wanted to retain the “scientific” nature of evolution, but to say “yes.” Indeed, he said that evolution was falsifiable. But once again he put himself at odds with the mainstream of evolutionary thought. Evolutionists Ehrlich and Birch wrote, for example:
Our theory of evolution has become…one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside of empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training (1967, p. 352).
Sir Karl Popper, the eminent philosopher of science, stated in his autobiography, Unended Quest: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.... It is therefore important to show that Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but metaphysical” (1976). H.S. Lipson, the renowned British physicist, noted: “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it” (1980, 31:138).
These statements are a far cry from those of Dr. McKown. He wishes us to believe that evolution is scientific and therefore falsifiable. His own evolutionary colleagues, however, are not so quick with their answers, and in fact, strongly disagree with him. Numerous other statements made by Dr. McKown could be examined and refuted, but I would like to examine here his statement that creationists are making great strides in having the scientific evidence for creation taught because people are “logical illiterates and scientific simpletons.” Such a statement not only is untrue, but also is unbecoming a man of the supposed intellectual stature of Delos McKown.
First, creationists are making great strides in this battle. Consider, for example, the following. In a center-column, front-page article in the June 15, 1979 issue of the Wall Street Journal, there appeared an article by one of the Journal’s staff writers commenting on how creationists, when engaging in debates with evolutionists, “tend to win” the debates, and that creationism was “making progress.” In 1979, Gallup pollsters conducted a random survey, inquiring about belief in creation versus evolution. The poll had been commissioned by Christianity Today magazine, and was reported in its December 21, 1979 issue. This poll found that 51% of Americans believe in the special creation of a literal Adam and Eve as the starting place of human life. In the March 1980 issue of the American School Board Journal (p. 52), it was reported that 67% of its readers (most of whom were school board members and school administrators) favored the teaching of the scientific evidence for creation in public schools. Glamour magazine conducted a poll of its own and reported the results in its August 1982 issue (p. 28). The magazine found that 74% of its readers favored teaching the scientific evidence for creation in public schools. One of the most authoritative polls was conducted in October 1981 by the Associated Press/NBC News polling organization. The results were as follows:
“Only evolution should be taught” 8%
“Only creation should be taught” 10%
“Both creation and evolution should be taught” 76%
“Not sure which should be taught” 6%
Thus, nationwide no less than 86% of the people in the United States believe that creation should be taught in public schools. In August 1982, another Gallup poll was conducted, and found that 44% of those interviewed believed not only in creation, but in a recent creation of less than 10,000 years ago. Only 9% of the people polled believed in atheistic evolution.
On November 28, 1991 results were released from yet another Gallup poll regarding the biblical account of origins. The results may be summarized as follows. On origins: 47% believed God created man within the last 10,000 years (up 3% from the 1982 poll mentioned above); 40% believed man evolved over millions of years, but that God guided the process; 9% believed man evolved over millions of years without God; 4% were “other/don’t know.” On the Bible: 32% believed the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, and that it should be taken literally; 49% believed the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, but that it should not always be taken literally; 16% believed the Bible to be entirely the product of men; 3% were “other/don’t know” (see Major, 1991, 11:48; John Morris, 1992, p. d). Two years later, a Gallup poll carried out in 1993 produced almost the same results. Of those responding, 47% stated that they believed in a recent creation of man; 11% expressed their belief in a strictly naturalistic form of evolution (see Newport, 1993, p. A-22). Four years after that poll, a 1997 Gallup survey found that 44% of Americans (including 31% who were college graduates) subscribed to a fairly literal reading of the Genesis account of creation, while another 39% (53% of whom were college graduates) believed God played at least some part in creating the Universe. Only 10% (17% college graduates) embraced a purely naturalistic, evolutionary view (see Bishop, 1998, pp. 39-48; Sheler, 1999, pp. 48-49). The results of a Gallup poll released in August 1999 were practically identical: 47% stated that they believed in a recent creation of man; 9% expressed belief in strictly naturalistic evolution (see Moore, 1999).
In its March 11, 2000 issue, the New York Times ran a story titled “Survey Finds Support is Strong for Teaching 2 Origin Theories,” which reported on a poll commissioned by the liberal civil rights group, People for the American Way, and conducted by the prestigious polling/public research firm, DYG, of Danbury, Connecticut. According to the report, 79% of the people polled felt that the scientific evidence for creation should be included in the curriculum of public schools (see Glanz, 2000, p. A-1).
The amazing thing about all of this, of course, is that these results are being achieved after more than a century of evolutionary indoctrination.
Second, this is the case, not because the majority of people are “logical illiterates or scientific simpletons,” but because the majority of people recognize what Dr. McKown and a few of his humanistic colleagues refuse to recognize—viz., the evidences from every field of science in support of creation are overwhelming. For example, when I reminded Dr. McKown that the fundamental, foundation cornerstone of all of biology is the law of biogenesis (which states that all life comes from preceding life of its kind), and that we know no known exception to it in nature, he replied, “That’s not right.” I asked, “Can you disprove it, or give me an example that violates it? Evolution, of course, violates it hundreds, thousands, or millions of times.” Of course, he was completely unable to provide any such an example. That is no surprise. The law of biogenesis is a scientific law; his evolutionary scenario is an imaginary philosophy that he is trying to pass off as “science.” When measured against true science, it pales into insignificance.
I also reminded Dr. McKown of the laws of genetics that ensure basic “kinds” remain within their own groups. And I reminded him of the laws of probability, which absolutely exclude the possibility of spontaneous generation and/or chemical evolution. I find it of special interest that Dr. McKown attempted to use the common evolutionist ploy that says, “But you creationists have a miracle in the camp, while we evolutionists use only that which is based in nature and is therefore scientific.” Amazing, is it not? The evolutionist asks us to believe that: (a) inorganic gave rise to organic; (b) Nonliving gave rise to living; (c) amoral gave rise to moral; and (d) unconscious gave rise to conscious. Yet creationists are the ones with the miracle!? And while we were on the subject, I also reminded Dr. McKown that science is not defined as “naturalism” in the first place. “Science” comes from the Latin word scientia, which means “knowledge.” To assume that knowledge can be acquired solely on the basis of naturalism is the height of intellectual snobbery, and more important, is wrong. Of all people, a philosopher of the stature of Dr. McKown should know that!
Likewise, I mentioned to Dr. McKown the two most fundamental laws of science, the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The first law, which states in simplified form that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed, strictly forbids the Universe having created itself. And the second, which states in simplified form that all things are “running down,” strictly forbids the evolutionary process on a universal scale from occurring; things are running down, not building up.
Piece by piece, this type of evidence was presented to Dr. McKown. And as the program came to an end, I suggested to him that it was not because people were “illiterates and simpletons” that creationists were making such inroads into the evolutionary establishment, but because sane, rational people can use a little common sense and a lot of good science and quickly come to the conclusion that evolution is both bad science and bad philosophy.
Why do evolutionists continually refuse a hearing for the scientific evidences for creation? There may exist two possibilities. First, it may be that evolutionists consider that students are too ignorant, too illiterate to be exposed to these competing ideas of origins. They must be “protected from error” and carefully indoctrinated in “correct” ideas by those who consider themselves to be the intellectually elite, the sole possessors and guardians of truth. Second, having engendered this fragile tower of hypotheses piled upon hypotheses, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion, it may be that evolutionists are aware of the fact that the notion of evolution will fare badly if exposed to an open and determined challenge from creation scientists and that if this is done, the majority of our students will accept creation as the better of the two concepts of origins. Whatever may be the case, it is urgent that inquiring students be exposed to all of the evidence and all of the arguments on each side of the question, so that these two alternative concepts of origins can compete freely in the marketplace of ideas!

REFERENCES

Bishop, George (1998), “The Religious Worldview and American Beliefs about Human Origins,” The Public Perspective, pp. 39-48, August/September.
Darwin, Charles (1956 edition), The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).
Ehrlich, Paul R., and L. C. Birch, (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, 214:349-352, April 22.
Glanz, James (2000), “Survey Finds Support is Strong for Teaching 2 Origin Theories,” The New York Times, p. A-1, March 11.
Lipson, H.S. (1980), “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, 31:138, May.
Macbeth, Norman (1982), “Darwinism: A Time For Funerals,” Towards, 2:22, Spring.
Major, Trevor J. (1991), “In the News—National Beliefs Polled,” Reason & Revelation, 11:48, December.
McKown, Delos (1985), With Faith and Fury (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).
Moore, David W. (1999), “Americans Support Teaching Creationism as Well as Evolution in Public Schools,” [On-line], URL http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr990830.asp (Princeton, NJ: Gallup News Service).
Morris, Henry M. (1982), Men of Science: Men of God (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers).
Morris, John D. (1992), “Do Americans Believe in Creation?,” Acts and Facts, p. d, February.
Newport, Frank (1993), “God Created Humankind, Most Believe,” Sunday Oklahoman, A-22.
Popper, Karl (1976), Unended Quest (Glasgow, Scotland: Fontana Books).
Sheler, Jeffery L. (1999), Is the Bible True? (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins).