January 17, 2018

Why? by Gary Rose

https://www.facebook.com/ScienceChannel/videos/10155674606253387/
(or go to my page on facebook and scroll down until you see it)

Most of the entire world has seen water freeze. Perhaps countries near the equator have not, but for the rest of us, it's just a normal thing that happens in winter. This video that I shared on facebook is a very special one. It shows a soap bubble freezing and quite frankly I was so amazed with it that I watched it a couple of times. 

It did create a problem for me, though, as I just can't get it through my head how someone could watch something like this and NOT believe in God. And this crystallized (pardon the pun) my thinking into a question: Why do people refuse to believe in God, WHY? 

The book of Romans came to mind and with it, the following passage...

Romans, Chapter 1 (W  E B)
13 Now I don’t desire to have you unaware, brothers, that I often planned to come to you, and was hindered so far, that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 I am debtor both to Greeks and to foreigners, both to the wise and to the foolish.  15 So as much as is in me, I am eager to preach the Good News to you also who are in Rome.  16 For I am not ashamed of the Good News of Christ, because it is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first, and also for the Greek.  17 For in it is revealed God’s righteousness from faith to faith. As it is written, “But the righteous shall live by faith.”18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them.  20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. 21 Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened.   (emphasis added vss. 18-21)


Perhaps they just like sin; but wait, sin has consequences. But, why wouldn't someone want to be saved from the consequences of their sin? After all, anyone can see that sin isn't good for you. Drink too much and you will become an alcoholic, smoke too much and you just might contract lung cancer, kill someone and you probably will spend the rest of your life in prison. 

It seems to me that the love of sin darkens a person's thinking and prevents them from accepting the fact that eventually they will have to pay for the sin they commit.  In other words, no penalty, no problem. To me, this just makes NO SENSE!!! Why not just accept God's way out (Jesus) and obey the Gospel and live? 

Anyway, that video is worth watching and I hope you will see the beauty of God's creation and rejoice in it!!!



ps. Recently, I changed the font I use for the Bible because I think it more accurately reflects the following verse.

Hebrews Chapter 4
12 For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and is able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 

Bible Reading January 17, 18 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading January 17, 18
(World English Bible)

Jan. 17
Genesis 17

Gen 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, Yahweh appeared to Abram, and said to him, "I am God Almighty. Walk before me, and be blameless.
Gen 17:2 I will make my covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly."
Gen 17:3 Abram fell on his face. God talked with him, saying,
Gen 17:4 "As for me, behold, my covenant is with you. You will be the father of a multitude of nations.
Gen 17:5 Neither will your name any more be called Abram, but your name will be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
Gen 17:6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you. Kings will come out of you.
Gen 17:7 I will establish my covenant between me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you.
Gen 17:8 I will give to you, and to your seed after you, the land where you are traveling, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession. I will be their God."
Gen 17:9 God said to Abraham, "As for you, you will keep my covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your seed after you. Every male among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin. It will be a token of the covenant between me and you.
Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old will be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he who is born in the house, or bought with money from any foreigner who is not of your seed.
Gen 17:13 He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your money, must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Gen 17:14 The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant."
Gen 17:15 God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but her name will be Sarah.
Gen 17:16 I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her. Yes, I will bless her, and she will be a mother of nations. Kings of peoples will come from her."
Gen 17:17 Then Abraham fell on his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to him who is one hundred years old? Will Sarah, who is ninety years old, give birth?"
Gen 17:18 Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!"
Gen 17:19 God said, "No, but Sarah, your wife, will bear you a son. You shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him.
Gen 17:20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He will become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.
Gen 17:21 But my covenant I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this set time next year."
Gen 17:22 When he finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham.
Gen 17:23 Abraham took Ishmael his son, all who were born in his house, and all who were bought with his money; every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the same day, as God had said to him.
Gen 17:24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
Gen 17:25 Ishmael, his son, was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
Gen 17:26 In the same day both Abraham and Ishmael, his son, were circumcised.
Gen 17:27 All the men of his house, those born in the house, and those bought with money of a foreigner, were circumcised with him.

Jan. 18
Genesis 18

Gen 18:1 Yahweh appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day.
Gen 18:2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and saw that three men stood opposite him. When he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself to the earth,
Gen 18:3 and said, "My lord, if now I have found favor in your sight, please don't go away from your servant.
Gen 18:4 Now let a little water be fetched, wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree.
Gen 18:5 I will get a morsel of bread so you can refresh your heart. After that you may go your way, now that you have come to your servant." They said, "Very well, do as you have said."
Gen 18:6 Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah, and said, "Quickly make ready three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes."
Gen 18:7 Abraham ran to the herd, and fetched a tender and good calf, and gave it to the servant. He hurried to dress it.
Gen 18:8 He took butter, milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them. He stood by them under the tree, and they ate.
Gen 18:9 They said to him, "Where is Sarah, your wife? He said, "See, in the tent."
Gen 18:10 He said, "I will certainly return to you when the season comes round. Behold, Sarah your wife will have a son." Sarah heard in the tent door, which was behind him.
Gen 18:11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old, well advanced in age. It had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
Gen 18:12 Sarah laughed within herself, saying, "After I have grown old will I have pleasure, my lord being old also?"
Gen 18:13 Yahweh said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh, saying, 'Will I really bear a child, yet I am old?'
Gen 18:14 Is anything too hard for Yahweh? At the set time I will return to you, when the season comes round, and Sarah will have a son."
Gen 18:15 Then Sarah denied, saying, "I didn't laugh," for she was afraid. He said, "No, but you did laugh."
Gen 18:16 The men rose up from there, and looked toward Sodom. Abraham went with them to see them on their way.
Gen 18:17 Yahweh said, "Will I hide from Abraham what I do,
Gen 18:18 seeing that Abraham has surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth will be blessed in him?
Gen 18:19 For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of Yahweh, to do righteousness and justice; to the end that Yahweh may bring on Abraham that which he has spoken of him."
Gen 18:20 Yahweh said, "Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous,
Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether their deeds are as bad as the reports which have come to me. If not, I will know."
Gen 18:22 The men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, but Abraham stood yet before Yahweh.
Gen 18:23 Abraham drew near, and said, "Will you consume the righteous with the wicked?
Gen 18:24 What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it?
Gen 18:25 Be it far from you to do things like that, to kill the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be like the wicked. May that be far from you. Shouldn't the Judge of all the earth do right?"
Gen 18:26 Yahweh said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sake."
Gen 18:27 Abraham answered, "See now, I have taken it on myself to speak to the Lord, who am but dust and ashes.
Gen 18:28 What if there will lack five of the fifty righteous? Will you destroy all the city for lack of five?" He said, "I will not destroy it, if I find forty-five there."
Gen 18:29 He spoke to him yet again, and said, "What if there are forty found there?" He said, "I will not do it for the forty's sake."
Gen 18:30 He said, "Oh don't let the Lord be angry, and I will speak. What if there are thirty found there?" He said, "I will not do it, if I find thirty there."
Gen 18:31 He said, "See now, I have taken it on myself to speak to the Lord. What if there are twenty found there?" He said, "I will not destroy it for the twenty's sake."
Gen 18:32 He said, "Oh don't let the Lord be angry, and I will speak just once more. What if ten are found there?" He said, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake."

Gen 18:33 Yahweh went his way, as soon as he had finished communing with Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place.

Jan. 17, 18
Matthew 9

Mat 9:1 He entered into a boat, and crossed over, and came into his own city.
Mat 9:2 Behold, they brought to him a man who was paralyzed, lying on a bed. Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "Son, cheer up! Your sins are forgiven you."
Mat 9:3 Behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man blasphemes."
Mat 9:4 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts?
Mat 9:5 For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven;' or to say, 'Get up, and walk?'
Mat 9:6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins..." (then he said to the paralytic), "Get up, and take up your mat, and go up to your house."
Mat 9:7 He arose and departed to his house.
Mat 9:8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
Mat 9:9 As Jesus passed by from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax collection office. He said to him, "Follow me." He got up and followed him.
Mat 9:10 It happened as he sat in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.
Mat 9:11 When the Pharisees saw it, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
Mat 9:12 When Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are healthy have no need for a physician, but those who are sick do.
Mat 9:13 But you go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Mat 9:14 Then John's disciples came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples don't fast?"
Mat 9:15 Jesus said to them, "Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast.
Mat 9:16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch would tear away from the garment, and a worse hole is made.
Mat 9:17 Neither do people put new wine into old wineskins, or else the skins would burst, and the wine be spilled, and the skins ruined. No, they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved."
Mat 9:18 While he told these things to them, behold, a ruler came and worshiped him, saying, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live."
Mat 9:19 Jesus got up and followed him, as did his disciples.
Mat 9:20 Behold, a woman who had an issue of blood for twelve years came behind him, and touched the fringe of his garment;
Mat 9:21 for she said within herself, "If I just touch his garment, I will be made well."
Mat 9:22 But Jesus, turning around and seeing her, said, "Daughter, cheer up! Your faith has made you well." And the woman was made well from that hour.
Mat 9:23 When Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the flute players, and the crowd in noisy disorder,
Mat 9:24 he said to them, "Make room, because the girl isn't dead, but sleeping." They were ridiculing him.
Mat 9:25 But when the crowd was put out, he entered in, took her by the hand, and the girl arose.
Mat 9:26 The report of this went out into all that land.
Mat 9:27 As Jesus passed by from there, two blind men followed him, calling out and saying, "Have mercy on us, son of David!"
Mat 9:28 When he had come into the house, the blind men came to him. Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They told him, "Yes, Lord."
Mat 9:29 Then he touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith be it done to you."
Mat 9:30 Their eyes were opened. Jesus strictly commanded them, saying, "See that no one knows about this."
Mat 9:31 But they went out and spread abroad his fame in all that land.
Mat 9:32 As they went out, behold, a mute man who was demon possessed was brought to him.
Mat 9:33 When the demon was cast out, the mute man spoke. The multitudes marveled, saying, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel!"
Mat 9:34 But the Pharisees said, "By the prince of the demons, he casts out demons."
Mat 9:35 Jesus went about all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Good News of the Kingdom, and healing every disease and every sickness among the people.
Mat 9:36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion for them, because they were harassed and scattered, like sheep without a shepherd.
Mat 9:37 Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest indeed is plentiful, but the laborers are few.
Mat 9:38 Pray therefore that the Lord of the harvest will send out laborers into his harvest." 

After death, what then? by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/pdf/afterdeath.pdf


What Did Jesus Think About the Messiah Being the Son of David? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2567&b=Matthew


What Did Jesus Think About the Messiah Being the Son of David?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 testify that Jesus was the “Son of David.” In fact, the book of Matthew begins with these words: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (1:1, emp. added). The New Testament is also abundantly clear that this Son of David is “the Christ” or “the Messiah.” When the Samaritan woman at the well said to Jesus, “‘I know that Messiah is coming’ (who is called Christ). ‘When He comes, He will tell us all things.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am He’” (John 4:25-26, emp. added). What’s more, just before Jesus’ crucifixion, when the Jewish high priest asked Him directly, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:61-62, emp. added). Thus, the New Testament clearly affirms that Jesus was both “Christ” and the “Son of David.” [NOTE: The term “Christ” is transliterated from the Greek term Christos, while “Messiah” is transliterated from the Hebrew/Aramaic term Meshiach. Both have as their meaning, “the anointed One.”]
In the September/October 2008 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hebrew University professor Israel Knohl alleged that Mark 12:35-37 (cf. Matthew 22:41-46 and Luke 20:41-44) “blatantly clashes” with New Testament references of Jesus being “the Son of David” (2008, 34[5]:61). When Jesus asked, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David?” (Mark 12:35), Jesus supposedly “rejects the idea that the Messiah is the son of David” (Knohl, p. 61). Knohl claimed:
To demonstrate that the Messiah is not the son of David, Jesus quotes Psalm 110, attributed in the Hebrew Bible to David himself. As the text of Mark (12:36) recites, David speaks in the psalm: “David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared...” Jesus then recites a passage from the psalm: “The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.” Jesus then uses this passage to prove his point: “David himself calls him [the Messiah] ‘Lord,’ so how is he his son?” That is, David speaks of the Messiah as “my Lord,” rather than as “my son.” The Messiah therefore cannot be a son of David. Using Psalm 110 as his proof text, Jesus here refutes the scribes’ view that Christ, the Messiah, should be a son or descendant of David (p. 61, emp. added).
Knohl went on to state that Psalm 110 is “historically reliable,” and Mark 12:35-37 “must be authentic.” The implication is that those Bible passages which designate Jesus as the “Son of David” (Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38) are unreliable.
Knohl is correct that Psalm 110 and Mark 12:35-37 are “historically reliable” and “authentic,” but he has failed miserably in his interpretation of Mark 12:35-37 (and parallel passages in Matthew 22:41-46 and Luke 20:41-44). When Jesus asked the Pharisees “how is He [the Messiah] then his [David’s] Son,” if David calls Him “Lord,” He was neither denying His credentials to be the Messiah nor the fact that the Messiah would be a “Son of David.” On the contrary, Jesus was trying to get His hearers to understand that the Messiah, though David’s Son, is greater than David, for King David called Him “my Lord.” It was self-evident to first-century Jews that the Messiah would be a descendant of David (Psalm 89:3-4; 132:11-12; Isaiah 9:6-7; Matthew 1:1-16; 12:23; 21:9,15; Luke 3:23-38). Jesus was not denying that fact. Rather, He wanted his hearers to reach the same conclusion that Peter previously reached after Jesus asked a similar question: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (Matthew 16:13, NASB). Peter confessed to Jesus: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). How could the Messiah be a descendant of David as well as be the One to whom David 1,000 years earlier called “Lord”? Answer: He was deity Who put on flesh. This is the truth with which Jesus confronted the Pharisees, and “no one was able to answer Him a word” (Matthew 22:46), because
they believed not in the divinity of Christ. They supposed that he would be only a man.... By propounding the question, Jesus gained two important points: he showed that the promised Christ was to be divine, and he showed that his own claim to be the Son of God was in perfect harmony with his claim to be the Christ. If he is the Christ, then he is David’s Lord (McGarvey, 1875, p. 194).
Jesus, the Son of David, is greater than any man who ever lived, including the greatest king Israel had ever known. He was his “Lord.” Jesus is superior. Interestingly, even the writer of Hebrews referred to Psalm 110:1 as he impressed upon his readers Jesus’ superiority over the angelic realm (1:13).
Knohl’s alleged contradiction, between Jesus’ reference to Psalm 110 in the synoptic gospels and the biblical references of the Messiah being the “Son of David,” is easily resolved when the Bible is “rightly divided” (2 Timothy 2:15). Jesus rejected neither His being the “Son of David,” nor “the Messiah.” In truth, He was both.

REFERENCES

Knohl, Israel (2008), “The Messiah: Son of Joseph,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 34[5]:58-62, September/October.
McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).

God’s Word: Right About Sex by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5138

God’s Word: Right About Sex

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


In Proverbs 29:18, Solomon noted that when a society eliminates God and His Word, people do what they want to do with minimal nagging from their own conscience or from others around them. In contrast, “happy is He who keeps the [God’s] law.” In the same way that parents’ rules for children are for their good (e.g., “Don’t touch the stove”), God’s Word is for our good always (Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:12-13; Psalm 19:7-8; 119; Romans 7:12). That fact is true regarding how individuals in a society should conduct themselves sexually as well. A little-known study conducted in the early 1900s and published in 1934 lends support to that fact.
J.D. Unwin was a British ethnologist and social anthropologist of Oxford and Cambridge Universities. He was no advocate for Christianity or religion. In his book, Sex and Culture, Unwin discusses the results of his study of 86 societies from over 5,000 years of history. These were selected due to the availability of the evidence that substantiated their regulations/expectations regarding sexual activity, and included various Melanesian societies as well as several African, Polynesian, Assamian, Paleo-Siberian, North American Indian, Babylonian, Athenian, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and English societies. Each culture was categorized based on how strict its societal rules and expectations were concerning sexual activity, especially regarding acceptable female sexual behavior in a society. The studied societies were divided into seven classes of sexual regulation—three pre-nuptial and four post-nuptial categories. Regarding pre-marriage customs, some societies allowed (1) total sexual freedom before marriage; (2) some pre-marital activity and allowing for only “irregular or occasional” sexual activity; and (3) no sexual activity—invoking punishment or death to women who failed to remain virgins until marriage. Concerning post-nuptial allowances, some societies (1) considered polygamy acceptable as well as having no restriction on faithfulness. Neither party was “compelled to confine his or her sexual qualities to the other for his or her whole life”; (2) only considered monogamy acceptable, but again, neither party had to confine his/her sexual appetites to his/her spouse for life; (3) required wives to confine their sexual activity to their husband, but the husband could have other sexual partners through polygamous relationships (i.e., strict polygamy); and (4) required strict monogamy as the acceptable practice—where both the husband and wife were confined to each other sexually for life (pp. 341-343). Unwin’s discoveries about these categories are enlightening.
According to Unwin, the “first primary law which operates in all human societies” is that “the cultural condition of any society in any geographical environment is conditioned by its past and present methods of regulating the relations between the sexes [sexually—JM]” (p. 340). In every instance, when sexual restrictions in a society are at their highest level (i.e., strict pre-nuptial abstinence andstrict monogamy), the society inevitably progresses, and the more sexual activity is curbed in a society, the more the society progresses. When restrictions are lessened, the society inevitably stops progressing and begins to digress, ultimately disappearing if the restrictions are not again tightened. “[A] limitation of sexual opportunity [i.e., more sexual restraint in a society—JM] always is, and so far as I know always has been, accompanied by a rise in cultural condition” (p. 2). The rise occurs after the implemented rules have been in effect for “at least three generations” (p. 321). “Any extension of sexual opportunity [i.e., less sexual restraint in a society—JM] must always be the immediate cause of a cultural decline” (p. 326).
Unwin argues that the more lenient a society is in its sexual allowances, the more energy is inevitably used by that society in gratifying its sexual desires. The more strict a society is, the more that extra energy is used in expanding a society and progressing.
[P]sychological researches reveal that the placing of a compulsory check upon the sexual impulses, that is, a limitation of sexual opportunity, produces thought, reflection, and energy. Now the evidence is that a cultural advance has been caused by a factor which produces thought, reflection, and social energy…and that it occurs only when the sexual opportunity has been limited. I submit, therefore, that the limitation of the sexual opportunity must be regarded as the cause of the cultural advance…. If men and women are sexually free, their sexual desires will receive direct satisfaction; but if the sexual opportunity is limited, the impulses must be checked. Then the repressed desires will be expressed in another form…. [U]sually the tension produced by the emotional conflicts is exhibited in some form of mental and social energy, the intensity of that energy depending upon the intensity of the compulsory continence [i.e., the level of restriction placed on sexual activity—JM]. When the sexual opportunity of a society is reduced almost to a minimum, the resulting social energy produces “great accomplishments in human endeavor” and “civilization.” When the compulsory continence is of a less rigorous character, lesser energy is displayed (p. 317).
Among the accomplishments of extremely energetic societies are territorial expansion, conquest, colonization and the foundation of a widely flung commerce. All these things, and their like, are manifestations of what I call expansive social energy. A society which displays productive social energy develops the resources of its habitat and by increasing its knowledge of the material universe bends nature to its will. All such accomplishments as these imply the previous exertion of thought and reflection, these being necessary precursor to all human achievements (p. 315, italics in orig.).
Unwin noted that though he considers high restraint of sexual behavior to be the “immediate cause of social energy,” he is
content to conclude that it is the cause of social energy only in the sense of being an indispensable contributory factor; that is to say, even if other factors also are indispensable and operating, no social energy can be displayed unless the sexual opportunity is limited. Other things being equal, however, social energy will be exhibited by any society which places a compulsory limitation upon the sexual opportunity of its members. Conversely, in all cases any extension of sexual opportunity must result in a reduction of social energy. Such is the evidence from psychological research (p. 320, emp. added).
The inherent power of thought and the potential energy of the human organism can be exhibited only when the sexual impulses are controlled by the operation of social ordinances; and the amount of energy and the profundity of the thought depend upon the extent of the imitation which these ordinances impose. If the compulsory continence be great, the society will display great energy; if it be small, there will be a little energy. If there be no compulsory continence, there can be no energy; it remains potential (p. 339).
When we look at American society today, Unwin’s discoveries, if true, are eerie admonitions to consider, for according to Unwin, “as soon as the sexual opportunity of the society, or of a group within the society, was extended, the energy of the society, or of the group within it, decreased and finally disappeared” (p. 382, emp. added). Using modern layman terminology: unbridled cravings of any sort will tend to monopolize our mind and our time. If a society as a whole allows unbridled cravings to become widespread, then the society as a whole will have much of its mind-power and energy focused on fulfilling those lusts/addictions rather than on doing good for others and improving society. Statistics indicate that sexual anarchy rules the day in America. Pornography, adultery, divorce and remarriage, “shacking up” without even marrying (whether with one person or more than one), homosexuality, polygamy, and pedophilia are rampant in American society and are even encouraged in many cases through law, music, movies, and books. [See Apologetics Press’ book Sexual Anarchy (Miller, 2006) for documentation of America’s growing sexual insanity.]
Interestingly, in harmony with what a Christian would expect based on God’s Word, Unwin found that absolute monogamy led to the most advanced societies. “In the records of history, indeed, there is no example of a society displaying great energy for any appreciable period unless it has been absolutely monogamous. Moreover, I do not know of a case in which an absolutely monogamous society has failed to display great energy” (p. 369, emp. added). “Those societies which have maintained the custom [of absolute monogamy—JM] for the longest period have attained the highest position in the cultural scale which the human race has yet reached” (p. 25). “Generally speaking, in the past when they began to display great energy…, human societies were absolutely monogamous…. [T]he energy of the most developed civilized societies, or that of any group within them, was exhibited for so long as they preserved their austere regulations. Their energy faded away as soon as” this restriction was loosened (p. 343, emp. added).
Unwin argues that strict monogamy fosters an environment where advancement is more likely to be achieved in a society. He argues that the next rung down on the sexual regulation ladder (strict polygamy), does not lend itself to societal advancement. “An absolutely polygamous society preserves but does not increase its tradition. It does not possess the energy to adopt new ideas; it remains content with its old institutions” (p. 368, emp. added). Though admittedly he did not engage in a formal study of the subject, it is interesting to note what famous General George S. Patton observed during World War II about the North African Islamic countries (that practiced polygamy):
One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity (1947, p. 43, emp. added).
In Matthew 19, Jesus called His audience’s memory back to the beginning—when God defined marriage for mankind.
Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female’ [Genesis 1:27], and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ [Genesis 2:24]? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).
Scriptural marriage is intended by God to be comprised of one eligible man marrying one eligible woman, and the two becoming one flesh for life. Strict monogamy is the biblical definition of marriage. According to the Bible, sexual activity is good and to be encouraged in that setting (1 Corinthians 7:3-5; Hebrews 13:4; Proverbs 5; Song of Solomon). Unwin’s study helps us to see at least one reason why marriage was so defined.
[NOTE: Unwin’s study was obviously confined to societies in existence before the early 1900s when the study was conducted—most of which were likely isolated from significant influences by other cultures due to the state of technology before the 1900s (e.g., a lack of telephones, television, Internet, etc.), as well as natural, geographical limitations (i.e., inability to travel extensively between nations). Such a study might be more difficult today, since societies are, for the most part, not isolated, but rather, heavily influence each other. One society might be perceived to advance in contradiction to Unwin’s assertions, when in actuality, its advancement was merely due to, for example, its acquisition of technology from other societies, receiving aid from other societies, etc.—practices engaged in often today. That said, eliminating many of those influences from the equation, as Unwin’s study did by necessity, would logically seem to allow a more accurate assessment of the effect of sexual behavior on a society.]

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2006), Sexual Anarchy (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Patton, George S. (1947), War As I Knew It (New York: The Great Commanders, 1994 edition).
Unwin, J.D. (1934), Sex and Culture (London: Oxford University Press).

Comets, Chameleons, and Illogical Conclusions by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3724


Comets, Chameleons, and Illogical Conclusions

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which some will go to reject the rational conclusion that God created everything in six days (Genesis 1-2; Exodus 20:11). In an effort to counter various common-sense arguments that Christians present for a literal interpretation of Genesis one and a recent Creation (as opposed to a multi-billion-year, evolutionary process), evolutionists continually draw irrational conclusions. Consider two explanations by evolutionists attempting to explain away evidence creationists present for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs in the past.
1. Whereas creationists believe that both the Bible and secular history teach that man once lived on Earth with dinosaurs (or “dragons;” see Lyons and Butt, 2008, pp. 13-45,109-134), evolutionists must somehow explain the existence of a plethora of stories of humans interacting with “dragons.” Why has humanity “since the dawn of recorded history” (“The Spread…,” 1981, 89:103) told stories of large reptilian creatures with long, serpentine necks, elongated bodies, massive tails, horned-heads, and some with membranous wings? Although evolutionist Ker Than was honest enough to admit that “[o]f all creatures that ever lived, pterosaurs probably most closely resemble the dragons of European legend” (2007), surely this couldn’t be the answer. After all, evolution says that pterosaurs and dinosaurs went extinct 60+ million years before humans allegedly evolved. What was Ker Than’s #1 explanation for the undeniable existence of antiquated “dragon legends” around the world? With all seriousness, he wrote:
To people living in ancient times, a comet streaking through the skies with an icy tail millions of miles long would have closely resembled such a creature…. If comets were the inspiration for some dragons, it could help explain why dragons are ubiquitous in the myths and legends of so many different cultures in all corners of the world (2007, emp. added).
In one of the few places I have ever seen evolutionists attempt to answer the dragon/dinosaur conundrum, a popular evolutionary writer concludes that a comet closely resembles a dragon. Absurd!
2. If, as the Bible teaches, humans once observed dinosaurs in the distant past (Genesis 1-2; Exodus 20:11; cf. Job 40:15-24; Job 41:1-34), it would seem logical that they not only would have told stories about what they saw (i.e., “dragon legends”—no doubt some were exaggerated), but occasionally they would have made some type of drawing or carving of them. In fact, this is exactly what has been found around the world: antiquated carvings and paintings of dinosaurs and dinosaur-like creatures (see Lyons and Butt, pp. 47-107). But such evidence conflicts with evolutionary theory. (If the ancients never lived with dinosaurs, and we did not learn about dinosaurs from the fossil record until modern times, our ancestors allegedly could not have illustrated dinosaurs; see Lyons, 2008.) Other explanations must be proposed; else evolution’s “factualiDinoty” would be called into question. Sadly, more often than not, evolutionists choose to “toe the party line” and come up with other explanations, regardless of their improbability.
Take, for example, the explanation one evolutionist gave of the Ta Prohm temple carving near Siem Reap, Cambodia (a carving that we have discussed at length elsewhere; see Butt and Lyons, 2008). Rather than admit what any unbiased child would call the animal (a “Stegosaurus,” or “dinosaur” at the very least), Dr. Steven Novella chose to point out what he called “creationist illogic” (2008). After showing two pictures of chameleons, he writes: “Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! I think we have a winner. At the very least we can conclude that the temple relief looks much more like a chameleon than a stegosaurus” (emp. added). A chameleon? Really? One wonders why, when I randomly showed a class of middle school students this particular rock carving (which I had every reason to believe they had never previously seen) every student in the class identified the animal as a dinosaur, or more specifically as a Stegosaurus. [To read much more about this rock carving, as well as several others, see Lyons and Butt, 2008. NOTE: The most distinguishing part of a Stegosaurus (its plated back) is unlike any animal alive today. Though the carving may not be what a meticulous scientific illustrator would draw, one has to keep in mind that the ancients were (1) carving on rock, (2) working within the confines of a relatively small circular area, and (3) likely working from memory (either their own or from others who described the animal).]
A toy dinosaur that was originally (when sold) confined within a toy dinosaur egg. Notice that toy makers made the easily identifiable Stegosaurus without tail spikes. This particular feature of the dinosaur was purposefully left off of the toy model for various reasons (e.g., space limitation within the egg), yet any person remotely familiar with dinosaurs knows that toy makers were intending to manufacture a Stegosaurus.
Although Christians are continually mocked for believing that God designed all the various kinds of animal and human life on days five and six of Creation, in reality such a Creation makes perfect sense. The Bible, history, and true science are in complete agreement. It is logical to believe that “in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (Exodus 20:11). What we find illogical, however, is to maintain that “dragons” came from comets and that the CambodianStegosaurus carving looks like a chameleon.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2008), “Physical Evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 28[3], March, http://ap.lanexdev.com/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=599.
Lyons, Eric (2008), “Did the Ancients Base Their Dinosaur Drawings on Fossils?” http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2444&topic=59.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008), The Dinosaur Delusion (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Novella, Steven (2008), “Ancient Cambodian Stegosaurus?” NeurologicaBlog, http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=196.
Than, Ker (2007), “Top 10 Beasts and Dragons: How Reality Made Myth,” LiveScience.com, http://www.livescience.com/animals/top10_dragons.html.
“The Spread of Dragon Myths” (1981), Science Digest, 89:103, May.

Did Jesus Rise “On” or “After” the Third Day? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=756

Did Jesus Rise “On” or “After” the Third Day?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


The most frequent reference to Jesus’ resurrection reveals that He rose from the grave on the third day of His entombment. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record Jesus as prophesying that He would arise from the grave on this day (Matthew 17:23; Mark 9:31; Luke 9:22). The apostle Paul wrote in his first epistle to the Corinthians that Jesus arose from the grave “the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4). What’s more, while preaching to Cornelius and his household, Peter taught that God raised Jesus up “on the third day” (Acts 10:40, emp. added). The fact is, however, Jesus also taught (and Mark recorded) “that the Son of Man” would “be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31, emp. added). Furthermore, Jesus elsewhere prophesied that He would be in the heart of the Earth for “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40). So which is it? Did Jesus rise from the dead onthe third day or after three days?
While to the 21st-century reader these statements may initially appear to contradict one another, in reality, they harmonize perfectly if one understands the different, and sometimes more liberal, methods ancients often used when reckoning time. In the first century, any part of a day could be computed for the whole day and the night following it (cf. Lightfoot, 1979, pp. 210-211). The Jerusalem Talmud quotes rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: “A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it” (from Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Hoehner, 1974, pp. 248-249, bracketed comment in orig.). Azariah indicated that a portion of a 24-hour period could be considered the same “as the whole of it.” Thus, as awkward as it may sound to an American living in the 21st century, a person in ancient times could legitimately speak of something occurring “on the third day,” “after three days,” or after “three days and three nights,” yet still be referring to the same exact day.
The Scriptures contain several examples which clearly show that in Bible times a part of a day was often equivalent to the whole day.
  • According to Genesis 7:12, the rain of the Noahic Flood was upon the Earth “forty days and forty nights.” Verse 17 of that same chapter says it was on the Earth for just “forty days.” Who would argue that it had to rain precisely 960 hours (40 days x 24 hours) for both of these statements to be true?
  • In Genesis 42:17 Joseph incarcerated his brothers for three days. Then, according to verse 18, he spoke to them on the third day and released them (all but one, that is).
  • In 1 Samuel 30:12,13, the phrases “three days and three nights” and “three days” are used interchangeably.
  • When Queen Esther was about to risk her life by going before the king uninvited, she instructed her fellow Jews to follow her example by not eating “for three days, night or day” (Esther 4:16). The text goes on to tell us that Esther went in unto the king “on the third day” (5:1, emp. added).
  • Perhaps the most compelling Old Testament passage which clearly testifies that the ancients (at least occasionally) considered a portion of a twenty-four hour period “as the whole of it” is found in 2 Chronicles 10. When Israel asked King Rehoboam to lighten their burdens, he wanted time to contemplate their request, so he instructed Jeroboam and the people of Israel to return “after three days” (2 Chronicles 10:5, emp. added). Verse 12, however, indicates that Jeroboam and the people of Israel came to Rehoboam “on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘ Come back to me the third day’ ” (emp. added). Fascinating, is it not, that even though Rehoboam instructed his people to return “after three days,” they understood this to mean “on the third day.”
  • From Acts 10, we can glean further insight into the ancient practice of counting consecutive days (in part or in whole) as complete days. Luke recorded how an angel appeared to Cornelius at “about the ninth hour of the day” (approximately 3:00 p.m.; Acts 10:3). “The next day” (10:9) Peter received a vision from God and welcomed visitors sent by Cornelius. “On the next day” (10:23) Peter and the servants of Cornelius departed for Caesarea. “And the following day they entered Caesarea” where Peter taught Cornelius and his household the Gospel (10:24). At one point during Peter’s visit,Cornelius spoke about his encounter with the angel of God. Notice carefully how he began the rehearsal of the event. He stated: “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour…” (10:30, NASB, emp. added). Although the event actually had occurred only 72 hours (or three literal days) earlier, Cornelius spoke of it as taking place “four days ago to this hour.” Why four days instead of three? Because according to the first-century method of reckoning time, a part of the first day and a part of the fourth day could be counted as whole days. Surely one can see how this information aligns itself perfectly with Jesus’ burial taking place on Friday and His resurrection occurring on Sunday. A part of Friday, all day Saturday, and a part of Sunday would be considered three days in ancient times, not one or two.
Even though in modern times some may find this reasoning somewhat confusing, similar idiomatic expressions frequently are used today. For example, we consider a baseball game that ends after only completing 8½ innings a “9-inning game.” And even though the losing pitcher on the visiting team only pitched 8 innings (and not 9 innings like the winning pitcher from the home team), he is said to have pitched a complete game. Consider also the guest at a hotel who checks in at 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday, and checks out at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday—less than 24 hours later. Did the man stay one day or two days at the hotel? Technically, the guest was there for less than one full day (24-hour period), yet the hotel legally can charge him for two days since he did not leave before the mandatory 11:00 a.m. checkout time. Considering how flexible we are in measuring time, depending on the context, perhaps we should not be surprised at how liberal the ancients could be in calculating time.
Further evidence proving that Jesus’ statements regarding His burial were not contradictory centers around the fact that even His enemies did not accuse Him of contradicting Himself. No doubt this was due to their familiarity with and use of the flexible, customary method of stating time. In fact, the chief priests and Pharisees even said to Pilate the day after Jesus was crucified: “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day” (Matthew 27:63-64, emp. added). The phrase “after three days” must have been equivalent to “the third day,” else surely the Pharisees would have asked for a guard of soldiers until the fourth day. Interesting, is it not, that modern skeptics charge Jesus with contradicting Himself, but not the hypercritical Pharisees of His own day.
The idiomatic expressions that Jesus and the Bible writers employed to denote how long Jesus would remain in the grave does not mean that He literally was buried for 72 hours. If we interpret the account of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection in light of the cultural setting of the first century, and not according to the present-day (mis)understanding of skeptics, we find no errors in any of the expressions that Jesus and the gospel writers used.

REFERENCES

Hoehner, Harold W (1974), “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ—Part IV: The Day of Christ’s Crucifixion,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 131:241-264, July.
Lightfoot, John (1979 reprint), A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).