October 13, 2015

From Gary... Bible Reading October 13



Bible Reading  

October 13

The World English Bible


Oct. 13
Proverbs 12-14

Pro 12:1 Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.
Pro 12:2 A good man shall obtain favor from Yahweh, but he will condemn a man of wicked devices.
Pro 12:3 A man shall not be established by wickedness, but the root of the righteous shall not be moved.
Pro 12:4 A worthy woman is the crown of her husband, but a disgraceful wife is as rottenness in his bones.
Pro 12:5 The thoughts of the righteous are just, but the advice of the wicked is deceitful.
Pro 12:6 The words of the wicked are about lying in wait for blood, but the speech of the upright rescues them.
Pro 12:7 The wicked are overthrown, and are no more, but the house of the righteous shall stand.
Pro 12:8 A man shall be commended according to his wisdom, but he who has a warped mind shall be despised.
Pro 12:9 Better is he who is lightly esteemed, and has a servant, than he who honors himself, and lacks bread.
Pro 12:10 A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Pro 12:11 He who tills his land shall have plenty of bread, but he who chases fantasies is void of understanding.
Pro 12:12 The wicked desires the plunder of evil men, but the root of the righteous flourishes.
Pro 12:13 An evil man is trapped by sinfulness of lips, but the righteous shall come out of trouble.
Pro 12:14 A man shall be satisfied with good by the fruit of his mouth. The work of a man's hands shall be rewarded to him.
Pro 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who is wise listens to counsel.
Pro 12:16 A fool shows his annoyance the same day, but one who overlooks an insult is prudent.
Pro 12:17 He who is truthful testifies honestly, but a false witness lies.
Pro 12:18 There is one who speaks rashly like the piercing of a sword, but the tongue of the wise heals.
Pro 12:19 Truth's lips will be established forever, but a lying tongue is only momentary.
Pro 12:20 Deceit is in the heart of those who plot evil, but joy comes to the promoters of peace.
Pro 12:21 No mischief shall happen to the righteous, but the wicked shall be filled with evil.
Pro 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to Yahweh, but those who do the truth are his delight.
Pro 12:23 A prudent man keeps his knowledge, but the hearts of fools proclaim foolishness.
Pro 12:24 The hands of the diligent ones shall rule, but laziness ends in slave labor.
Pro 12:25 Anxiety in a man's heart weighs it down, but a kind word makes it glad.
Pro 12:26 A righteous person is cautious in friendship, but the way of the wicked leads them astray.
Pro 12:27 The slothful man doesn't roast his game, but the possessions of diligent men are prized.
Pro 12:28 In the way of righteousness is life; in its path there is no death.
Pro 13:1 A wise son listens to his father's instruction, but a scoffer doesn't listen to rebuke.
Pro 13:2 By the fruit of his lips, a man enjoys good things; but the unfaithful crave violence.
Pro 13:3 He who guards his mouth guards his soul. One who opens wide his lips comes to ruin.
Pro 13:4 The soul of the sluggard desires, and has nothing, but the desire of the diligent shall be fully satisfied.
Pro 13:5 A righteous man hates lies, but a wicked man brings shame and disgrace.
Pro 13:6 Righteousness guards the way of integrity, but wickedness overthrows the sinner.
Pro 13:7 There are some who pretend to be rich, yet have nothing. There are some who pretend to be poor, yet have great wealth.
Pro 13:8 The ransom of a man's life is his riches, but the poor hear no threats.
Pro 13:9 The light of the righteous shines brightly, but the lamp of the wicked is snuffed out.
Pro 13:10 Pride only breeds quarrels, but with ones who take advice is wisdom.
Pro 13:11 Wealth gained dishonestly dwindles away, but he who gathers by hand makes it grow.
Pro 13:12 Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but when longing is fulfilled, it is a tree of life.
Pro 13:13 Whoever despises instruction will pay for it, but he who respects a command will be rewarded.
Pro 13:14 The teaching of the wise is a spring of life, to turn from the snares of death.
Pro 13:15 Good understanding wins favor; but the way of the unfaithful is hard.
Pro 13:16 Every prudent man acts from knowledge, but a fool exposes folly.
Pro 13:17 A wicked messenger falls into trouble, but a trustworthy envoy gains healing.
Pro 13:18 Poverty and shame come to him who refuses discipline, but he who heeds correction shall be honored.
Pro 13:19 Longing fulfilled is sweet to the soul, but fools detest turning from evil.
Pro 13:20 One who walks with wise men grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm.
Pro 13:21 Misfortune pursues sinners, but prosperity rewards the righteous.
Pro 13:22 A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the wealth of the sinner is stored for the righteous.
Pro 13:23 An abundance of food is in poor people's fields, but injustice sweeps it away.
Pro 13:24 One who spares the rod hates his son, but one who loves him is careful to discipline him.
Pro 13:25 The righteous one eats to the satisfying of his soul, but the belly of the wicked goes hungry.
Pro 14:1 Every wise woman builds her house, but the foolish one tears it down with her own hands.
Pro 14:2 He who walks in his uprightness fears Yahweh, but he who is perverse in his ways despises him.
Pro 14:3 The fool's talk brings a rod to his back, but the lips of the wise protect them.
Pro 14:4 Where no oxen are, the crib is clean, but much increase is by the strength of the ox.
Pro 14:5 A truthful witness will not lie, but a false witness pours out lies.
Pro 14:6 A scoffer seeks wisdom, and doesn't find it, but knowledge comes easily to a discerning person.
Pro 14:7 Stay away from a foolish man, for you won't find knowledge on his lips.
Pro 14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to think about his way, but the folly of fools is deceit.
Pro 14:9 Fools mock at making atonement for sins, but among the upright there is good will.
Pro 14:10 The heart knows its own bitterness and joy; he will not share these with a stranger.
Pro 14:11 The house of the wicked will be overthrown, but the tent of the upright will flourish.
Pro 14:12 There is a way which seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.
Pro 14:13 Even in laughter the heart may be sorrowful, and mirth may end in heaviness.
Pro 14:14 The unfaithful will be repaid for his own ways; likewise a good man will be rewarded for his ways.
Pro 14:15 A simple man believes everything, but the prudent man carefully considers his ways.
Pro 14:16 A wise man fears, and shuns evil, but the fool is hotheaded and reckless.
Pro 14:17 He who is quick to become angry will commit folly, and a crafty man is hated.
Pro 14:18 The simple inherit folly, but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.
Pro 14:19 The evil bow down before the good, and the wicked at the gates of the righteous.
Pro 14:20 The poor person is shunned even by his own neighbor, but the rich person has many friends.
Pro 14:21 He who despises his neighbor sins, but blessed is he who has pity on the poor.
Pro 14:22 Don't they go astray who plot evil? But love and faithfulness belong to those who plan good.
Pro 14:23 In all hard work there is profit, but the talk of the lips leads only to poverty.
Pro 14:24 The crown of the wise is their riches, but the folly of fools crowns them with folly.
Pro 14:25 A truthful witness saves souls, but a false witness is deceitful.
Pro 14:26 In the fear of Yahweh is a secure fortress, and he will be a refuge for his children.
Pro 14:27 The fear of Yahweh is a fountain of life, turning people from the snares of death.
Pro 14:28 In the multitude of people is the king's glory, but in the lack of people is the destruction of the prince.
Pro 14:29 He who is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a quick temper displays folly.
Pro 14:30 The life of the body is a heart at peace, but envy rots the bones.
Pro 14:31 He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for his Maker, but he who is kind to the needy honors him.
Pro 14:32 The wicked is brought down in his calamity, but in death, the righteous has a refuge.
Pro 14:33 Wisdom rests in the heart of one who has understanding, and is even made known in the inward part of fools.
Pro 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.

Pro 14:35 The king's favor is toward a servant who deals wisely, but his wrath is toward one who causes shame.

Oct. 13
Ephesians 4

Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to walk worthily of the calling with which you were called,
Eph 4:2 with all lowliness and humility, with patience, bearing with one another in love;
Eph 4:3 being eager to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you also were called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all.
Eph 4:7 But to each one of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
Eph 4:8 Therefore he says, "When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men."
Eph 4:9 Now this, "He ascended," what is it but that he also first descended into the lower parts of the earth?
Eph 4:10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.
Eph 4:11 He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, shepherds and teachers;
Eph 4:12 for the perfecting of the saints, to the work of serving, to the building up of the body of Christ;
Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a full grown man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
Eph 4:14 that we may no longer be children, tossed back and forth and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error;
Eph 4:15 but speaking truth in love, we may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, Christ;
Eph 4:16 from whom all the body, being fitted and knit together through that which every joint supplies, according to the working in measure of each individual part, makes the body increase to the building up of itself in love.
Eph 4:17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind,
Eph 4:18 being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their hearts;
Eph 4:19 who having become callous gave themselves up to lust, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
Eph 4:20 But you did not learn Christ that way;
Eph 4:21 if indeed you heard him, and were taught in him, even as truth is in Jesus:
Eph 4:22 that you put away, as concerning your former way of life, the old man, that grows corrupt after the lusts of deceit;
Eph 4:23 and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
Eph 4:24 and put on the new man, who in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of truth.
Eph 4:25 Therefore, putting away falsehood, speak truth each one with his neighbor. For we are members of one another.
Eph 4:26 "Be angry, and don't sin." Don't let the sun go down on your wrath,
Eph 4:27 neither give place to the devil.
Eph 4:28 Let him who stole steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have something to give to him who has need.
Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for building up as the need may be, that it may give grace to those who hear.
Eph 4:30 Don't grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Eph 4:31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, outcry, and slander, be put away from you, with all malice.
Eph 4:32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, just as God also in Christ forgave you. 

Satan--His Origin and Mission [Part II] by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=487

Satan--His Origin and Mission [Part II]
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the October issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

WHY HAS SATAN ARRAYED HIMSELF
AGAINST BOTH GOD AND MAN?

In any study of Satan, the question is bound to arise: Why has Satan established himself as God’s archfiend and man’s ardent foe? No doubt a portion of the answer can be found in the fact that he, too, once inhabited the heavenly realm, but as a result of his defiant rebellion against the great “I AM,” was cast “down to hell” (2 Peter 2:4). Satan’s insurrection failed miserably, and that failure had dire, eternal consequences. His obstinate attempt to usurp God’s authority cost him his position among the heavenly host and doomed him forever to “everlasting bonds under darkness” (Jude 6). In the end, his sedition gained him nothing and cost him everything. Regardless of the battle plan he adopted to challenge the Creator of the Universe, regardless of the battlefield he chose as his theater of war, and regardless of the strength or numbers of his army, the simple fact of the matter is that—in the most important contest of his existence—He lost!
The conditions of his ultimate surrender were harsh. Although his armies had been thoroughly routed, although he had been completely vanquished, and although the Victor had imposed the worst kind of permanent exile, Satan was determined not to go quietly into the night. While he had lost the war, he nevertheless planned future skirmishes. Vindictive by nature (Revelation 12:12), in possession of cunning devices (2 Corinthians 2:11), and determined to be “the deceiver of the whole world” (Revelation 12:9), he set his face against all that is righteous and holy—and never once looked back. His anger at having been defeated fueled his determination to strike back in revenge.
But strike back at whom? It was futile to attempt a second mutiny. God’s power was too great, and His omnipotence too all-consuming (Job 42:2; 1 John 4:4). Another target was needed; another repository of satanic revenge would have to be found. And who better to serve as the recipient of hell’s unrighteous indignation than mankind—the only creature in the Universe made “in the image and likeness of God” (Genesis 1:26-27)? As Rex A. Turner Sr. has suggested: “Satan cannot attack God directly, thus he employs various methods to attack man, God’s master creation” (1980, p. 89). Sweet revenge—despoiling the “apple of God’s eye” and the zenith of His creative genius! Thus, with the creation of man, the battle was on—and has been ever since. As Basil Overton has warned: “Satan is out to get us. He will take advantage of us if we let him. It is a fight to the finish!” (1976, 5[4]:3).
It was through mankind that Satan would exact his revenge—the correct emphasis here being on the word “through.” As the apostle Paul stated in Romans 5:12: “Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned” (emp. added). Man thus became the agent who caused sin to be in the world. Richard Batey wrote: “Paul’s point is rather that since the power of sin is a universal human experience (Rom. 1:18-32; 3:9-23), this power must have come into the world through the representative man, Adam” (1969, 1:72).
As the “prince of this world” (John 12:31), Satan stalked about “as a roaring lion, ...seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8). He, and his ignominious band of outlaws (“sons of the evil one”; Matthew 13:38), have worked their ruthless quackery on mankind from the moment the serpent met mother Eve in the Garden of Eden. Their goal is nothing short of the complete spiritual annihilation of all mankind which, no doubt, is why Satan personally is identified within Scripture as the “king of the abyss,” the “Destroyer” (“Apollyon,” Revelation 9:11; see Easton, 1996), and the “wicked one” (“Belial,” 2 Corinthians 6:15; see Vine, et al., 1985, p. 60).
In his war against Heaven, Satan will stop at nothing; it is a “no holds barred/winner take all” battle. Witness, for example, his cruel deception of Eve (Genesis 3:1-6) with its temporal and eternal consequences of physical/spiritual death (1 Corinthians 15:21; Ezekiel 18:20). Recall the trials, tribulations, and tragedies visited upon the Old Testament patriarch, Job (Job 1-2). Take notice of Israel’s beloved monarch, King David, being tempted and convinced to sin (1 Chronicles 21:1,7). Remember the devil as Joshua’s adversary (Zechariah 3:1ff.). Commit to memory Beelzebub’s part in Paul’s thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7), or how he hindered the apostle’s missionary efforts (1 Thessalonians 2:18). Cower in fear (as the early church did—Acts 5:11) at the results of his having persuaded Ananias to lie to the Godhead (Acts 5:3). Weep in sadness at the Great Adversary’s so successfully convincing Judas to betray His Lord (John 13:2) that Christ even referred to this singular apostle as “the devil” (John 6:70).
Or, tremble in dismay at the potential ruin of humanity, had Satan succeeded in causing Christ to sin when he tempted Him in the wilderness those many years ago (Matthew 4:1-11). Had Jesus yielded, there would have remained “no more a sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:26), and man would have been doomed—destined to inhabit forever the “blackness of darkness” (Jude 13) in the eternal presence of his most vituperative enemy, but, more important, in the eternal absence of His God.
Make no mistake about it. Satan has arrayed himself against both God and man. He is God’s archfiend, and man’s ardent foe. Nothing short of an absolute victory will assuage him; nothing short of a hell filled with every single member of the human race will dissuade him. He is, indeed, “the enemy” (Matthew 13:39).

WHY HAS GOD ALLOWED SATAN TO CONTINUE TO EXIST?

As we study this enemy, another question comes to mind: Why has God allowed Satan to continue to exist? Since he is denominated within the pages of Scripture as “a murderer” (John 8:44), why not simply impose on him the same death penalty that civilized nations have imposed on murderers from time immemorial (cf. Numbers 35:16)? What possible justification could God have for allowing one so wicked to continue to live?
The answer, I am convinced, has to do with the nature of God, and the nature of the spirit beings (angels) that He created. There is a clue regarding this point in the text of Luke 20:33-36. Within this passage, Jesus spoke of the righteous who one day would inhabit heaven, and stated that “neither can they die any more, for they are equal unto the angels.”
If righteous humans who will inhabit heaven cannot die, and if they are equal to the angels, then it follows logically that angels cannot die. While the Godhead is eternal, humans and angels are immortal. As Douglas Kelly correctly observed, angels (and this certainly would include Satan prior to his fall) “are immortal, but only the Triune God is eternal” (1997, p. 93).
In his excellent, thought-provoking work, Systematic Theology, Turner addressed the issue of Satan’s continued existence when he wrote:
Why did God not destroy Satan when he sinned? Why let Satan continue to exist and influence others to sin? The answer here lies in God’s nature—his eternal nature which he has passed on to angels as well as to men—for there will never be a time when the spirits or angels, the evil as well as the good, will cease to exist. Punishments and prescribed limits have been passed upon evil spirits, and the more will be passed upon them, but they will always exist (1989, p. 83).
Scripture delineates angelic beings as immortal; thus, they—whether righteous or sinful—never will cease to exist. However, there may be more to Satan’s continued existence than simply the angels’ immortal nature. In addressing the question of exactly why Satan persists, Lloyd Ecrement has suggested:
Perhaps the reason might well be expressed in the words the Lord asked Moses to say to wicked Pharaoh: “For by now I could have put forth my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth; but for this purpose have I let you live, to show you my power, so that my name may be declared throughout all the Earth” (Exodus 9:15-16) [1961, p. 33].
Indeed, from a purely human vantage point, the continuation of evil—even for a brief period—generally is not viewed as either desirable or ideal. But, as T. Pierce Brown has proposed, God may have “allowed Satan to retain his power, temporarily, until he is through using him to test and purify a people for his ultimate glory and purposes” (1974, 91[16]:245). Certainly, God’s glory was exemplified by mankind’s creation because Isaiah, speaking for Jehovah, said that man was “created for my glory” (Isaiah 43:7).
In John 9, the story is told of a man who had been born blind. When Jesus’ disciples inquired as to the reason for his predicament, He responded that it was in order that “the works of God should be made manifest in him” (John 9:3, emp. added). What all this entails, we may not profess to know, realizing that the “secret things belong unto Jehovah our God” (Deuteronomy 29:29). But the Scriptures do reveal enough information for us to conclude that Satan’s continued existence follows logically from the immortal nature of angelic beings. They also reveal that the devil’s existence is not at variance with Heaven’s eternal plan, since at times it affords opportunities for mankind to witness the working of God amidst His creation.

WHAT IS SATAN’S MISSION?

Were Satan made of flesh and bone, we might employ the oft’-used phrase to describe him as a “man with a mission.” But do not let the fact that he is spirit rather than flesh trick you into thinking he has no mission. He most certainly does—and has since the day he was cast from the heavenly portals. Simply stated, that mission is the complete destruction of all humanity in hell.
It is no accident that, within the pages of Scripture, Satan (i.e., our “adversary”; Zechariah 3:1) routinely is denominated by such unseemly designations as: (a) the devil (i.e., slanderer; Matthew 4:1); (b) “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4); (c) “the prince of the powers of the air” (Ephesians 2:2); (d) the father of lies (John 8:44); (e) the “Great Dragon” (Revelation 12:9); (f) “Beelzebub” (i.e., prince of demons; Matthew 12:24). (g) the “wicked one” (Matthew 13:38); (h) “the prince of this world” (John 12:31); (i) the ruler of darkness (Ephesians 6:12); (j) “the tempter” (1 Thessalonians 3:5); (k) “accuser of the brethren” (Revelation 12:10); (l) a “murderer” (John 8:44); (m) “the enemy” (Matthew 13:39); (n) “a roaring lion” (1 Peter 5:8); (o) a “serpent” (2 Corinthians 11:3); (p) “Belial” (i.e., “wicked one”; 2 Corinthians 6:15); and (q) “angel of the bottomless pit” (Revelation 9:11).
After even a cursory glance at these appellations, surely we could agree with L.O. Sanderson when he wrote: “These alone should make us fearfully concerned” (1978, 120[43]:678). Satan’s names describe his mission. His primary goal is to alienate men from God by causing them to sin. His main objective is to make men his slaves, thereby robbing them of the freedom that God’s Word alone can impart (John 8:32). But how, exactly, does Satan do this?

HOW DOES SATAN CARRY OUT HIS MISSION AGAINST HUMANITY?

The Bible makes it clear that the devil is the originator, the father, of sin. John wrote: “[H]e that doeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning” (1 John 3:8). In speaking to this point, Wayne Jackson has written: “Disease, infirmity and death are ultimately the responsibility of Satan, for by his introduction of sin into the world, he brought about such woes and hence he is really the murderer of the human family (John 8:44)” [1980, p. 76].
However, it is important to recognize that while Satan is the originator of sin, he is not the immediatecause of sin. As Ecrement has warned:
Satan tempts, but he cannot compel men to do evil against their wills. A man must yield to Satan’s temptation and desire before he becomes guilty of sin. To be tempted is not sin, but to yield to temptation is sin. We are answerable and responsible for our own sins, notwithstanding the temptation and influence of the devil. God endowed us with reason and a free will, therefore we have the ability to choose good or evil; in other words, we are free moral agents. So our sins are our own, and our own responsibility (1961, p. 34).
Satan’s constant coercion and tantalizing temptation do not, and cannot, override man’s free will. James affirmed this in his epistle when he wrote:
But each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is fullgrown, bringeth forth death (1:14-15).
As an example of this point, consider the apostle who betrayed the Son of God. Overcome by the grotesque nature of his dastardly deed, Judas eventually lamented: “I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood” (Matthew 27:4). Even in his final hours, he did not attempt to lay the blame for his sin at someone else’s feet.
Similar lessons are taught in Acts 5 and 2 Samuel 12. In Acts 5, when Ananias and Sapphira lied about the amount they had received from the sale of a piece of land (and the amount they subsequently professed to have donated to the church), Peter inquired of Ananias: “How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thyheart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto God” (Acts 5:4, emp. added). The apostle wanted Ananias to know that he, personally, bore the guilt for his sin. He could not claim (with any legitimacy): “The devil made me do it.”
In 2 Samuel 12, the prophet Nathan was sent by God to convict King David of the sin of adultery with Bathsheba, wife of Urriah the Hittite. This he did. After hearing the evidence against him, “David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against Jehovah” (12:13). To his credit, David realized that not even powerful potentates are immune to the personal responsibility that accompanies transgression of God’s law.
If we are responsible for our own actions, how, then, does Satan influence us to sin? In 2 Corinthians 2:11, Paul spoke of the fact that “no advantage may be gained over us by Satan: for we are not ignorant of his devices.” The word “devices” in this text derives from the Greek noemata, which “refers to intelligent notions, purposes, designs, devices, etc.” (Overton, 1976, 5[4]:3). In Ephesians 6:11, Paul admonished Christians to “put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” The word “wiles” derives from the Greek methodeias, from which we get our word “methods.” Methodeias“is from the Greek verb that means to trace; to investigate; to handle methodically; to handle cunningly.... The devil is a skilled artisan. He will deceive you if you do not work at the job of fighting back at him” (Overton, 1976, 5:[4]:3).
Indeed, deceit is perhaps Satan’s most powerful tool. Through his “devices” and “wiles,” Satan pressures us “with all deceit of unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:10). Sanderson has suggested that Satan’s traits “clearly show the Devil to be a cunning, deceitful hypocrite. He is truthless, dishonest, and fraudulent in every possible way” (1978, 120[43]:678). Adding to this assessment, L.M. Sweet wrote: “Satan’s power consists principally in his ability to deceive. It is interesting and characteristic that according to the Bible Satan is fundamentally a liar and his kingdom is a kingdom founded upon lies and deceit” (1939, 4:2693). The New Testament provides ample evidence to substantiate such a conclusion. Wayne Jackson summarized some of that evidence when he acknowledged that the deceiver:
(1) Delights in blinding the minds of the unbelieving that the light of the gospel should not dawn upon them (II Cor. 4:4). (2) To accomplish this he does not hesitate to transform himself into an angel of light along with his ministers who pretend to be ministers of righteousness (II Cor. 11:14,15). (3) When people are inclined not to believe the truth, the devil takes the gospel from their hearts (Luke 8:12). (4) He is full of trickery. He has his snares (I Tim. 3:7), and employs his “wiles”—a deliberate planning or system (Eph. 4:14; 6:11) [1980, p. 81].
But what power does Satan have that allows him to accomplish his task of deceiving humanity? How extensive is that power, and how is it wielded?

WHAT ARE SATAN’S POWERS?

There can be no doubt that, as “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), Satan is powerful in his own right. When the devil tempted the Son of God in the wilderness, he offered Him all the power and glory of the kingdoms of this world, if only He would fall down and worship him (Matthew 4:9). His justification for this insidious offer was based on his claim that, as the lord of this planet, he could offer its possessions to “whomsoever I will” (Luke 4:6). Interestingly, Jesus refuted neither Satan’s position as “god of this world,” nor his ability to impose his will upon it. Erich Sauer therefore concluded:
This whole offer would have been unreal from the first for the Lord as a temptation, if some such legal basis for Satan’s dominion in the world had not existed. Otherwise Jesus would only have had to point out that the necessary presuppositions for Satan’s legal claim to and ability to dispose of the glory of the world simply did not exist. The Lord however left this claim of the devil’s uncontradicted and merely declared that man should worship and serve God alone (Luke 4:8). With this He recognized in principle the tempter’s right to dispose of the kingdoms of this world in this present age. This same thought lies behind the various sayings of Jesus in which He calls Satan “the Prince of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) [1962, p. 66].
We would do well to recognize the same thing the Son of God recognized: Satan is an important and powerful foe!
As powerful as he is, however, Satan is not omnipotent—a fact that even he recognized. During his temptation of Christ, he admitted that his earthly reign “hath been delivered unto me” (Luke 4:6). When the devil robbed Job of his family and earthly possessions, and even when he afflicted Job physically, he did so only with the expressed permission of God (Job 1:12; 2:6). When he sought to “sift” Christ’s apostles as wheat, he first had to “ask” for them (Luke 22:31). It is evident, therefore, that his powers do have limits.
But exactly what powers are in his possession? When T. Pierce Brown observed that “apparently he is able to make some sort of suggestions to the heart” (1974, 91[16]:5), he provided a picture window into which we may peer to observe the way Satan works among men. Among Satan’s powers are these. He perverts the Word of God (Genesis 3:1-4). He instigates false doctrine (1 Timothy 4:1-3). He blinds men to the truth (2 Corinthians 4:4). He sows tares among God’s wheat (Matthew 13:24-30,36-43). He steals the Word of God from human hearts (Matthew 13:19). He lays snares for men (2 Timothy 2:26; 1 Timothy 3:7). He tempts (Matthew 4:1; Ephesians 6:11). He afflicts (Job 2:7; Luke 13:16; Acts 10:38; 2 Corinthians 12:7). He deceives (Revelation 12:9; 20:8-10). He undermines the sanctity of the home (1 Corinthians 7:3-5). He prompts both saints and sinners to transgress the laws of God (1 Chronicles 21:1; Matthew 16:22-23; John 13:2; Acts 5:3). He hinders the work of God’s servants (1 Thessalonians 2:18). And he even makes accusations against God’s children before Heaven’s throne (Job 1:6-11; 2:3-6; 21:1-5; Zechariah 3:1-4; Revelation 12:9-10).
Satan employs his power of “suggestions to the heart” in a feverish manner to pervert the truth. In his book,Get Thee Behind Me Satan, Virgil Leach assessed our much-feared, other-worldly adversary in these words:
He is the great pretender and the first liar and hypocrite with special skills in deception.... No one escapes his trickery; every man knows something of deception. He will influence men to conceal or distort truth for the purpose of misleading, cheating and fraud. If he cannot overthrow truth he will neutralize it, water it down to dilute it. Qualities of guile, craftiness, dissimulation and pretense are used in all his maneuvers. Satan is a master of deceit and is well aware that half lies mixed with half truths more often do the trick and will more easily be swallowed and digested, not that he will not use an out-and-out lie should it fit the occasion. Loving darkness, he would prefer a tree to hide behind than an open field and would prefer an ambush over an open warfare. Our adversary would desire to plant his “Judas kiss” on the cheek of every man (1977, pp. 14-15).
Like a lion ready for the hunt (1 Peter 5:8), Satan waits to devour us via his “suggestions to the heart.” Like a well-hidden, coiled snake (Revelation 20:2), he is able to strike in an instant, injecting the poison of his venom into the minds of men. Or, using what is perhaps the most insidious disguise at his disposal, he even may portray himself as an “angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14) who feigns humility, piety, and righteousness, yet whose intentions all the while are as insincere as they are sanctimonious.
What awesome powers the devil commands! What subtle meanness he exhibits! One moment he presents himself as an innocent-faced, sweet-talking “angel”; the next he is a ravenous mammal or slithering reptile. Little wonder Paul wrote to the Thessalonians:
For this cause I also, when I could no longer forbear, sent that I might know your faith, lest by any means the tempter had tempted you, and our labor should be in vain (1 Thessalonians 3:5).
The apostle’s inner stirrings on behalf of those he had worked so long, and so hard, to wrest from the devil’s grasp were based on his knowledge that they faced daily a formidable foe who was more than capable of ravishing both their bodies and their souls.

WHAT IS SATAN’S ULTIMATE DESTINY?

Is all lost, then? Hardly! Although the Scriptures repeatedly affirm Satan’s immense power, they likewise affirm that “he [God] that is in you is greater than he [Satan] that is in the world” (1 John 4:4). We know this to be the case because the Scriptures testify eloquently to the fact that Satan—far from having free reign—has been “bound.”
The concluding book of the New Testament, Revelation, was written to offer encouragement to first-century Christians who, because of their professed faith in the Son of God, were threatened hourly with severe persecution “even unto death” (Revelation 2:10). Within this book, which is written in apocalyptic literature that is highly figurative, the message is one not only of comfort, but of ultimate victory over the devil and his forces. The twentieth chapter, especially, presents a picture of God’s archfiend and man’s ardent enemy, Satan, as being “bound” (vs. 2) and “cast into the abyss” (vs. 3). As Hardeman Nichols has suggested:
If in our study of Revelation 20 we fail to see the final overthrow of Satan and his collaborators, we have missed a major truth. If we do not appreciate the final triumph of every righteous person, we have not been sufficiently blessed by this study (1978, p. 260).
Concerning the devil, Nichols went on to write that “[w]hen, in the unspecified eternity before the world he initiated his rebellion, God put a restraint upon him” (p. 263).
That restraint never has been removed. And, in fact, it has been tightened. While it is true that in the first century the devil and his minions were able to affect people physically (cf. Luke 4:41; 8:26-33), fortunately that no longer is the case. For example, when the prophet Zechariah foretold of the coming of the Messiah, and spoke of the blessings that would attend His reign, he stated that eventually the Lord would “cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land” (13:1-2). Concerning Zechariah’s prophecy, Homer Hailey remarked:
Likewise, unclean spirits, the antithesis of the prophets, would cease. In the conquest of Christ over Satan and his forces, unclean spirits have ceased to control men as they did in the time of the ministry of Christ and the apostles (1972, p. 392).
L.M. Sweet correctly observed that in our day and age there is no evidence that “Satan is able to any extent to introduce disorder into the physical universe or directly operate in the lives of men” (1939, p. 2694). [For a more in-depth discussion of these points than the limited space here will allow, the reader is referred to Jackson, 1990, 1998.]

CONCLUSION

God not only “bound” Satan, but sealed his ultimate doom. Our Lord will be victorious over Heaven’s Great Adversary, for “to this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil” (I John 3:8). It is via the power inherent in His own death and resurrection that He will “bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Hebrews 2:14). The fate that awaits this traitorous tyrant is clear:
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever (Revelation 20:10).
Eternal punishment in hell has been “prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41).
God’s covenant pledge, made with our forefathers in Genesis 3:15, then will be fulfilled once and for all: “he [Christ] shall bruise thy [Satan’s] head.” The paradise lost of Genesis will have become the paradise regained of Revelation. With the earthly reign of Satan brought to an end, and the eternal bliss of God’s saints secure, then, surely, we shall be able to say with the psalmist of old: “This is the day which Jehovah hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it” (Psalm 118:24).

REFERENCES

Batey, Richard (1969), The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Ecrement, Lloyd L. (1961), Man, the Bible, and Destiny (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hailey, Homer (1972), A Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Jackson, Wayne (1980), “Satan,” Great Doctrines of the Bible, ed. M.H. Tucker (Knoxville, TN: East Tennessee School of Preaching).
Jackson, Wayne (1990), “Miracles,” Giving a Reason for Our Hope, ed. Winford Claiborne (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College).
Jackson, Wayne (1998), “Demons: Ancient Superstition or Historical Reality?,” Reason & Revelation, 18:25-31, April.
Kelly, Douglas F. (1997), Creation and Change (Geanies House, Fearn, United Kingdom: Christian Focus Publications).
Leach, Virgil (1977), Get Thee Behind Me Satan (Abilene, TX: Quality).
Nichols, Hardeman (1978), “The Binding of Satan,” Premillennialism: True or False, ed. Wendell Winkler (Fort Worth, TX: Winkler Publications).
Overton, Basil (1976), “Satan,” The World Evangelist, 5:[4]:3, November.
Sauer, Erich (1962), The King of the Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Sanderson, L.O. (1978), “The Devil and His Wiles,” Gospel Advocate, 120[43]:678, October 26.
Sweet, L.M. (1939), “Satan,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Turner, Rex A. Sr. (1980), Systematic Theology (Montgomery, AL: Alabama Christian School of Religion).
Vine, W.E., Merrill F. Unger, and William White (1985), Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson).

In Defense of...the Genesis Flood [Part II] by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=485

In Defense of...the Genesis Flood [Part II]

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the August issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

THE NECESSITY OF CONSTRUCTING AN ARK

According to Genesis 6:5, God “...saw that the wickedness of man was great...,” and declared His intent to destroy the Earth by water as a result of man’s willful rebellion. Approximately a century before the Flood, God chose to reveal and explain to a single human being, Noah, His decision. God then instructed Noah to make the necessary preparations for the coming judgment by building an ark that would serve as the instrument of salvation not only for his own family, but also for the seed of all land-living, air-breathing creatures. Alfred Rehwinkel has observed: “The word ‘ark’ seems to be derived from the Egyptian language and signifies ‘chest’ or something to float. The word occurs only twice in the Bible, here for the ark of Noah and again in Ex. 2:3-5 for the ark of bulrushes in which the infant Moses was saved from the cruel decree of Pharaoh” (1951, p. 58).
A fundamental question that must be asked in the biblical context is this: If the Flood was merely a local inundation limited to the known Mesopotamian region of that day, why would God have instructed Noah to build such an ark in the first place? Whitcomb has suggested that:
...there would have been no need for an Ark at all if the flood was local in extent. The whole procedure of constructing such a vessel, involving over 100 years of planning and toiling, simply to escape a local flood can hardly be described as anything but utterly foolish and unnecessary! How much more sensible it would have been for God simply to have warned Noah of the coming destruction in plenty of time for him to move to an area that would not have been affected by the Flood, even as Lot was taken out of Sodom before the fire fell from heaven. Not only so, but also the great numbers of animals of all kinds, and certainly the birds, could easily have moved out of the danger zone also, without having to be stored in a barge for an entire year! The Biblical record simply cannot be harmonized with the concept of a flood that was confined to the Near East (1973, p. 47, emp. in orig.).
This is a point that almost all advocates of the local Flood theory either seem to have missed or ignored. Speaking as co-authors of the classic volume, The Genesis Flood, Whitcomb and Morris opined: “The writers have had a difficult time finding local-Flood advocates that are willing to face the implications of this particular argument” (1961, p. 11). It is easy to understand why.
In attempting to support the concept of a local Flood, while simultaneously trying to provide a logical solution to why Noah would have been instructed by God to build an ark in the first place, Arthur C. Custance went so far as to suggest that the entire ark-building episode was merely an “object lesson” to the antediluvians. He wrote:
It would require real energy and faith to follow Noah’s example and build other Arks, but it would have required neither of these to pack up a few things and migrate. There is nothing Noah could have done to stop them except disappearing very secretly. Such a departure could hardly act as the kind of warning that the deliberate construction of the Ark could have done. And the inspiration for this undertaking was given to Noah by leaving him in ignorance of the exact limits of the Flood. He was assured that all mankind would be destroyed, and probably supposed that the Flood would therefore be universal. This supposition may have been quite essential for him (1958, p. 18).
Responding to this suggestion by Custance, Whitcomb and Morris asked:
But how can one read the Flood account of Genesis 6-8 with close attention and then arrive at the conclusion that the Ark was built merely to warn the ungodly, and not mainly to save the occupants of the Ark from death by drowning? And how can we exonerate God Himself from the charge of deception, if we say that He led Noah to believe that the Flood would be universal, in order to encourage him to work on the Ark, when He knew all the time that it would not be universal? (1961, p. 12, emp. in orig.).
In addressing this same point, Van Bebber and Taylor wrote that it would be strange indeed for God to require Noah to spend approximately 100 years of his life
...building a huge boat to save representative animals which really didn’t need to be saved. Most, if not all, of these animals were alive and well in other parts of the world. Dry land was just over the horizon all along. Despite the lack of necessity, God kept Noah trapped in this boat full of animals under these strange circumstances for over a year!... If only those animals in a specific geographic region died, it would have been unnecessary to protect pairs in the Ark for the express purpose of preventing their extinction. Surely there would be representatives of their kinds in other areas. If, on the other hand, there had been some unique kinds in the path of a local flood, then it would seem more logical to send representative pairs out of the area, rather than to the Ark, as God did. Certainly the birds could have flown to the safety of dry land. If the Flood had been local, God could also have simply sent Noah and family out of the area (1996, pp. 56-58).
Further, consider that Genesis 7:21-23 plainly states:
All flesh died that moved upon the earth, both birds, and cattle, and beasts, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was on the dry ground, died. And every living thing was destroyed that was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; and they were destroyed from the earth.
Once again, Whitcomb and Morris have sought to remind local Flood advocates:
These are exactly the same terms used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe the various kinds of land animals which God created.... The fact of the matter is that no clearer terms could have been employed by the author than those which he did employ to express the idea of the totality of air-breathing animals in the world. Once this point is conceded, all controversy as to the geographical extent of the Deluge must end; for no one would care to maintain that all land animals were confined to the Mesopotamian Valley in the days of Noah! (1961, p. 13, emp. in orig.).
One final point needs to be mentioned. Some today are fervent in their insistence that the ark has been found on top of the 17,000-foot-high Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Among that number is John Warwick Montgomery (1972). Dr. Montgomery, however, is an ardent proponent of the local Flood theory. How can a man claim to accept biblical and/or scientific evidence that he feels would point to the remains of Noah’s ark being on the top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey, and then deny the biblical testimony to the global Flood that put it there? Does Montgomery understand what he is asking us to believe? To claim that the remains of the ark are on top of the 17,000-foot-high Mt. Ararat, while at the same time insisting that it was put there by a local flood, is to strain at the gnat and swallow the camel. [NOTE: I do not accept Montgomery’s claim that the ark can be proven to be on Ararat, but that is beyond the scope of this present discussion. See Major, 1994.]

THE CONSTRUCTION AND SIZE OF THE ARK

God told Noah to make “the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits” (Genesis 6:15). If we are to understand the size of the ark, we first must understand the length of the cubit. “The Babylonians had a ‘royal’ cubit of about 19.8 inches, the Egyptians had a longer and a shorter cubit of about 20.65 and 17.6 inches respectively, while the Hebrews apparently had a long cubit of 20.4 inches (Ezek. 40:5) and a common cubit of about 17.5 inches” (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 10). Rehwinkel has observed:
It is generally supposed that the cubit is the distance from the point of the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Translated into our own standard of measurements, the common cubit is estimated at about 18 inches. But Petrie, a noted Egyptologist, is of the opinion that it measured 22½ inches. Whether or not Noah’s cubit was comparable to any one of the cubits now known to us, no one is able to determine.... But accepting the lower figures and placing the cubit at eighteen inches and then again at twenty-four inches, we get the following results: According to the lower standard, the ark would have measured 450 feet in length, seventy-five feet in width, and forty-five feet in height. According to the higher figure, the length would have been six hundred feet; the width, one hundred feet; the height, sixty feet.... The ships of the maritime nations of the world never approached the dimensions of the ark until about a half century ago (1951, pp. 59,60).
Using a conservative cubit of 17½ inches, the ark would have been 437.5 feet long, 72.92 feet wide, and 43.75 feet high. In its three decks (Genesis 6:16), it had a total deck area of approximately 95,700 square feet—the equivalent of slightly more than twenty basketball courts. Its total volume would have been 1,396,000 cubic feet. The gross tonnage (measurement of cubic space rather than weight, one ton being equivalent to 100 cubic feet of usable storage space) was about 13,960 tons (see Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 10).
Critics of the Flood account have argued that the ark simply was not large enough to handle its assigned cargo. Such critics, however, generally have not taken into consideration exactly how large the ark really was, or the cargo it had to carry. As Whitcomb has pointed out:
For the sake of realism, imagine waiting at a railroad crossing while ten freight trains, each pulling 52 boxcars, move slowly by, one after another. That is how much space was available in the Ark, for its capacity was equivalent to 520 modern railroad stock cars. A barge of such gigantic size, with its thousands of built-in compartments (Gen. 6:14) would have been sufficiently large to carry two of every species of air-breathing animal in the world today (and doubtless the tendency toward taxonomic splitting has produced more “species” than can be justified in terms of Genesis “kinds”) on only half of its available deck space. The remaining space would have been occupied by Noah’s family, five additional representatives of each of the comparatively few kinds of animals acceptable for sacrifice, two each of the kinds that have become extinct since the Flood, and food for them all (Gen. 6:21) [1973, p. 23, emp. in orig.].
Whitcomb and Morris have given extensive investigation to the numbers of animals that would have been on the ark (using highest possible estimates, and taxonomic figures provided by evolutionists), and have shown that the biblical account can fit known scientific facts regarding these matters (1961, pp. 65-69). John Woodmorappe has expanded on their work and provided an extensive, well-researched feasibility study dealing specifically with the ark’s construction and contents (1996). Some, however, have stated that an examination of such facts amounts to nothing more than “mental gymnastics” (Clayton, 1980, p. 8). This we deny. It is not “mental gymnastics” to examine the physical structure and size of the ark given by the Bible itself, as compared to known scientific facts regarding the animal kingdom.

THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST

It was not just inspired writers of the Bible who provided information on the extent, nature, and importance of the Genesis Flood. The Lord Himself addressed the topic of the Great Flood in Luke 17:26-30 (cf. Matthew 24:39) when He drew the following parallel:
And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed (emp. added).
The Lord depicted an impending doom that was to befall the Jews of His day who would not heed the Word of God. For the purpose of this article, however, note the context in which Jesus discussed the Flood destruction of Genesis 6-8. He placed the Flood alongside the destruction of Sodom, and He also placed it alongside the destruction of the ungodly at His Second Coming. Whitcomb has remarked:
This fact is of tremendous significance in helping us to determine the sense in which the word “all” is used in reference to those who were destroyed by the Flood. Our argument proceeds in the following manner: the force of Christ’s warning to the ungodly concerning the doom which awaits them at the time of His Second Coming, by reminding them of the destruction of the Sodomites, would be immeasurably weakened if we knew that some of the Sodomites, after all, had escaped. This would allow hope for the ungodly that some of them might escape the wrath of God in that coming day of judgment. But we have, indeed, no reason for thinking that any Sodomite did escape destruction when the fire fell from heaven. In exactly the same man- ner, Christ’s warning to future generations, on the basis of what happened to the ungodly in the days of Noah, would have been pointless if part of the human race had escaped the judgment waters.... Therefore we are persuaded that Christ’s use of the word “all” in Luke 17:27 must be understood in the absolute sense; other- wise the analogies would collapse and the warnings would lose their force. A heavy burden of proof rests upon those who would maintain that only a part of the human race was destroyed in the Flood, in view of the clear statements of the Lord Jesus Christ (1973, pp. 21-22. emp. in orig.).

THE RAINBOW COVENANT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

A point that often is overlooked by local Flood advocates is the rainbow covenant that God gave (Genesis 9:11-15). Three times (Genesis 8:21; 9:11,15) God promised never again to allow “everything living” to be destroyed by a flood. He set a rainbow in the heavens as a sign of that promise. If the Flood of Genesis 6-8 was merely a local event, then it is obvious to even the casual observer that God has broken His covenant repeatedly, since there have been countless local floods upon the face of the Earth in which multiplied thousands of people have perished. If the Genesis Flood was local, but God promised never again to allow another (local) flood, then why have local floods continued?
Advocates of the local flood idea have invented a theory that places God in the untenable position of breaking His promise, in spite of plain statements of Scripture which state that God “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2). S.J. Schultz stated:
Had any part of the human race survived the flood outside of Noah and his family they would not have been included in the covenant God made here. The implication seems to be that all mankind descended from Noah so that the covenant with its bow in the cloud as a reminder would be for all mankind (1955, p. 52).

SUPERNATURALISM AND THE FLOOD

The account of the Great Flood in Genesis 6-8 entails the overruling power of an Almighty God in what undoubtedly were supernatural (i.e., miraculous) events. Critics of the account, however, have objected to the introduction of the miraculous. Byron Nelson, in his classic text, The Deluge Story in Stone, called attention to this fact when he wrote:
What is called “modern” geology has eclipsed Flood geology because of a dislike for those supernatural elements which are the backbone of Christianity. The Flood theory of geology has not been abandoned because it does not satisfy actual geological conditions. There is nothing known about the earth’s geological state today which makes the Deluge theory any less satisfactory an explanation of the fossiliferous strata than in the days when the leading scholars of the world accepted it. Rather the contrary—there are facts known now about the geological conditions of the earth remarkably supporting the Flood theory which Williams, Catcott, Harris and others never dreamed of. It is a disregard for God and the sacred record of his acts, and nothing else, which has caused the discard of the Flood theory to take place (1931, p. 137).
Theologian Bernard Ramm provides the perfect example of the “disregard for God and the sacred record of his acts” of which Nelson wrote. Ramm sneered: “If one wishes to retain a universal flood, it must be understood that a series of stupendous miracles is required. Further, one cannot beg off with pious statements that God can do anything” (1954, p. 165). Consistency, of course, is not the norm for those who defend error. The same Bernard Ramm who made the above statement militating against miracles also argued for miracles as an inherent part of the Bible when he said: “The miracles are not warts or growths that may be shaved or cut off, leaving the main body of the gospel record untouched” (1953, p. 174). So which is it? Is the miraculous to be accepted, or not? Apparently Ramm and his cohorts wish to answer in the affirmative in regard to certain portions of the Bible, but in the negative in regard to others—so long asthey are are the ones allowed to pick and choose.
What does Dr. Ramm mean when he says that “one cannot beg off with pious statements that God can do anything”? God can do anything that is not inconsistent with His own nature. And He does not need Bernard Ramm, or others like him, to tell Him what He can or cannot do. God made it clear in these chapters that He was in complete control. From the bringing of the animals to Noah (Genesis 6:19-20), to the shutting of the door of the ark (Genesis 7:16), it was a miraculous situation from beginning to end. As Whitcomb and Morris have observed: “The simple fact of the matter is that one cannot have any kind of a Genesis Flood without acknowledging the presence of supernatural powers” (1961, p. 76). Furthermore, many of those who try to minimize the miraculous eventually end up returning to it anyway. Dr. Ramm, for example, was forced to admit that the animals coming to Noah were “prompted by divine instinct” [i.e., a miracle] (1954, p. 169).
God miraculously superintended the entire Flood process, and Bible believers should not be ashamed to admit it. Whitcomb has listed at least six areas in which supernaturalism is required in the context of the Genesis Flood: (1) divinely-revealed design of the ark; (2) gathering and care of the animals; (3) uplift of oceanic waters from beneath; (4) release of waters from above; (5) formation of our present ocean basins; and (6) formation of our present continents and mountain ranges (1973, p. 19). There may be other areas where the presence of supernaturalism is required, but the fact remains that certain aspects of the Flood record cannot be accounted for on the basis of purely natural processes.
Nevertheless, it is not necessary to appeal to an “endless supplying of miracles to make a universal flood feasible,” as Ramm has suggested somewhat satirically. Whitcomb noted: “Apart from the specific miracles mentioned in the Scripture which were necessary to begin and to terminate this period of global judgment, the flood accomplished its work of destruction by purely natural processes that are capable of being studied to a certain extent in hydraulic laboratories and in local flood situations today” (1973, p. 67). The fact of the matter is that both natural and supernatural phenomena worked side—by-side during the Flood. It did not require an “endless supplying of miracles.”

SCIENCE AND THE FLOOD

It has not been the main thrust of this article to present scientific evidence that supports the concept of a global Flood. As I said earlier, since it is the biblical Flood under discussion, the truthfulness of the Genesis record dealing with the Flood must be determined by an appeal to the Bible. However, there is ample scientific evidence available to indicate the presence of a global Flood in the distant past. In fact, entire volumes have been written documenting such evidence.
The classic volume The Genesis Flood, although now somewhat dated, is a good beginning point for such material. John Whitcomb’s two sequels, The World That Perished and The Early Earth, contain valuable additional material, and responses to critics. Harold Clark also has written a book dealing with such matters (Fossils, Flood and Fire). Similar books (The Flood, by Rehwinkel; Speak Through the Earthquake, Wind & Fire, by Fisher; Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, by Austin) are readily available, and speak to the fact of the cumulative amount of scientific evidence that supports the concept of the Genesis Flood.
However, I believe a word of caution is in order. In the past, extremes have been documented from those on both sides of the issue. Some have made indefensible statements like “...There is no way geologically of supporting the idea that there was a worldwide flood...” (Clayton, 1969). On the other hand, some have interpreted almost every shred of evidence as supporting a global Flood, even going so far as to identify a particular layer within the geologic column as the Flood layer—a posture that, in the end, proved extremely inadvisable (as well as embarrassing).
Both extremes should be avoided. Biblical evidence establishes the fact that there was a universal Flood. Knowing that, we then may be alert to evidence from science that possibly provides support for the Flood model. At the same time, however, we must realize that it is not always an easy task to interpret such evidence, for none among us has experienced or witnessed a global Flood. As Austin has warned: “The worldwide Flood recounted in Genesis has no parallel in today’s world” (1994, p. 192). Oard offered a further assessment when he wrote: “Small-scale local floods may not compare well with such a gigantic catastrophe as a worldwide Flood” (1997, p. 3). Therefore, whatever measurements we make must, by necessity, be made on a much smaller scale (e.g., using local flood information, etc.). This being the case, it behooves us to use great care, for we do not want to abuse, misuse, or overextrapolate the evidence from science.
Critics of what generally is referred to as “Flood geology” have been quick to point out what they view as flaws in the system that attempts to interpret Earth history in light of the global catastrophe of Genesis 6-8. Certainly, I know of none among us who would advocate that there are no difficulties with respect to the Flood theory of geology. Even those who are at the forefront in writing and speaking on these topics (e.g., Henry Morris, John Whitcomb, Steven Austin, John Woodmorappe, Walter Brown, John Morris, and others) are quick to admit that they do not have all the answers.
At the same time, however, neither should we be intimidated by, nor fall prey to, the false, unbiblical concept of evolutionary uniformitarianism. Truth be told, attempts to avoid any possible interpretation of Earth history via Flood geology, and to harmonize interpretations of Earth history via strictly natural processes, present more problems than they solve. As Cockburn stated the matter: “No man departs from the Flood theory upon pretense of avoiding any absurdity therein supposed, but that he ran himself upon the necessity of believing greater absurdities than any he pretended to avoid” (1750, p. 163).
While there may be some difficulty coming to a full and complete scientific, after-the-fact understanding of the geology associated with a global Flood, the arguments for a local flood (whether allegedly based on biblical exegesis or on modern science) are unconvincing—and more important, wrong. There are, however, overwhelming arguments in favor of a universal deluge. Henry Morris, for example, in The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, has suggested 96 arguments (64 biblical, 32 non-biblical) that support the idea of a worldwide Flood (1972, pp. 96-100). While one may not agree with every single argument, it quickly will become apparent that it is impossible to dispose of each of the arguments in a nonchalant manner.
For example, vast animal graveyards and fossiliferous rubble shifts have been found worldwide. Evidence of a great, sudden, and recent watery cataclysm—followed by a deep freeze across the entire great north, accompanied by titanic hydraulic forces and crustal upheavals burying a host of elephants and other great beasts in a region that now is almost totally devoid of vegetation—has been documented. Vast numbers of fossil trees and plants, standing erect, oblique and even inverted while piercing through successive beds of water-laid stone (i.e., polystrate fossils) have been discovered.
Vast and numerous rifts, fissures, and lava beds have been discovered, scarring the world ocean floor and bespeaking some gigantic submarine upheaval of the Earth’s crust (as in the breaking up of the “fountains of the deep”). Geologic evidence suggests that most, if not all, of the world’s mountains have been under water at some point in the past—a conclusion demanded by the existence of sedimentary deposits and marine fossils at or near their summits. Much of the Earth’s crust is composed of sedimentary rocks (shales, limestones, sandstones, etc.) that generally are known to form under water.
Worldwide fossilization has occurred in vast quantities, including fossils of even many modern forms of life. These fossils are found in sedimentary strata, often at great depths and under great pressure. Yet as Morris has observed: “Fossils, however, normally require very rapid burial and compaction to be preserved at all. Thus every sedimentary formation appears to have been formed rapidly—even catastrophically—and more and more present-day geologists are returning to this point of view” (1998, p. b). While it is not creationists’ intention to suggest that every instance of rapid burial and fossilization or mass destruction is attributable directly and specifically to the Great Flood, many may well be.
In addressing the well-known geologic column, Dr. Morris commented:
It is also significant that the types of rocks, the vast extent of specific sedimentary rock formations, the minerals and metals, coal and oil found in the rocks, the various types of structures (i.e., faults, folds, thrusts, etc.), sedimentary rocks grossly deformed while still soft from recent deposition, and numerous other features seem to occur indiscriminately throughout the various “ages” supposedly represented in the column. To all outward appearances, therefore, they were formed in essentially the same brief time period (1998, pp. b-c).
Sedimentary fossil “graveyards” have been found worldwide in rocks of all “ages.” Various rock types (granite, shale, limestone, etc.) are found in all parts of the geologic column, and there exists a general disorder in the fossil record, which would be expected if a global Flood occurred.

CONCLUSION

The temptation undoubtedly exists, especially in today’s climate of extreme scientific prowess, to exalt science above Scripture. Such a stance, while obviously to be expected of those who do not profess a belief in either God or His Word, simply is not an option for the person who accepts the truthfulness and inspiration of the Bible. John Morris addressed this particular temptation, and what happens when Bible believers fall prey to it, when he wrote:
Unfortunately, many others now have begun to judge Scripture’s accuracy by its agreement with scientific dogma, and then to distort Scripture until the two seem to agree. In doing so, scientific opinions of some scientists are elevated to a level they don’t deserve, and Scripture suffers.
If such a method of interpreting Scripture is followed throughout, other doctrines will fall also. After all, miracles are “scientifically” impossible. Scientists know that virgins don’t give birth, men don’t walk on water, and bodies don’t rise from the dead. One may gain scientific credibility among the secularists by twisting Scripture to fit science, but it would be better to honor God by believing His word (1998, p. d).
Let us openly and fairly examine the biblical and scientific evidence that supports the Genesis Flood, and simultaneously urge others to do likewise. Let us be cautious as good students, but never willing to compromise inspired testimony. Indeed, “the main concern, as always, should be what do the Scriptures teach” (Jones, 1996, p. 61).

REFERENCES

Austin, Steven A. (1994), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research).
Clark, Harold W. (1968), Fossils, Flood and Fire (Escondido, CA: Outdoor Pictures).
Clayton, John N. (1969), Questions and Answers: Number 1 [taped lecture], (South Bend, IN: Privately published by author).
Clayton, John N. (1980), “The Flood—Fact, Theory and Fiction,” Does God Exist?, 7[7]:2-9, July.
Cockburn, Patrick (1750), An Enquiry into the Truth and Certainty of the Mosaic Deluge, quoted by Byron C. Nelson (1968), The Deluge Story in Stone (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).
Custance, Arthur C. (1958), The Extent of the Flood: Doorway Papers No. 41 (Ottawa, Canada: Privately published by author). [NOTE: This material by Custance also was included in his 1979 book, The Flood: Local or Global? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).]
Fisher, Graham A. (1982), Speak Through the Earthquake, Wind & Fire (Merseyside, England: Countyvise, Ltd.).
Jones, Edwin S. (1996), Studies in Genesis (Abilene, TX: Quality).
Major, Trevor (1994), “Has Noah’s Ark Been Found?,” Reason & Revelation, 14:39, May.
Montgomery, John Warwick (1972), The Quest for Noah’s Ark (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship).
Morris, Henry M. (1972), The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research).
Morris, Henry M. (1998), “Why Christians Should Believe in a Global Flood,” Back to Genesis, (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research), 116:a-c, August.
Morris, John (1998), “How Does ‘Old Earth’ Thinking Affect One’s View of Scripture’s Reliability?,” Back to Genesis, El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research), 116:d, August.
Nelson, Byron (1931), The Deluge Story in Stone (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Oard, Michael J. (1997), Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landslides? (Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society).
Ramm, Bernard (1953), Protestant Christian Evidences (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Ramm, Bernard (1954), The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Rehwinkel, Alfred M. (1951), The Flood (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).
Schultz, S.J. (1955), “The Unity of the Race: Genesis 1-11.” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 7:52.
Van Bebber, Mark and Paul S. Taylor (1996), Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross (Gilbert, AZ: Eden Communications).
Whitcomb, John C. (1973), The World That Perished (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian & Reformed).
Woodmorappe, John (1996), Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research).